anyone modded eos r successfully for astrophotography?

I am planning to remove the low pass filter of my eos r to pick up more Ha signals, don't have the luxury to buy another eos Ra

I modded an eos 500d before so technically I should be able to do so, just can't find any tutorials available online. Is there any?

Also, I am not sure if the structure is the same as DSLRs, so just to make sure the one on the sensor is the low pass filter? I also noticed some said removing it will bring moire pattern up and the dust removal function will be removed, is that the case?

Thanks in advance!!

bc0428 wrote:

Can someone help please?

I thought Canon did - it is called the Ra I believe. I visit the astro forum regularly (probably better place to have posted this thread) and I do not remember seeing any mention of a DIY mod.

Colin

bc0428 wrote:

I am planning to remove the low pass filter of my eos r to pick up more Ha signals, don't have the luxury to buy another eos Ra

I modded an eos 500d before so technically I should be able to do so, just can't find any tutorials available online. Is there any?

Also, I am not sure if the structure is the same as DSLRs, so just to make sure the one on the sensor is the low pass filter? I also noticed some said removing it will bring moire pattern up and the dust removal function will be removed, is that the case?

Thanks in advance!!

The EOS Ra is the camera you need if you want to capture more Ha & Sul-II frequency and especially if you want to do it with a Full-Frame Mirrorless body with an RF mount (to take advantage of the lens technology in some of the new RF lenses).  If the EOS Ra is too expensive and you can't justify the cost, you ought to consider getting an EOS RP modified.  Since nobody is keen to ruin the warranty of an EOS R camera, nobody has done a mod of the RP and then discussed it online.  But there are companies who charge for this service.  You WON'T get the 30x magnification with the Magnify Feature though, as that feature is only on the EOS Ra.  The seating of the EOS R sensor is going to be different to DSLRs.  An EOS R (standard R model) might be the best choice at the moment since it has a 30MP sensor and offers a few more features than the RP.
.
Altering the sensor and removing the AA filter is almost certain to result in Moire.  I've seen some snap-on filters that can be used on R cameras but these don't remove the IR-filters on the sensor.
.
The RP is known to be a little noisier than the R5... and yet the Ra is said to be very close to the R5 for low noise profiles.  A "problem" that has been identified with the Ra is that some very bright subjects will produce color bloom with wider apertures when offset.  It exists but I haven't been too concerned with it.   Oddly enough, the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM lens vignettes strongly with the EOS Ra... yet this lens does not appear to do so with other EOS R cameras (including the new R6).  I've found the EOS Ra to be a pretty reliable camera that offers ease of use and superb sensitivity to the H-Alpha and Sulfur-II line channels.  It's canon's first Full Frame IR-Modified camera and it's also their first Mirrorless IR-Modified camera as well.  If you need to modify a camera, perhaps consider an older DSLR that won't put you as much out of pocket if the procedure fails.
.
In terms of general Astrophotography, I have found the EOS R6 to be quite a decent performer.  Whilst it's not as sensitive to Ha/S-II channels as the Ra, it's VERY impressive for lowlight astro-related photography.

Concerning the bright star problem Marco mentioned a short asessment and cure from my side:

As shown by quite some recent examples the EOS Ra has a problem with extremely brigth stars in the filed by showing red internal reflexions. This is NOT a problem of the lens but something close to the sensor/filter stack!

The Astronomik UV-IR Block L2 clip-in filter provides an easy cure.

I tested the Astronomik L2 Clip-in in my eos Ra and the RF85/1.2 with the extremely saturated Mars. The reflexions are gone more or less and no significant flux is lost and the WB shift is marginal and easy to fix. I also measured the relevant transmission curve and show it in the insert.

So, in these rare caes wher ther is an extremely bright object in the field this clip-in filter saves us quite some editing time ...

Ra, RF85/1.2@2.0, 30s, ISO3200), with (ul) and without (ur, lower) Astronomik UV IR L2 block clip-in filter

Franz Kerschbaum wrote:

Concerning the bright star problem Marco mentioned a short asessment and cure from my side:

As shown by quite some recent examples the EOS Ra has a problem with extremely brigth stars in the filed by showing red internal reflexions. This is NOT a problem of the lens but something close to the sensor/filter stack!

It's funny to notice but the only real issue I had with the Ra was with Mars as well.  It's very close in the sky at the moment and when it's offset and shot with a wide aperture, it seems to produce a color bloom.  Otherwise, I've been particularly impressed with what it can do. And yes, I agree that the issue seems to be related to a single refraction-capable layer within the sensor stack.  It's interesting that this camera was in use for quite some time before someone noticed.  It also occurs in images taken with non-Canon deep space exposures from multi-million-dollar arrays.  In my experience, the aperture used seems to have a lot of impact on the effect.  The only reason I haven't used smaller apertures is because I'm only shooting from a non-tracking tripod.
.

