Deep Space Astrophotography and Nikon D40

[shaneaust (Mick)]

I've been looking at digital cameras for deep space photography (eg Orion Nebula) and had a look at the specs for the Nikon D40. Most importantly, it has adjustable shutter speeds of up to 30 seconds.

1) Has anyone any experience with this camera?

2) Would shutter speeds of 30 seconds give me some reasonably good views of DSOs?

Tks in advance!

[iceman (Mike)]

30s isn't really enough - I mean it's ok, but really you'll want to do more eventually (if your tracking is accurate).

It should have a bulb mode where you can do much longer exposures?

30s will get you started, and will be more forgiving on your tracking inaccuracies, depending on the focal length you use.

[iceman (Mike)]

Oh by the way, if you're planning on using your dob, forget plans of deep-space photography. Unless you mount it on an EQ mount, you'll be setting yourself up for much frustration!

[shaneaust (Mick)]

Originally Posted by iceman

Oh by the way, if you're planning on using your dob, forget plans of deep-space photography. Unless you mount it on an EQ mount, you'll be setting yourself up for much frustration!

Yep, I was aware of that which is why I'd asked about 30-second shutter speed.

What would you recommend in the way of shutter speed - if I was able to EQ-mount my scope (which would be difficult to say the least!)?

[jase (Jason)]

Originally Posted by shaneaust

What would you recommend in the way of shutter speed - if I was able to EQ-mount my scope (which would be difficult to say the least!)?

Shane,
I would suggest starting at ISO 800, but it does depend on the object you are shooting. Higher ISO's introduce more noise so you need to lengthen the exposures to get a better signal ratio.

[sejanus (Gavin)]

Shane I'd recommend you get a Canon body - less noise at higher iso's.

btw any slr will do a 30secexposure, what you'll want to do is run them in a 'bulb' mode which is longer than 30secs

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Originally Posted by sejanus

Shane I'd recommend you get a Canon body - less noise at higher iso's.

Where did you get that from? What a lot of codswallop! Compared to "what" Canon body? I bought the D40 BASED on tests from various sources on the 'net that showed comparative photos from the 400D Canon ad the Nikon D40 - and noise was about the same on both at similar settings. Ving can vouch for these tests too - as he has bought two D40's based on them and is very happy, as am I, with the D40. The fact that a D40 will push to ISO3200 - you'd expect a fair amount anyway.

I have had great success with the D40. Amp noise is far lower than a 300/350d Canon from parallel tests I've run at various ISO settings. I've exposed to the 20 minute mark repeatedly, and each time I get hardly any colour. There's a whole thread on my tests here on IIS. The D40 is now KNOWN for its very low noise characteristics. They've done a lot of development from the days of the D70 and D50 - not that these are old by any means either.

All of the following images are 30 second exposures from the D40 at prime focus on a Meade SN10. The reason for this is that I actually forgot my remote bulb release that night. 30 minutes you'll get out of a bulb shot - but I hope that your mount is going to make it worthwhile. For 30 seconds each, even M31 & M32 started to resolve. Tuc47 and the others are all pretty good in my book for such short exposures. Most were taken at ISO800 and up.

Sorry about the rant, but I get very tired of Canon repeatedly being pushed, flippantly and without reservation, to newcomers by default. Not everyone wants a Canon!

[/rant]

[sejanus (Gavin)]

chris,

First of all. Check the date of the post you went bonkers at. Late 2006. Perhaps you may be more productive replying to threads that weren't posted over a year ago. Nikon were a long way behind then in terms of upper iso noise. It's only recently with the d300/d3 they are making ground.

Secondly. I'm a pro photographer who owns my own photo business and have been through more cameras on both nikon & canon than you've changed your pants. I don't write things about cameras without knowing the facts.

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

LOL!!!!!!! My apologies. It's what a couple too many can do to you late at night. 2006

With respect, the D40 is an entry-level camera - so I assume, you being a pro, would probably not have bothered to use one. It's very different in noise and amp glow characteristics to both the D50 and 70 - to which you were most likely referring to at the time.

You have no idea how many pairs of pants I've worn in my life...

[billche]

Chris,

I own a lot of pants too, good!!!

To all, please don't comment on people but only idea, OK??

Bill

Originally Posted by Omaroo

LOL!!!!!!! My apologies. It's what a couple too many can do to you late at night. 2006

With respect, the D40 is an entry-level camera - so I assume, you being a pro, would probably not have bothered to use one. It's very different in noise and amp glow characteristics to both the D50 and 70 - to which you were most likely referring to at the time.

You have no idea how many pairs of pants I've worn in my life...

[Gama]

Well, Chris is still right. Which Canon body ?. Only the 5D and up had good noise over the Nikons above 800 ISO. But below this, they perfomed about the same.
The 20D and below ,models had a little more noise.
But the Nikons suffered from sharp IR filtering, so people junked the glass filters.

Theo