#1  
Old 12-02-2009, 07:11 PM
rastis95's Avatar
rastis95 (Scott)
Cant wait for clear skies

rastis95 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Tumut N.S.W.
Posts: 133
Canon Vs Nikon

Hi all,

Out of curiosity, with dslr's, why does it seem that the canon eos range is the first choice for people when doing astrophotography of this type. I haven't seen too many people using any of the nikon range. I would have thought that they would nearly be on par with each other. Ive been looking at getting a 450d myself but still doing my homework.
Any thoughts ?

Cheers
Scott
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-02-2009, 07:42 PM
Geoff45's Avatar
Geoff45 (Geoff)
PI rules

Geoff45 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,631
I gather that it's hard to get a true raw image out of a Nikon. It seems to do some processing of the "raw" image, which includes hot pixel removal, but unfortunately this also removes sharp star images as if they were hot pixels.
(Source: Michael Covington, Digital SLR Photography)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-02-2009, 08:32 PM
luka's Avatar
luka
Unregistered User

luka is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,164
As mentioned above, Nikon cameras do postprocessing of the "raw" images. This can be overcome by switching off the camera during postprocessing.

Until recently the main difference was that Canon used CMOS technology while Nikon was using CCDs (made by Sony). Canon generally had lower amp glow which made them more popular for astrophotography. However, some newer Nikon's are also CMOS based and I am not sure how they would compare.
And of course, some Nikon models are better than the others, for example quite a few people are using D40 for astrophotography.


For daytime photography, there is not much difference though.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 13-02-2009, 06:12 AM
rastis95's Avatar
rastis95 (Scott)
Cant wait for clear skies

rastis95 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Tumut N.S.W.
Posts: 133
Thanks for the feedback,
With regard to cmos and ccd, i was led to believe that a camera with ccd was always better than cmos, don't know why , something about cmos having to amplify the pixles ?. I will still probably go for the canon eos range, one day .

Cheers
Scott
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 13-02-2009, 06:20 AM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,760
I don't own a Nikon so only going off 2nd hand information, but from those that have owned both, the Canon appears to have less noise and is therefore more suited to astrophotography.

There are some people doing brilliant things with Nikons though, so it can be done.

But i've seen owners of Nikons for terrestrial imaging, get a cooled modified Canon for astrophotography. So I guess that says something.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 13-02-2009, 06:43 AM
rastis95's Avatar
rastis95 (Scott)
Cant wait for clear skies

rastis95 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Tumut N.S.W.
Posts: 133
You do have a point there Mike, I think my mind is made up, now if i can talk the wife into the 5D Mk II .

Cheers
Scott
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 13-02-2009, 08:51 AM
Geoff45's Avatar
Geoff45 (Geoff)
PI rules

Geoff45 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by rastis95 View Post
Thanks for the feedback,
With regard to cmos and ccd, i was led to believe that a camera with ccd was always better than cmos, don't know why , something about cmos having to amplify the pixles ?. I will still probably go for the canon eos range, one day .

Cheers
Scott
It is harder to get a uniform response from all pixels in a CMOS array than from a ccd array, that is, the sensitivity of the CMOS chip is more variable over the chip than is the case with a ccd. Probably not too important for pretty pics, but it does matter for things like photometric work.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 15-02-2009, 12:16 AM
luka's Avatar
luka
Unregistered User

luka is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,164
CCD technology was better several years ago but in the meantime CMOS has taken over (the difference is not that great though). Hence you have to check the date of the articles comparing the technologies. Most of manufacturers (including Nikon) are slowly migrating to CMOS.

Also I remember reading somewhere (a while ago) that the original Canon IR filter had higher transmission for H-alpha wavelengths and hence unmodded Canon camera was better suited for astrophotography. I don't remember seing a replacement IR filter for Nikon anywhere...