I saw it first in winter with alpha and beta Ori in Orion widefields and now in summer with Jupiter in Sagitarius. I did not notice a strong aperture correlation but a total  exposure correlation. You examples not only are at different aperture but much more with very different exposure,,, The reflexions are very weak and need lots of collected preferable red photons ..

bc0428 wrote:

Wait a bit - take some astro images with the unmodded camera and see what you get. New cameras have higher Ha sensitivity than older ones - and the unmodded camera can be successfully used for aunt Annie as well as Andromeda.

but still I’m not getting the every signal from the object right? Clear skies here are extremely precious, i may want to fully utilise the every signal being captured, so this might be the last resort

Clear skies make your astrophotography easier.  You get more of the fainter subjects and details to show up in your images.  There's less need for corrections.  I tend to drive away from the city to get to the areas that have less light pollution and try to time my short sessions to coincide with no moon in the sky.  I'm only out for a few hours so it's not terribly serious work for me just yet.  But getting away from the light pollution makes an enormous difference in image quality for me.

Go for the North America nebula and the Rosette nebula for a first look. I have successfully imaged both objects with an unmodded Sony A7III - and the unmodded Canon should be a much better camera for deep sky photography (very pleased with the Sony for everything but astrophotography - have an astromodded Canon 6D lying around).

Oh I have heard some good things about the 6D, this was actually one of my plans too. Is it wise to trade the R with a 6D? I’m not sure it’s mk1 or mk2 specifically, but it’s popular around the community. Should I trade a used 6D and mod it?

I'm in the Southern Hemisphere so my selection of targets (and convenience) is slightly different.  I can tell you that the new EOS R6 is quite decent for Astro work.  The large pixels and -6.5EV certainly help but the general signal/noise ratio is quite decent and of course it can use the new RF lenses, some of which are excellent for astrophotography.  It's certainly a long way forward from the EOS 6D - which used to be (and probably still is) an old favorite for Full-Frame astro work.  I showed the results from the Ra to a group of 6D users who were astrophotographers and they were astonished at how much difference there was.  One chap with more than 15 years experience with the tracking/stacking methods was almost in tears for some reason.  I was even accused of "faking" the images from the EOS Ra - until I uploaded a video showing the camera taking the shots and then revealing the results on the Live screen.
.

R6 + RF 85mmL - Unedited JPEG image, straight from the camera. 5 Second exposure.

R6 + RF 85mmL - Edited image (same image as above). 
Saturation, hue, curves, contrast and levels have been enhanced.

.
The 6D is a camera I've used for many years and produces excellent terrestrial photographs.  The difference between the 6D (DSLR) and the new R6 (Mirrorless) and considerable.  Though they have similar sensor sizes and builds, the R6 is by far a lot more advanced and has a lot more control for AutoFocus ability. A lot of the results from Astrophotography will come down to the lens that was used and the nature of the sensor on the camera.
.
The EOS 6D produces better results than many other DSLRs... yet compared to the R cameras, it produces noisier images but was limited with ISO.  I was getting similar results from the original EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2 STM lens that I was getting with the EOS 6D using the EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM lens.  This is interesting because the EOS M platform is APS-C.   In the end, I gave up using the EOS 6D for astro because I could get almost the same types of images from the much smaller, lighter and cheaper EOS M + 22mm lens.  When the newer EOS M6 came along, higher resolution and even less noise was on the table if I needed it.
.
When Canon released the EOS R6, I immediately conducted a few tests on that first week to see how it would perform against the EOS Ra.  Of course, the Ra is more sensitive to certain spectrum levels of light but the R6 was fairly decent.  I would say the R6 is noticeably better than the 6D because of the increase in usable ISO levels with less noise. It also appeared that the 6D was a little more sensitive to a wider range of light frequencies than the 6D... yet this is just speculation on my part.  Although I'd say the Ra is better for both noise and sensitivity.  With the first two images below, you can see how similar the results were when colors were enhanced (no color was added).  I'm only using a tripod and am not stacking images yet.
.

EOS R6 + RF 85mm f/1.2L USM lens - 4x JPEG Panorama (5 second exposure) - no colors added

EOS Ra + 85mm f/1.2L USM lens - 3x JPEG Panorama (5 second exposure) - no colors added.
The bright area on the left is from city light pollution from the city of Sydney.

EOS Ra - LCD Screen during playback of a 10 second JPEG exposure with a 50mm lens.

EOS Ra - JPEG (after editing).  No colors added.  Older EF 50mm lens used.

EOS Ra + RF 85mmL lens
6-second JPEG with no major edits at all.  3 images stitched into a Panorama.

