Mirror mirror on the wall which is the finest DSLR of them all?

[gregbradley]

After the Malin Awards I decided to broaden my imaging and do some more DSLR imaging.

My question is I would like a top notch DSLR and I am wondering if a Hutech style modded camera is really able to be used also for terrestial.

I have a 20D with the clear mod. I also have the Xnite CC1 filter for it and have taken both infrared and colour images with it. I suppose I should review the colour ones to see if they need additional processing or if they are a bit off.

So what is the consensus on which DSLR is the finest around.

Is it the Canon 5D Mark 11 or the Nikon D3 or its variants?

Or the Canon 1Ds Mark 1V?

Also which lens is the best.

I already have an older EOS 24-105 which was great on a 35mm film EOS 7 and I have a 24-135 newer Canon lens with image stabilisation.

I also have some older Canon lenses more suited to CCD cameras.

Or is it best I get adapters for my Proline 16803 and Canon lenses or the Pentax 6x7 lenses that are so good yet quite inexpensive.

Or what about the Nikon 14-24 lens or the Canon 24mm F1.4? Or others?

Greg.

[Octane]

Greg,

I'm not the best photographer in the world, but, if you trawl through the terrestrial imaging section, and do a search on threads started by me, you will see my recent haul of landscapes.

I shoot all my images with the 5D Mark II. The best camera I've owned.

I shoot with the 17-40mm f/4L USM.

The Canon 1Ds Mark IV is not out yet. The 1D Mark IV is, which is the 1.3x crop factor. The 1Ds series are the full frame 35mm sensor (as is the 5D Mark II).

You could possibly pick up a 1Ds Mark III for about $7,000, if not less.

I imagine the 1Ds Mark IV will sell for between $12,000 and $17,000 upon initial release.

H

[Octane]

I just realised that you want to do astro widefields.

In that case, stick with the FLI and put on some nice L-series glass.

I'd suggest the 14mm f/2.8L II or the Nikon 14-24mm.

H

[luigi]

My recommendation would be a Canon 5DII + a Nikon 14-24 lens with a Nikon>Canon adapter.
Many photographers are using that combo today and is a killer.

Luis

[gregbradley]

I have also posted on the FLI group and the way to go with large chip cameras is Pentax 67 lenses 2nd hand. They are cheap, they have enough backfocus for a filterwheel and a FLI PDF focuser (which I have and is a super electronic focuser but it does take up backfocus) and they also will cover a 16803 chip.

I am not sure what the specs are on L series glass. Are they designed for full frame sensors? It seems a lot of lenses now are designed for APS sized chips and they will not illuminate a 16803 chip nor a 11002 for that matter.


The 14-24mm Nikon is probably what I will get for terrestial and use the Proline with Pentax 67 lenses, filter wheel and pdf focuser for widefield autoguided on a mount. I am thinking a 45mm and a 150 or 200mm and ED glass.

Greg.







Gee who do they think they are FLI or something!!

The 1Ds seems a bit specialised and heavy. I think the 5D Mk11 is the go. Not sure how the Nikon D3 or similar stacks up against it. For asro I imagine Canon still has the noise and amp glow edge??

Greg.



Yes it keeps coming up as the way to go.

Greg.

[gregbradley]

For example here is a shot from a Canon EF 32mm F2 lens and a Microline 16803 camera:

http://www.pbase.com/image/126657186/large

That is a poor result.

So a lens that has enough backfocus and is sharp to the corners of a 16803 chip probably requires a lens from the film days of medium format.

Greg.

[Octane]

Greg,

All Canon EF lenses (except EF-S) are designed to be used on 35mm sensors. Some will vignette more than others. If you're shooting with the 5D Mark II (and above), you can enable Peripheral Illumination Correction, either within the camera, in post using Digital Photo Professional to remove the vignetting. All the lens profiles are built into the software. I prefer to leave it off as I like having the eye drawn towards the centre of my composition. But, for astrophotography, vignetting is a pain in the rear so you would enable PIC.

Your Pentax 6x7 lens route sounds good to me, too.

H

[sejanus]

Don't get a 1 series unless you make money off your gear. I love mine but they are extremely expensive.

A 5D mk2 would be the trick.