Basically, the choice is simple, if you don't have a DSLR, go with Canon. If you already have a complete system of lenses based on Nikon, stick with Nikon unless you have money to spare...
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 15-02-2009, 07:46 AM
rastis95's Avatar
rastis95 (Scott)
Cant wait for clear skies

rastis95 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Tumut N.S.W.
Posts: 133
Thanks all for the responses, has cleared things up now. All i need now is to get hold of one. Quick question though, do the cannon dslr's have a movie function and would that be able to be used for planetary work

Cheers
Scott
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 15-02-2009, 09:07 AM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,159
Scott,

The newer Nikons (such as the D90) have a video mode.

My 5D Mark II has full HD (1920x1080) video, and it is just astounding quality.

However, bear in mind that due to the size of your sensor, you'll need insane focal lengths to get a decent enough sized planet to grab video of. This is why the smaller chip sized web cams are more suited to planetary work. Have a look in the Solar System imaging section to see the kinds of camera and telescopes, people like Mike and Matt are using. To date, I don't know of anyone who's using the video modes in DSLRs for planetary work.

Regards,
Humayun

Quote:
Originally Posted by rastis95 View Post
Thanks all for the responses, has cleared things up now. All i need now is to get hold of one. Quick question though, do the cannon dslr's have a movie function and would that be able to be used for planetary work

Cheers
Scott
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 16-02-2009, 08:33 PM
rastis95's Avatar
rastis95 (Scott)
Cant wait for clear skies

rastis95 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Tumut N.S.W.
Posts: 133
Still looking into this one. I was speaking to the local photography guy about which is best. I was explaining that I would like the capability of astro work and that is the reason why i was looking into canon dslr's. Now this guy is a nikon man through and through, doesn't mind canon but reckons i should look a bit more closely at the nikon range. So ive been having a look at the d90, looks good but my limited knowledge on dslr's is pulling me up. Here is the site for the specs
http://www.nikon.com.au/productitem....281-86d7b52026

Now it was mentioned that nikon camera's did some post processing of the image to remove hot pixles ect, would the expeed system that the range now has, do something similar or not. Also it looks like they have changed over to cmos in line with the canon series, assuming this is a good thing.

Any advice appreciated

Cheers
Scott
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 16-02-2009, 08:57 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,932
Have a look at Christian Buil's webpage here and elsewhere on his site:
http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/d70v10d/eval.htm

Also, Canon has generally better support re astro work.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 16-02-2009, 09:39 PM
rastis95's Avatar
rastis95 (Scott)
Cant wait for clear skies

rastis95 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Tumut N.S.W.
Posts: 133
Now that was a read and a half , thanks for the link. Reading that the ir cut on the nikon seems to be a big problem. That article refers to a ccd chip on the d70, with some terrible thermal noise and amp glow, any one herd how the new cmos on the d90 is going, and this pre processing is another problem. So far the cons are outweighing the pro's

Cheers
Scott
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 17-02-2009, 08:39 PM
Omaroo's Avatar
Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)
Let there be night...

Omaroo is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hobart, TAS
Posts: 7,639
That's a really OLD article guys. The D300/700/90 are all VERY different to the D70.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 17-02-2009, 09:08 PM
rastis95's Avatar
rastis95 (Scott)
Cant wait for clear skies

rastis95 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Tumut N.S.W.
Posts: 133
Chris,
Have you ever used your d40 for astro work, would be a far cry from the SBIG ST-8i (by the way looks like your getting the hang of that little puppy), and compared it with any shots from the 350d ?

Cheers
Scott
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 17-02-2009, 10:06 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,159
Scott,

It seems like your heart is set on the Nikon. May I ask, why that is?

If you feel that you'll be using it primarily for terrestrial work, and the occasional outing on the back of a telescope, then, it won't really matter too much which way you go. However, just take a look in the deep space imaging section at anything that isn't taken with dedicated astrophotographic CCDs, and you'll soon see that it is all Canon. There's a reason for it -- it's tried and tested, the accessories and software are all available (in some cases for free), and, it's a relatively cheap (300D/350D) and easy way of getting into DSLR imaging.