EOS Ra + RF 85mmL - Single 6 second JPEG exposure
No color added - but saturation, levels, contrast and curves have been edited.

EOS Ra - Live Preview of the Orion Nebula rising - with 30x Magnification.

.
After looking at the images from the R6, I can see why people might give the Ra a pass.  In my personal opinion, it's something of an indulgence.  If you only dabble in Astrophotography occasionally, then the Ra is unnecessary.  But is you enjoy Astrophotography, it's an amazing thing to use.  The only differences between the EOS Ra and the regular EOS R is the IR-Cut sensor and the 30x Magnification.   That's it.  And the only reason I bought the EOS R6 is because I wanted to use the RF lenses and editing Terrestrial images from the Ra was both unreliable and a bit tedious.  But since I'm intending to get deeper into Astro than I already am, the Ra was the way for me to go. But I think the R6 would have suited me fine if the Ra hadn't come along from Canon.  They tend to release one Astro model "roughly" every ten years or so and they don't usually make many when they do.

Yes I have. I had my EOS R converted to the Ha  upgrade (hydrogen alpha - the light nebulae give off).

Life Pixel did it and its the same filter as Canon uses so I am told.

The only other thing the Ra has is 30X magnification but it can't do the 10X magnification which the standard EOS R does. I think the 10X will be sufficient for me.

I use it for nightscapes anyway but plan to take some telescope shots.

Greg.

bc0428 wrote:

Definitely a hell of an excellent work Marco! I am more sure now it won’t go wrong with the R. I mainly do astrophotography with filters, bortle 8 skies here in Hong Kong, dont have the “drive to dark skies” option. And I believe I should be modding my R right away, i know how it differs from an unmodded one with my previous modding experience on 500d. However, i dont think the 30x is really that useful to me, the 10x regular zoom on R is quite useful enough which I am using it to focus very often.

Now I just have to be patient before I find the instructions or diagrams how to mod the R, i hope I won’t break the beast!

I'm not sure how to go about modding a sensor.  That would be a little too technical for me but if you've done this before then you've probably got a better idea how to go about that.
.
Those images were very simple test shots taken with a regular tripod. I wanted to see what each camera and lens was capable of.  I'd probably show more care if reshooting today.  One really impressive difference was in how certain RF lenses perform compared to the older EF lenses.  A lot of Astrophotographers using the R cameras have had great success with the new RF 50mm f/1.2L and the RF 85mm f/1.2L lenses.  The new RF 85mmL lens has improvements and technology in the optical elements that vastly exceed the older EF versions.  Coma is now beautifully controlled, as is Chromatic Aberration (due to the Blue Refractive Optical element).  For regular Terrestrial photography, this is not quite as noticeable - but with Astrophotography, the differences have an enormous effect in image quality and image integrity (especially in relation to color accuracy).
.
A great example (directly below) shows how much Chromatic Aberration and Color Blooming occurs with the older EF lenses compared to the newer RF lenses.  All that purple fringing (CA) on the left is missing from the shot taken with the RF lens on the right.  The "Southern Pleiades" on the lower left of the images should be blue... but the Purple Fringing from the EF lens has turned it a crimson-purple color.  The sharpness of the stars are very poor in the EF shot.  But they are perfect pinpricks of light in the RF images instead of smudges with color-bleed like the ones from the EF lenses.
.

The Southern Pleiades are on the lower left.

Not bad.  Imagine using smaller apertures and tracking this shot for more than 6 seconds?

.
Obviously, those differences only relate to lenses.  If you are using telescopes with your camera, the quality of the optics in your telescope with be part of the equation.   Some people will prefer to shoot deep space objects with longer focal lengths but one of the reasons I prefer using the EOS Ra (or any mirrorless camera) is because I can capture astro-landscapes with it.  I can't do that with a plug-in CCD camera designed to connect to the rear of a telescope (or the front of one if using an Astrograph model).
.
Many Astrophotographers prefer to use APS-C cameras due to the advantages of the (approx) 1.6x crop. Of course, a Full Frame sensor has its own benefits.  Getting a camera sensor modified these days is rather easy so there should be a lot of alternatives out there for you to consider.  The EOS R cameras have come down in price recently due to newer releases.  You ought to be able to find someone that can Mod your sensor.  I'd have considered it myself if the folks doing the modding hadn't shut down during the Pandemic.  But that 30x magnification on the LCD during Live View on the EOS Ra is a welcome tool that makes Manual Focus a breeze.  I can usually nail the focus in 4 seconds or less using this feature.
.

Early Astro-landscape test with the EOS Ra.

Marco! You have been to La Silla? What a conicidence!  My working place for so many times in the 90ties and early 2000ties!. The last decade I did my work mostly more north at Cerro Paranal (ESO) and Chajnantor plateau (Alma).