Hot take: Is it better to shoot nebula photos with a DSLR or a dedicated astro camera?

I've been going back and forth on this for months. A buddy of mine who's been doing astrophotography for like 15 years told me I was crazy for even thinking about a dedicated camera, said my old Canon 60D was plenty good enough. But then I tried a night with his ZWO ASI294MC and got a shot of the Orion Nebula that was 10 times cleaner than anything I'd ever done... so now I'm torn. He insists the DSLR is fine if you just stack more frames, but that dedicated camera just seemed to pull out so much more detail. Has anyone else had a similar experience where the "cheaper" option actually held them back?

2 comments

2 Comments

miller.eva13d ago

Ngl, I watched a buddy go through this exact thing with a T3i he was stubborn about. He spent months stacking hundreds of frames trying to get the Lagoon Nebula to pop and it always came out muddy. Finally borrowed a cooled astro cam from a club member and got a comparable image with like 30 minutes of data. The difference was night and day, the hydrogen alpha signal just drowned out the noise. He sold his DSLR body and a couple lenses to fund a dedicated setup within two weeks. Stacking more frames helps for sure, but it doesn't solve the fundamental issues with a DSLR's sensor design for this specific use.

morgan.nancy12d ago

Borrowed a buddy's modified Canon 60Da once and it was like stepping out of a fog. My own DSLR shots of Orion looked like someone smeared Vaseline on the lens compared to what that thing pulled out in half the time. Made me realize I wasn't bad at processing, my gear was just fighting me the whole way. Ended up trading my entire Nikon kit for a used astro cam and a cheap mount. Never looked back, honestly.