#1  
Old 19-03-2007, 01:21 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,016
Canon 400D vs NikonD80

Anybody could suggest which one is more suitable for astrophotography and why?
I am still not sure if Canon 400D CMOS sensor is really comparable in performance to Nkon D80 CCD.... CCD's are suposed to be better in that respect, because of lower noise and dark current...... or this is only what I think?
(edited)
Also, I have heard of some mechanical issues associated with Rebels (mirror release mechanical parts made of plastic, that break sometimes). Is this still an issue?

Last edited by bojan; 19-03-2007 at 02:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 19-03-2007, 03:21 PM
sejanus's Avatar
sejanus (Gavin)
Registered User

sejanus is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Southern suburbs
Posts: 683
get the 400d for noise/long exposures - not even close.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 19-03-2007, 07:22 PM
acropolite's Avatar
acropolite (Phil)
Registered User

acropolite is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Launceston Tasmania
Posts: 8,988
Yep, Canon wins hands down on noise performance.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 20-03-2007, 08:07 AM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,016
So it is Canon then...
I found similar "verdict" here... http://astrosurf.com/buil/d70v10d/eval
Bojan
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 20-03-2007, 08:08 AM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,709
200 IceInSpace users can't be wrong
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 20-03-2007, 08:15 AM
Omaroo's Avatar
Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)
Let there be night...

Omaroo is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney/Cooma
Posts: 7,628
It's a real pity that Nikon doesn't seem to acknowledge that astrophotography is at all important to them. Maybe their next releases will offer better CCD performance to match the better mechanicals.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 20-03-2007, 10:46 AM
merlin8r's Avatar
merlin8r
Astro Shop Minion

merlin8r is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mount Colah
Posts: 190
Yeah I don't know how Canon does it. CCD's are supposed to be more sensitive, yet the Canon's win hands down. I have also found mine to be far more efficient power wise. Whereas my Pentax *istDS would die after 1X5 min exposure on batteries, the 400D happily takes at least 3X10 min before the battery meter moves from full.

Clear skies,
Shane
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 20-03-2007, 12:37 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,016
Well, as far as power consumption is concerned, CCD always was and still is inferior because it uses high voltages (up to 25V in some cases, also voltage converter circuitry uses some additional power due to non-ideal efficiency).
CMOS sensors are powered from 5V or even lower.
As far as I am concerned, the decision is almost reached: it is going to be Canon 400D :-)

Last edited by bojan; 20-03-2007 at 01:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 20-03-2007, 12:41 PM
sejanus's Avatar
sejanus (Gavin)
Registered User

sejanus is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Southern suburbs
Posts: 683
nikons problem is that they are reliant on Sony for their sensors. The only time they made their own sensor, it was a dog - the LBCAST one from the d2h.

Canon put in the hard yards making their own and it's now paying off. The closest to them in noise is Fuji, who put their own sensors inside Nikon bodies (i.e. Fuji S5)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 20-03-2007, 01:35 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,016
Also Nikon's RAW files are a problem to some extent (median filter is applied automatically).
This Fuji S5 looks interesting but expensive... and if it has the same RAW file flaw like Nikon's then it is not worth it for our application (not to mention poor s/w support).
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 20-03-2007, 01:41 PM
janoskiss's Avatar
janoskiss (Steve H)
Registered User

janoskiss is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sale, VIC
Posts: 6,032
Bojan, you might like to consider a used 20D instead of a new 400D. that's the way I'd go.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 20-03-2007, 01:52 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by janoskiss View Post
Bojan, you might like to consider a used 20D instead of a new 400D. that's the way I'd go.
Thanks Steve... this sound like a good idea
I will have a closer look. Anyway, there is no rush, I can wait....
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 20-03-2007, 08:53 PM
bloodhound31
Registered User

bloodhound31 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,628
I reckon you cant go past new camera warranty....imagine if your newly acquired second-hand camera packed it in??? It may cost a lot more than it is worth it.

Also, some cameras can develop a common problem a couple or even a few years after manufacture. Larger companies often recall these problems if they discover them to be a manufacturer defect and fix them even if warranty has expired. Its in their best interests.

Baz
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 21-03-2007, 07:17 AM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,016
In that case the removal of IR filter will not void warranty :-)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 13-04-2007, 04:15 AM
Ingo
Registered User

Ingo is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 559
Canons lower end cameras in my opinion do not stand up to Nikons lower end cameras. I will agree with anybody who says their 5D and 1D series completley put Nikon's D2h and D2x series to shame with noise control.

Nikons lower end DSLR's for wide field astrophotography with long exposures would be superior as their noise control is superior when properly exposed. A lot of people just say Canon because that's the only thing they've used. If you go Canon's high end, go for it. I have a 350D and a D50 along with a D200, I've done tests and really the 350D and D50 have no differences in noise control. My D200 only produces monochromic noise at ISO3200 underexposed -1EV, even canons 5D doesn't have noise control like that. The D80 has the D200's sensor in it (says Ken Rockwell, I don't know if it's true though) and would put the 400D to shame.

I am going full Canon soon though (1d3 or 1d2n) as I like canons range of zoom telephoto lenses for my sports photography and their low visible noise at high ISO's.

It's a hard decision, you wont be disappointed with either of them. It's all about personal choice, and which will accomodate your needs, canon might be your choice becuase there are well known mods.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 13-04-2007, 09:01 PM
CometGuy's Avatar
CometGuy
Registered User

CometGuy is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 942
I while back I asked somebody who own's both the 350D and D200 to run a couple of side by side tests for me. With both cameras mounted on a tripod and aimed at the south celestial pole I got him to make a series of exposures at various settings. The attached comparision image are crops made near the celestial pole, using a Tamron 18-200 lens at 18mm f5.6 with 30 seconds exposure. It is possible the D80 is improved over the D200 but I haven't seen any comparisions for astrophotography yet. According to Christian Buil the 400D has higher Quantum efficiency, but smaller pixels and slightly higher dark noise mean there has been no net improvement.

Terry
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (iso1600comp2.jpeg)
24.9 KB64 views
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 14-04-2007, 05:52 AM
Ingo
Registered User

Ingo is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 559
I don't think that's a legit test at all. I do not believe one bit that the left side is a D200. I've seen tests on black paper between a D200 and a 5D, the D200 had more visible noise, but it was 100% monochromic, not one bit of color noise.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 14-04-2007, 10:16 AM
CometGuy's Avatar
CometGuy
Registered User

CometGuy is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 942
Maybe something has been lost in resampling here are 100% size crops:

http://www.pbase.com/terrylovejoy/im...76161/original

Also I attempted to adjust the levels to match the difference in electronic 'gain' between the 2 cameras.

http://www.pbase.com/terrylovejoy/im...76915/original

Processing steps are outlined in detail in both images. All images were acquired in raw mode by Wayne Cosshall from near Geelong in Victoria and were made almost at the same time from the same location. His recorded settings were all confirmed in the exif data. Why is this not legit test? The OP wants to know comparative performance for astrophotography.

Its possible to do excellent astrophotography with either camera, but you will just have to work slightly harder with the Nikon.

Terry
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 14-04-2007, 10:57 AM
Ingo
Registered User

Ingo is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 559
I still don't believe the left side is a D200 or noise was added to the D200. I can say that because even the stars are covered in noise. When things are properly exposed, noise does not show.

I own a D200 and I can say it's not nearly that bad.

This is ISO1600 on my **D50**

http://www.hotupload.info/talorbattle2.jpg

And the almost full crop:
http://www.hotupload.info/DSC_6497.jpg

Not very much noise in the white parts and properly exposed parts. Looking at that image up there, even the stars that are white, have noise in them, completly proving that image wrong

Also, I don't believe the 350D has in camera noise reduction, though i'm not too sure because the screen on mine is broken and I rarley use it. When I get a lens, i'll do my own tests. I don't want to argue about this and I'll stop arguing about it now. It's all about personal choice anyways.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 14-04-2007, 03:59 PM
CometGuy's Avatar
CometGuy
Registered User

CometGuy is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 942
Ingo, I assure I have not tampered the data in anyway and I am sure Wayne Cosshall didn't either. The difference was so clear between the 2 cameras I rechecked several times.

I just downloaded your image and clearly the white areas of the image have more noise than the shadow areas! The other comments suggest you have limited experience processing astronomical images...I think you are being a bit quick using the symbol

I think people want to know what to buy in a DSLR and many people on this list are obviously will weigh in performance in astrophotography. This is an important decision for many of us as it is a bit of an outlay.

BTW for various reasons I am not overly impressed with Canon as a company at the moment and am thinking of dumping all my Canon gear and buying an SBIG camera instead . So I have no motives to defend Canon, just like to state the facts.

Terry
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 11:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Astromechanics
Advertisement
Star Adventurer
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Celestron RASA
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
EQ8-R
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement