Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Astrophotography and Imaging Equipment and Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 08-01-2008, 01:11 PM
Ingo
Registered User

Ingo is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 559
40D Astrophotography Disappointment

I was just outside imaging Orion trying to get some nebulosity from M42.

My settings were:
ISO 800 NR On, Long Exposure NR On
5" Exposure
Live View for 10x zoom star focusing

I only had time to do 5 light frames and 5 dark frames this time before clouds came over. I stacked them and the images came out far more noisy than any other camera I've used. My Nikon D50 outperformed this in Astrophotography with a single light frame.

Am I doing something wrong?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-01-2008, 01:30 PM
Omaroo's Avatar
Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)
Let there be night...

Omaroo is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney/Cooma
Posts: 7,628
Got an example Ingo?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-01-2008, 01:43 PM
Ingo
Registered User

Ingo is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaroo View Post
Got an example Ingo?
http://www.topicify.com/40d/orion40d.png

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-01-2008, 01:46 PM
Omaroo's Avatar
Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)
Let there be night...

Omaroo is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney/Cooma
Posts: 7,628
What did you mount it on Ingo? Are you able to track for 30 secs and actually do a comparative light frame?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-01-2008, 01:49 PM
Ingo
Registered User

Ingo is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaroo View Post
What did you mount it on Ingo? Are you able to track for 30 secs and actually do a comparative light frame?
It's just on a tripod as I've not gotten an EQ mount yet. I couldn't do 30s here anyways due to light pollution
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-01-2008, 03:11 PM
dugnsuz's Avatar
dugnsuz (Doug)
to baldly go...

dugnsuz is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hahndorf, South Australia
Posts: 4,200
Not sure if 5 seconds is long enough for ICNR to kick in!!??
Perhaps that's it, but stacking should increase the Signal/Noise ratio anyway!
Mysterious!
Doug
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-01-2008, 07:21 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,016
I am using 400D but it has only slightly worse noise performance according to Christian Buil.. (http://www.astrosurf.org/buil/eos40d/test.htm)
5 sec is very short exposure and there is not enough light signal collected (BTW, what FL did you use? what f number?).. light pollution at your site seems to be quite horrible as well, and you used a lot of stretching obviously to bring out the image above background.. increasing the readout noise in the process (banding is visible, but IMO this will be reduced to almost nothing with 10 frames or more), surely 5 frames is not enough to reduce it sufficiently.
You will have to go out in the country....
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-01-2008, 08:55 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 6,723
Ingo,

Try much longer exposures at least 1 minute sub-frames, preferably 5 minutes.....and yes this means you require a mount that can track. Use the camera's built in noise reduction. ISO 400 to 800 is fine.

Most camera lenses will not perform very well wide open, so no matter what lens you are using, close it down two stops (but sure you are free to experiment here).

DSLR's don't like ubran skies. You'll need to find a darker country sky to boost the S/N in your images.

Cheers
Peter
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-01-2008, 05:10 AM
Omaroo's Avatar
Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)
Let there be night...

Omaroo is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney/Cooma
Posts: 7,628
Ingo - as a Nikon owner, I'd be very interested, in your skies, to see a direct comparison from you of the two cameras (40D and D70) by taking images of the same patch of sky for the same amount of time (whatever that may be) and at the same settings - i.e. ISO, speed and f-stop. It would certainly be interesting. Slight star trails are OK - just expose for 10 secs and see what we get, huh!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-01-2008, 05:12 AM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,709
ditto to Chris... and the same processing! ie: none! Take them in RAW, convert to jpeg and post them.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-01-2008, 05:26 AM
Ingo
Registered User

Ingo is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 559
I no longer have the D50

I might be able to borrow it back though.

The sensitivity to light between the 40D and D50 is very unequal though. The D50 loses in that. So I'd have to do like F8 on the 40D, and F4.5 on the Nikon.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-01-2008, 06:36 AM
Omaroo's Avatar
Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)
Let there be night...

Omaroo is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney/Cooma
Posts: 7,628
Oh, that's right - you had a D50. Hmmm... we need to do a more direct comparison - one between two cameras of similar age and similar specification between the two brands.

If I get a D300 soon (hopefully wait a bit and go a D3) that'd be a better match to the 40D - they compete in the same market segment, i.e. high-end consumer, semi pro.

I'd do one with the D40 - except I'm not sure what the equivalent Canon is... I suppose the 400D, which is quite a bit more expensive. What IS Canons' entry-level offering these days?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-01-2008, 07:32 AM
Ingo
Registered User

Ingo is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaroo View Post
Oh, that's right - you had a D50. Hmmm... we need to do a more direct comparison - one between two cameras of similar age and similar specification between the two brands.

If I get a D300 soon (hopefully wait a bit and go a D3) that'd be a better match to the 40D - they compete in the same market segment, i.e. high-end consumer, semi pro.

I'd do one with the D40 - except I'm not sure what the equivalent Canon is... I suppose the 400D, which is quite a bit more expensive. What IS Canons' entry-level offering these days?
D40x would be close to the 400D. I personally don't like Nikon's new series at all. They don't feel like real cameras to me, and feel like fischer price toys. I loved my D50...sturdy, reliable, and very low noise. It could most likely compete against a D300 if it had 1/3 ISO stops.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-01-2008, 07:36 AM
Omaroo's Avatar
Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)
Let there be night...

Omaroo is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney/Cooma
Posts: 7,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingo View Post
D40x would be close to the 400D. I personally don't like Nikon's new series at all. They don't feel like real cameras to me, and feel like fischer price toys. I loved my D50...sturdy, reliable, and very low noise. It could most likely compete against a D300 if it had 1/3 ISO stops.
LOL!! I thought that we were talking about noise performance here, not camera feel.

On the flip side, I personally (as do many people) LOVE the way the new entry-level Nikons feel - it is THE reason I went with this camera in the first place - well, apart from having a dozen Nikkor prime lenses I want to keep. The new series are small, lightweight and feel perfect in my hands because of the polycarbonate body. Not everyone's hands are the same and cameras handle way differently from person to person. Nikon has had great success with this slightly smaller format - read the general comments on forums such as Nikonians, where you'll find hundreds of comments like mine. After a walking around for a full day shooting 900 to 1,200 hand-held photos I still feel unaffected by its weight - which is a real boon to me. I reckon that other manufacturers will follow suit at some stage.

Funny that you should mention this, and talking of Fisher Price - that's the way the current low-end Canon's (especially in silver) feel and look that way to me. To me they feel plasticky, fragile and clunky, so there you have it! LOL! My Canon video camera is simply horrible - another silver kids toy.

Anyway - what happened to the original thread? Are you going to get you D50 back for a comparison? I'd probably have done this before you dumped the D50, but that's me....

Last edited by Omaroo; 09-01-2008 at 10:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-01-2008, 02:10 PM
Ingo
Registered User

Ingo is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 559
Yeah I kind of side tracked I forgot this was not Canon Photography-On -The.Net forum.

But I love the feel of the 40D...sturdy, feels like the camera is made of nice material and no plasticy feeling either. My photography teacher goes "Now this feels like a CAMERA"

Anyway, over the weekend if it's clear I can do some tests since the person I sold my D50 to was my step-father
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-01-2008, 09:46 PM
Terry B's Avatar
Terry B
Country living & viewing

Terry B is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Armidale
Posts: 2,764
Not the exact cameras but there is a comparisson test at http://www.skynews.ca/PDF/SLRcameras.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-01-2008, 05:36 AM
Ingo
Registered User

Ingo is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry B View Post
Not the exact cameras but there is a comparisson test at http://www.skynews.ca/PDF/SLRcameras.pdf
I do know Nikon uses some kind of blur filter to remove noise which removes some detail and sharpness. Canon shoots fully RAW images though with none of that rigamarole.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-01-2008, 06:53 AM
Omaroo's Avatar
Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)
Let there be night...

Omaroo is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney/Cooma
Posts: 7,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingo View Post
I stacked them and the images came out far more noisy than any other camera I've used. My Nikon D50 outperformed this in Astrophotography with a single light frame.
The "rigmarole" that you now complaining about is what, in your opening question, made images from the D50 more acceptable to you? You're getting confusing old mate....
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-01-2008, 12:23 PM
Ingo
Registered User

Ingo is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaroo View Post
The "rigmarole" that you now complaining about is what, in your opening question, made images from the D50 more acceptable to you? You're getting confusing old mate....
Well no doubt the Canon images are way sharper and have more detail...but right now my 40D is really lacking in noise control compared to the D50...

It's probably just the user though
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-01-2008, 06:56 PM
Bassnut's Avatar
Bassnut (Fred)
Narrowfield rules!

Bassnut is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,772
The 40D is also 14bit, an improvement over previous 12 bit models (for astophotography). From the reviews and pics Ive seen, youve got the premium DSLR for astropics, perservere with it, its also has the lowest noise in the market, must be a "user anomaly" ;-).
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 02:04 AM.

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