The nikons are very good in low light as well these days.

[avandonk]

Greg here is all of Canons lenses where you can see the MTF diagram for each lens.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup

There is a guide somewhere on the web how to interpret these diagrams.
The dotted lines show the MTF for wide open and f/8 both tangential and saggital and different lines/mm test patterns. I cant remember exactly.
You will see that a short focal length lens with near perfect off axis performance does not exist.

Below is the MTF for a Canon 300mm F2.8L IS. The non IS version is even better than this.
Next is Canon 24mm F1.4L II USM
The MTF is far worse especially off axis.

MTF will vary with focal length what you should compare is the MTF on axis with the MTF anywhere off axis for the same aperture curves ie tangential and saggital for each lens. MTF is modulation transfer function and is a quantitative measure of resolution.

The LHS scale of the diagram is the MTF. 1.0 is perfect. Along the bottom is the distance in mm off axis.

Bert

[Doomsayer]

The Pentax67 lenses can be very cheap and all will cover the big 16k chip, but only a few of them really rate for the demands of a big flat astro chip and LRGB. The 67 300ED and 400ED are the pick - these don't go all that cheap. Most of the others will suffer from variable chromatic aberration. Some of the 67 lenses are actually pretty soft. I have a recent Pentax67 300mm f4 non ED. Sharp and easily covers my PL11002M but has quite bad CA especially in the blue.

[gregbradley]

Thanks Bert.

Which lens do you use? Your images come out great with the 5D.

Most lenses won't handle a 16803 chip with its 52mm diagonal and also the backfocus requirements of a filterwheel and focuser. Hence the interest in both a good terrestial lens that could double for astro work and also a lens that can handle the backfocus and the chip size of the Proline 16803.

Greg.




That's interesting. I have a number of lenses I have used with an STL11. 50mm Nikon F1.8 (nice) 85mm Canon FD, 200mm Canon F2.8 (quite nice)
but as you say I got coma in the corners of the FD lenses on an STL and also some coma.

There is a table of 67 Pentax lenses and a review of their performance.

It seems the best are:

55mm F4 and 300 or 400mm ED F4. I haven't been able to find a 300mm F4 ED for sale. They seem quite rare. Also I am not sure I need one as my FSQ106ED and reducer is 330mm and has no issues at all. The 55mm and perhaps a 200mm may be the go. The 200mm rated fairly well but chromatic aberration may hinder. I believe though there is software that corrects the chromatic aberration of lenses. I don't know who well it works.

The Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 and the Canon 24mm F1.4 from what I have studied so far on the net seem to be the best lenses currently available apart from super expensive Leica lenses (US$6-8,000).

I am leaning towards a Canon 5D Mk11, adapter and Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 and Pentax 67 55mm F4 ([perhaps the 45mm F4 as well which is a lot cheaper) and perhaps a 200mm F4 with a Precise Parts adapter, the Proline 16803, filterwheel and FLI PDF focuser and make a rig to support it all and autoguide it with a guide scope and autoguiding camera.

Greg.

[koputai]

FYI, Canon are meant to be releasing a 14-24mm f/2.8 L this year. I'm hanging to see reviews of this.

Cheers,
Jason.

[avandonk]

Greg I use the Canon 300mm F2.8L non IS version as I consider it far superior for astro use. The IS version is better for terrestial use as it can counteract movement during the exposure. This allows you to go about two stops slower in shutter speed for better results. Remember the old rule that you should use a shutter speed which is shorter than the reciprocal of the focal length if hand held. So for 50mm FL a 1/50th sec and 300mm FL 1/300th of a sec is the longest exposure.

The problem with the IS lens assembly is that it may not 'park' in exactly the orientation of the lens axis. This gives you asymmetric stars.

Another thing that makes lenses work better at astro imaging is to use an exterior aperture and extended lens shade to completely cut out all light not contributing to the image from entering the lens. This enhances contrast and gives lovely round stars rather than blobs with spikes.

My Canon 300mm F2.8L lens does vignette a full frame to some extent. The real usable circle is about 30mm. This lens has has a single crystal of Fluorite and two ED elements in the main element group. I doubt if any so called large format lenses are even usable for astro use on axis. They are all soft and suffer from CA even on axis. They are even worse off axis. These lenses produced 'good' images only because less enlargement was needed for the final print (in black and white so CA was not even a problem) not because of any inherent quality.

This is why I use a Canon 5DH for widefields as it gets really complicated with cooled astro CCD cameras and electronic lenses such as the Canon 300mm F2.8 which are far easier to focus etc when they actually connected to a camera as the focus ring is useless when not energised by the camera.

Bert

[gregbradley]

Thanks Bert,

The Pentax 6 x 7 300mm and 400mm ED IF are very good astro lenses.

I saw a Rho Ophiuchi taken with the 300mm ED and a FLI Proline 39 megapixel camera and it was very very nice.

I am told the non ED version is still good for narrowband but has some chromatic aberration.

The 300mm ED seems almost impossible to find. I have been looking around and couldn't find any for sale. There is a 400mm ED but its US$3650 which seems a lot for a lens (may as well buy a Tak refractor).

My FSQ106ED with reducer is 330mm and gives pinpoint stars to the corner of the 16803 chip so more looking for about 200mm or less in focal length for astro work.

Greg.

[sejanus]

200mm or less, maybe the canon 135/2

fairly cheap (relatively). Getting near the best you can get for land based photography - again, not sure about pointing up yet.

[Phil Hart]

you've heard my rants already ;) but have you also checked the reviews at dpreview.com

they have quite objective reviews and some very good noise comparison tests. a little bit hard to tell true SNR performance on faint targets but some very useful tests between comparable SLRs.

Phil

[Phil Hart]

and you should make your own judgement on the modded camera with CCNite filters. i did a similar test when i was considering buying a modded 5DmkII and using the filters for daytime use, but I decided while the filters certainly return the camera closer to normal, colour balance is not good enough for perfectionist (but good enough for most people!).

so i have an unmodded 5DII which does all my daytime work, but would like one of each. hard to justify the cost of a modded 5DII compared to a real astro CCD camera but I am still thinking about it for the ease of use for widefield. i would certainly not buy a modded 5DII if deep sky work through a scope is the primary end use.

[gregbradley]

Hi Phil,

I think the Canons still have the edge for astro work. As far as daytime shots go I suppose it is closer but from what I already read the Canon there has the edge for terrestial. If you do sports photography then the Nikon.

Also I have been accumulating some lenses now for Canons.

I plan to do some widefield lens imaging with the Proline 16803 camera, filterwheel, FLI digital focuser and Pentax 67 F4 lenses. I have 45mm F4, 165mm F2.8, 300mm F4 on the way with a special adapter to fit it to the FLI camera being made shortly. The 300mm may only be used for terrestial as I hear it has chromatic aberration for astro. Although it can be used for narrowband (another advantage of narrowband apart from imaging through light pollution is it is not affected by the chromatic aberration of your optical system).

I tried using Canon FD lenses and an STL11 a while back and whilst a few of them turned out OK nothing spectacular. This one was the best:

http://www.pbase.com/gregbradley/image/90484673

But no way would that be good enough to beat Phil Hart at the Malins!! And of course that is the standard I want to be met, hehehehe.


Greg.

[Paul Haese]

ah yes the Canon is better than Nikon tripe!

Sorry Greg, but the defining line between Canon Backs and Nikon back is well non extent anymore. Everything depends on the user and the skills of that user with the camera. I am using my Nikon D3 for some wide field astro and found it works very well unmodded. A modded version would be as equal to a Canon modded and only the deep magentas would be of more use. I own a 40d with cooling and modded and it does a lovely job but has more noise related issues than my D3. Several generations apart of course, but an unmodded can produce very good results now with the newer filters. Either Canon or Nikon would be a good choice, being modded will help but is not totally essential.

I think the major issue for you is the image circle on DSLR lenses. You could use it on the large format FLI but it is going to vignette quite a lot with DSLR lenses.

Your selection of the 14-24 is good but I don't think I will ever use that lens at 14mm to do wide field. I found at 24mm the field was just the right size, but other issues of being at f2.8 made for seagulls forming in the outer areas of the image.

You don't need an IS or VR lens for astro work. It needs to be turned off anyway if you do have it as it makes stars look like squares. So you could go for a second hand either Canon or Nikon Lens around 200mm and then something like a 24mm prime for ulta wide images.

Bottom line is that both Nikon and Canon make fine lenses and their backs are great too. I shoot with a number of guys that have pro bodies from both manufacturers and in the end the best images come from being proficient with the gear, not the gear being better.

[avandonk]

If you want the best lens ever built with a focal length of 200mm then the non IS Canon 200mm F1.8L is the lens to go for. It is no longer made and fetches a premium price in good nick. There is a setup with four or six? of these with astro detectors on a fork mount to do simultaneous overlapping fields to give really wide field surveys by professional astronomers. I will see if I can dig up the site.

Bert

[avandonk]

For astro work a Canon will always beat a Nikon. Even the Nikon D3 will not give you an unmodified raw frame. There is some sort of propriety 'noise reduction' going on even with the Nikon raw frame which loses you all the dim stars and stuff.

It is a shame as the Nikon sensor may be better but we have no way of really knowing. If the noise is not recorded then any claims of image quality are meaningless.

It is easy to have very good signal to noise if you arbitrarily set an upper floor level as noise and then set it to zero.

There is information buried in the noise so that is why we stack multiple dithered images.

Note I am not decrying Nikons. Both Canon and Nikon cameras are designed for terrestial work and for this they are both stunning compared to any film camera. It is only us amateur astrophotographers that use them for what they were not designed for.

If I am wrong please let me know.



Bert

[rally]

Bert,

I think you are referring to the various WASP arrays.
They each use 8 Canon 200mm f1.8 lenses with super duper back thinned E2V cameras
http://www.superwasp.org/technical.htm

[sejanus]

Damn thats cool. I used to have a 200/1.8 but bought it's successor the 200/2 as it's *much* easier to use for normal things.

[gregbradley]

[QUOTE=Paul Haese;617091]ah yes the Canon is better than Nikon tripe!

Sorry Greg, but the defining line between Canon Backs and Nikon back is well non extent anymore. Everything depends on the user and the skills of that user with the camera. I am using my Nikon D3 for some wide field astro and found it works very well unmodded. A modded version would be as equal to a Canon modded and only the deep magentas would be of more use. I own a 40d with cooling and modded and it does a lovely job but has more noise related issues than my D3. Several generations apart of course, but an unmodded can produce very good results now with the newer filters. Either Canon or Nikon would be a good choice, being modded will help but is not totally essential.


Sorry if I offended Paul as I am somewhat out of my depth here being not totally conversant with the latest Canon gear/Nikon gear. I remember there was a lot of buzz and excitement over the Nikon D3 when it was coming out and I saw some amazing daytime images with it.
My only experience with Nikon was when I started with a D70 and whilst it was a nice camera the Canon's in those days were far better. Since then I have had a couple of modded 20Ds which are spectacular cameras and I have a 40D for terrestial shots which I love. So I bow to your more experienced knowledge on the subject. I am sure the Nikon is superb.

Greg.

[gregbradley]

Sounds hot Bert.

Would that cover a 16803 chip though with 85mm backfocus? 16803 is 44mm square with a 52mm diagonal. It needs the backfocus to allow a
filterwheel and the focuser. Of course it would fit a 5D Mk11.

I'll check it out.

Greg.

[gregbradley]

Aah, here is one - approx AUD$5200 plus of course shipping and GST so about AUD$6250.

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Canon-200-1-8-200mm-f1-8-L-USM-Complete-Hard-Case-/150467123457?cmd=ViewItem&pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessorie s_CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item23088a1901

Greg.

[avandonk]

Greg below is a line profile of a flat taken with my Canon 300mm F2.8L at f/3.5 with external front aperture.

I would imagine that the Canon 200mm F1.8L would not be much different.

You may be better off with the 'baby' Tak with reducer for your large 44mm square sensor.

Bert

[ericwbenson]

Greg,

The 16803 is 36x36 mm (4096 pixels x 9 um) as is the KAF9000 (3072 pixels x 9 um). The diagonal on both is as you say 52mm.

EB

[alexch]

Hi Greg,



I was recently reading lens reviews and Samyang 14mm UMC lens appears to be a good fit for ultra-wide astro and terrestrial work according to this review, mainly for very low coma and astigmatism and excellent sharpness across the frame.

http://www.lenstip.com/200.1-Lens_review-Samyang_14_mm_f_2.8_IF_ED_MC_Aspher ical_Introduction.html

I have not tried the lens, just judging it based on the review and a few opinions on the net, and they could be biased. It is about $530 on ebay.

Just thought I'd throw in another lens for consideration. It would not be suitable for guided astro-photography, but my 14-24mm on a fixed tripod stays at 14mm 95% of the time - 114 degrees diagonal field is very tempting on Milky Way shots.


Cheers,
Alex

[Octane]

Alex,

From what I've read, the Samyang has displeasing bokeh. Some even referenced to it as being the Nikon 14-24mm "killer". I wouldn't believe that. The 14-24mm is a one of a kind.

But, at $530, you can't really go wrong.

H

[alexch]

At 14mm and f/2.8 there isn't much "bokeh" anyway :)
The cost of Novoflex Nikon-Canon adapter is almost half the price of this lens.

[Peter Ward]

While I still own some very nice Pentax/Takumar glass I have to admit to being seduced by the Canon range. (...you'll find a number of tests on the web that show the Canon to simply work a little better in the dark).

That said, I have not found a long telephoto lens...by Canon/Nikon/Pentax/Sigma etc.... that outperforms a Taka FSQ (...this is a work in progress, but I promise to put some test results onto a web page soon)

Also when considering a lens for astrophotography it's important to remember the lens aperture (not f-stop) will define its limiting stellar magnitude.

Being mindful of this, I have a fisheye (see attached) headed my way from Japan and am quite keen on seeing what sort of a job it will do on the southern Milky Way as its front element is nearly 3x the diameter of my current lens.

[Octane]

Peter, that looks beautiful. May I ask what it is?

H

[Peter Ward]

Nikon 8mm fisheye (adapters are available for my Canon 5dmkII)

Sadly production stopped in 1997, but pristine examples pop up from time to time on e-bay.

[Octane]

Thanks, Pete. That is hot!

H

[mithrandir]

Samyang also do an 8mm f3.5 - seen for $360. Of course with the usual fish eye "distortion" (as discussed elsewhere).

And you can get them with Sony mounts.

[Peter Ward]

I think you'll find it is a F3.5 ;)

P.S. Forgot to mention...the new Pentax 645D is a worthy contender for best DSLR
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1003/10031002pentax645d.asp

[mithrandir]

Doh! That'll teach me to type when I can cut & paste. Fixed.

[Bassnut]

Pentax 67 test.........

http://www.narrowbandimaging.com/images/pentax_67_lens_tests.pdf

[Bassnut]

Im curious (not being as knowledgable as others here on DSLRs). Greg started this thread on DSLR choices including the Eos 1D and 5D Mk2, but didnt mention the 50D. What would make one pick the 5D over the 50D?.

Obviously the MP and sensor size are different, but is that the main reason?, what are the other significant factors, built quality?. They both seem similar otherwise (both use the DIGIC 4 processor for instance), or is it features generally?.

Given they both appear to reach the limit in maximum usefull MPs, would the diff there be that significant in real world use?, and the 5D cant use EFS lenses.

Have I missed something obvious?.

[Octane]

Fred,

You're comparing two different classes of cameras. One's a semi/professional tool, whilst the other is for a dedicated enthusiast. That's not to say that you can't obtain professional results from the lower-end camera. It is just a tool, after all. Conversely, there's so many cases where you see people with very expensive gear taking mediocre images.

The 5D Mark II is aimed at portrait photographers and landscape artists. Although, a lot of wedding photographers use it with great results, too (it's worked for me, at least). Full blown professionals (sports photographers, wedding photographers, photojournalists) use the 1Ds/1D series camera for their blazing autofocus -- the keeper rate in fast moving action images is very, very high. These systems also have very high burst rates. Then again, you pay big money for those systems.

The biggest difference between the 5D Mark II and the 50D is resolution. You're comparing 21 megapixels to 15.1 megapixels. Two points here: 1) you can create mega prints from the 5D Mark II (I make 36x24" prints and they look insane); and 2) 21 megapixels gives you enormous latitude when it comes to cropping images.

Next, is pixel density. 2.4 megapixels per centimetre squared (for the 5D Mark II at 6.4 micron pixels), compared to 4.5 megapixels per centimetre squared (for the 50D at 4.7 micron pixels). Generally speaking, the larger the pixel, the greater the image quality.

The 50D has a higher frame rate (6.3 fps vs 3.9 fps), but, that's to be expected from a 1.6x crop factor sensor.

Lastly, ergonomically, the 5D Mark II is big, especially with a battery grip and a heavy lens, it feels wonderful in your hands. Although, I suspect for astrophotographers this means nothing at all.

Just my 2 cents. I'm sure others have conflicting views.

H

[Bassnut]

H. Ok, so there is an erganomic diff too, I can appreciate that, my 350D was woefull compared to the 40D, a huge diff. I noticed in the DP review the diff in AF speed btween the 1 and 5D mk2, you pay for.......

Im not doughting there is a diff, the 5D mk2 sounds awesome, and youve shown that in yr pics, the res would be seen in mega prints as you say.

I have a modded 40D, clear (no glass) unforch, so its a pain for terestial (manual focus), so Im looking for another one, its the 5D mk2 or 50D, thanks for making it a harder choice, but I do have EFS lenses ;-).

[acropolite]

Peter, I'll be interested to see how that fisheye performs, I have the Canon 15mm fisheye, the abberations at the edges are horrific to say the least. Bright stars/planets appear as triangles.

[gb_astro]

Canon 60D 18MP due out soon.....

gb.

[mithrandir]

Why does everyone assume Canon? There are others. (http://www.hasselblad.com.au/hb/index.cfm?pageID=12&subPrdGroup=52&modelID=167&)

[sejanus]

lol! mega respect to anyone that gets a blad for astro work.

They'd prob be awful at long exposures as well :) Great for moon pics though! Imagine the cropping ability with those files.

[gregbradley]

Perhaps I can add a dimension to that.

My first really good camera was a Canon EOS7D. About late 80's early 90's. A 35mm film camera and it came with a 35-105mm zoom lens.

Taking an awesome shot was totally easy. Full frame (35mm sized area) with that lens meant a narrow depth of field - in other words you could frame an object or person and have the background gloriously out of focus with lovely mottled colours. Try that with the APS sensors - it is very hard as the APS sized sensors mean a wider depth of field.

I have had a Nikon D70, a couple of 20Ds and a 40D and whilst their electronics etc are all great and useful none of them were as good as the 35mm film camera for a great image every time.

I mainly put that down to the depth of field and 35mm size. Possibly also due to CMOS being not as high fidelity as film even today unless you've got a 39mp Hasselblad.

So full frame sensor to me is everthing and APS sized sensors are very nice but they lack that depth of field. Also the range of lenses for 35mm is very broad. Leets face it - how hard is it to manually focus a lens? All that autofocus - for what - 2 seconds to manually focus something?

I have some Pentax 67 lenses and they are incredible value for money, wonderfully sharp and that wonderful depth of field from the longer focal length as well.

So I would at a minimum want the 35mm sized sensor for the above and then compare from there otherwise in my opinion you haven't even caught up with 1980's 35mm film cameras yet.

Greg.

[sejanus]

I wouldn't say it's very hard to get low DoF on a aps sized sensor. It's certainly easier on larger sensors but there are many, many guys out there getting great low DoF shots with things like 7D's. Just get close and use fast apertures.

One of the best wedding shooters in the world uses aps sized sensors and near all his shots are low dof/fast aperture.

Having said all that, I do use FF chips.

[gregbradley]

Thanks for the tip. The only problem with that of course is that a fast aperture prime lens with good quality is worth more than the camera. So you would be investing in a system that is somewhat of a compromise, albeit a good one. I guess my point here is that even a cheaper lens gets great BOKEH with the FF size. So overall a similar cost?

Then again a fast aperture zoom lens and 5D Mk11 (or is that soon to be Mk111?) would be hard to beat.

Greg.

Greg.

[sejanus]

There are some good f/1.x lenses that don't cost the earth ie. 50/1.4 and 85/1.8

Not a fan of fast aperture zoom lenses, but thats another topic.