Also, remember the median filtering crap that's applied to Nikon RAW files...

Regards,
Humayun
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 17-02-2009, 10:41 PM
luka's Avatar
luka
Unregistered User

luka is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,164
Scott, see the post by Chriss in this thread and also see this page for more comparison which shows several quite important points.



Quote:
However, just take a look in the deep space imaging section at anything that isn't taken with dedicated astrophotographic CCDs, and you'll soon see that it is all Canon. There's a reason for it -- it's tried and tested, the accessories and software are all available (in some cases for free), and, it's a relatively cheap (300D/350D) and easy way of getting into DSLR imaging.
Most of people use Canon because Canon used to be the clear winner in the low noise area and the choice was simple. However, we are talking about newer Nikon models and Nikon changed a lot recently. People should not use several years old articles comparing some old model (D70) - technology changes at amazing speed nowadays.
For example, Nikon D40 has been proven to be very good for astrophotography with noise levels comparable to Canon. The IR filter can be replaced as well. And speaking of cheap, you can pick up a brand new body for ~$350 on ebay.
I also read somewhere that D90 has excellent response for H-alpha with standard IR filter.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 17-02-2009, 11:15 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,159
luka,

My points still stand.

Furthermore, you'll note that I haven't referenced, and, for that matter, I have not read Christian Buil's exhaustive comparative research and am not using his research to vindicate my points. Just my own experience. Though, I do use his awesomesauce software.

I went down to the lake here in Canberra on Australia Day with a colleague of mine who has a Nikon D90 to do some long exposure night time landscape work. I remember the noise that was prevalent on his LCD screen. I'll see if he still has the shots so he can send them on over to me so that I can compare them with my old 350D. I haven't had a chance to do long exposure work with my 5D Mark II, just yet.

Horses for courses.

Regards,
Humayun
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 18-02-2009, 12:12 AM
luka's Avatar
luka
Unregistered User

luka is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,164
Humayun, my apologies if I made it sound like you referenced Christian Buil's article.
Your points still stand and I agree with all of them but what I tried to say is that one of the possible reasons people use mainly Canon in the forums is that until recently there was no real competition in the field of astrophotography (AP). Nikon was based on CCD technology which was not as good as CMOS for AP, but things changed.

Now I am not trying to say that Nikon is better nowadays but the technology changed a lot recently and old comparisons are useless. I have seen some excellent results for D40 but could not find no direct comparisons for newer Nikon models. Just people's experiences which range from great to bad. This guy even praised D50 over comparable Canons (at the time of writing).
However, any conclusions based on subjective tests are useless if you ask me. I would like to see more tests like Christian Buil's articles and until then I agree (as I already posted above) that Canon is a better choice.

Last edited by luka; 18-02-2009 at 12:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 18-02-2009, 07:29 AM
rastis95's Avatar
rastis95 (Scott)
Cant wait for clear skies

rastis95 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Tumut N.S.W.
Posts: 133
Thanks all for the feedback,

Humayun im not overly stuck on the Nikon dslr's, actually in the back of my mind im still looking at the 450d or higher. Its just with the advancements Nikon seem to be making lately across there range they were worth a look, just doing some research how these newer models have been fairing, especially in the area of AP.

Software seems to be a bit of a problem with a trend toward supporting canon. Another big thing is that the Nikon's still seem to do this post processing altering the RAW files but can't confirm this. And the apparent bad transmission of H-alpha through the IR Filter, something Canon can boast about. Still a few unknown's

Luka you said you read somewhere that D90 has excellent response for H-alpha, so maybe things are changing a bit . Problem is there wouldn't be to many newer Nikon's being used for AP to report back on. Its like in the old days, Beta was always better but we ended up with VHS ( Im not that old by the way but I do remember it ). Maybe the playing field is leveling out a bit.

Cheers and thanks for the feedback, its much appreciated
Scott
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 11:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement