Valid points re: cooled CCD/filters vs. DSLR. The truly spectacular images are taken with such equipment (cooled CCD), there are always better ways to image faint fuzzies than what any one of us has or likely will ever have. A DSLR is a capable imager that allows us to photograph things we can't see and doesn't require hours of accumulated imaging time followed by even more hours combining LRGB, Ha, OIII, S2 or whatever colors. I do a lot of public outreach work and stargazes for Scouts camped in the dark country an hour away. A DSLR with a 300L piggybacked on a small scope is the perfect combo - they can look through the scope and see (I believe the technical term most often heard is) a fuzzy blob, wait a minute or so and then see the Lagoon in full color on the laptop or a monitor. On those relatively few nights per year when weather, work and moon combine to permit a night of imaging, I can spend hours on two or three objects in the hopes of capturing something spectacular or capture a dozen or more objects in quality adequate to please me and not make it feel like work. My concern with the 60Da is whether it is so much better than a modified T3i that the heftier price is worth it (to me, at least). I'll let things shake out for a few months.
