- which is better -
The answer is - neither of them. Comparing the two is like putting a blacksmith against a woodcarver. I am in the process of building a Cookbook CCD camera, so I personally embrace both technologies. The trick is to decide which you like to work with.
...some myths about CCD cameras.....
#1) CCD Imaging is easier than film.
That attitude is almost insulting to those people who work with CCD cameras. It is not easy at all. You can do more in some areas, you can push the envelope of what is observable in your telescope, but it takes just as much work to produce a good CCD image as a good image on film.
#2) CCD costs less money than photography
Good cameras, 35mm or medium format are terribly expensive anymore. So are good CCD cameras. Often I will be told that CCD's do not require the continual purchase of film, such as is with photogrpahy. However, graphic images of any type, especially when you start image processing, eat up hard rive space like pacman gone wild. You will end up spending money on disks, tapes, zip drives or some sort of storage medium.
Another problem is memory. Most image processing programs need lots and lots of free ram. Yes, you can do image procesing under Windows 3.1 or NT with only 16 meg of ram, but that is foolish. Doing do is akin to installng a 4 cylnder engine is a 2 ton pickup truck with 4-wheel drive. Don't expect to go anywhere fast. For Windows 3.1, install a minimun of 32 meg, 64 meg for Windows 95 and for NT go to at least 100 meg of ram or more.
3#) CCD's are killing photography
I really hate it when some "expert" declaires something is 'dead'. I think what they are really saying is "I want everyone think the way I do and I am going to embarass you into it because I will not make any money otherwise."
There are still a lot of people who sketch images at the eyepiece. Photography never killed off art, or even oil painting. Vincent van Gogh's "Starry Night" is not very good from a research point of view, but does that detract from it's beauty? What is more likely to happen is CCD cameras will become the main tool for research work, whereas photography will become the realm of those who look at the heavens with an artistic mind.
choices
There is actually a very easy way to chose which is best for you. Next clear night, go on out observing with just a pair of binoculars - or even naked eye. Spend time just looking at the sky - maybe an hour or so. Take your time, actually spend an hour or two. After this time, if you:
a) Did not spend at least an hour....
Then do not bother with either. You will not have the patience for either photography or CCD. Cold weather is no excuse.
b) You marvel at the beauty of the heavens
Your soul is the artistic kind. Go into photogrpahy, and concentrate on trying to capture that beauty. it is the nature of art to capture emotion into a physical medium.
c) You wonder how and why it all works.
You are the explorer. You need to understand why it all works. Go into CCDs, and psuh the limits of what amatrue astronomy can do.
d) You spend all your time thinking about cameras, mounts, computers, etc...
Then you are a techno-junkie. The "toys" of amature astronomy facinate you more than astronomy itself does. Go either way, or perhaps even both, but you will never find true happiness , untill you realize that instruments are a means to an end, not an end unto themselves...
summing up.....
People should spend more time being gratefull to God or whatever belief they have that we even have the choice of CCD or photography rather than bashing one over the other. Indeed, many people combine the two - look at CCD autoguiders used on schmidt cameras.
My last and best advice is totry and attend either a local astronomy club, and especially a local "Star Party" if such a thing exists near you. I realize the internet goes around the world, so my experience here in Canada is very different from Europe, Asia, etc... Just do the best you can with what you've got, and enjoy it every minute.