Digital SLR

[Shane Galvin]

Will the cannon 400d take good pics?
What is the method of attaching this to my 114mm tasco luminova telescope?
Anyone with any help let me know,it would be appreciated.:doh:

[Astroman]

The Canon 400D is very capable of taking Astrophotographs. I use one all the time. Some of my images are here >> http://southcelestialpole.org.au/blogs/astroman.php

Really must update it with some latest images, such as..

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=31731&d=1189223283

and...

http://southcelestialpole.org.au/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=508 9.0;attach=8342;image

and...

http://southcelestialpole.org.au/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=508 9.0;attach=8344;image


These were taken with various equipment from a 18,,055mm kit lens to an 8" f6 Newtonian.

What focuser does the Scope have? Does it have tracking ect... I know someone with an old Tasco from what I have seen of his it only had a .975" focuser which is inadequate for hooking uquipment ep to a DSLR. You also may find that you will not have enough in focus, so the Primary Mirror needs to be bought forward slightly... Some things to think about. Astrophotography is really enjoyable but without the right equipment can be very frustrating. Also it take alot of work to get many of the images you see around the place.

[Shane Galvin]

Thanks for your help,my scope seems like it may be a dinosaur.
I will persist as I love the challange.
I will post some pics as I go.
Cheers

[Astroman]

good stuff :)

[Ingo]

Go for the 350D. It's a lot cheaper and the same, or better than the 400D.

[Astroman]

Ingo, he never stated that he was thinking of buying one, it was a general question if it could be done. "Will the cannon 400d take good pics?"

[Ingo]

I think you can come to a conclusion that he's looking at buying one. Otherwise he could care less about how to attach it to his scope. :thumbsup:

[Astroman]

Without finding out from him, I wouldn't come to that conclusion at all, I know many people with cameras that are asking me how to attach them to a telescope. That doesn't mean they are looking at buying one...

Will await to see what he says.... But yes with the inclusion of the 400D and 40D into Canon's line up of cameras, the 350D is a cheaper option if you are looking for a good cheap DSLR for Astrophotography. :)

[xelasnave]

Sortta on topic... is there any hint of canon's next "400d" can we expect 12 meg under a 1000 ...Please say its going to happen.
alex

[Ingo]

Why 12MP?

[robin]

The Canon will take very good pics but its the photographer(you!) that will make it all happen. Go for it.

[iceman]

Ingo you keep saying the 350D is better than the 400D. What facts are you basing this on? Any personal experience?

I'm a 350D owner that would go for a 400D in a heartbeat if I could afford it.

[Ingo]

It's from reviews & other professional photographers I've know for some time. All upgraded to the 400D and don't like it. It's a horrible sensor for one, you're paying for the low pass cleaning and it doesn't work. Why not buy a 350D with a more sensitive sensor that takes in more light with less noise? It's so much cheaper also. The only thing the 400D has on the 350D really is a bigger screen some small new settings.

[iceman]

Can you give me a link to the sensors in both the 350D and the 400D? I thought they were the same.

The 400D has an extra 2 MP. Nothing to sneeze at.

I don't know many/any professional photographers who use a 400D, or who would upgrade from a 350D. They're more likely to have the pro-series not the consumer ones.

[CometGuy]

Hi,

I'll go with a comparision by somebody that knows what he is doing, i.e reknown astronomer/astrophotographer Christian Buil at:

http://astrosurf.com/buil/400d/400d.htm

To save translating and reading through the graphs, it basically states that although the 400D sensor has smaller pixels, this is partly offset by better efficiency converting light (i.e the 400D has higher Quantum efficiency). The AA-IR Filter seems to stop a little more red light unfortunately. There is a little more dark noise (i.e long exposure noise) in the 400D but no electroluminence glow. Overall the 350D is the prefered camera for astrophotography, but the difference is fairly SMALL.

So Shane the 400D is still a very good choice and keep in mind you have a better camera body design in the 400D as well.

Terry

[iceman]

Thanks Terry, excellent info.

[Ingo]

See...350D was better. What I said all along. The sensor is less sensitive to light on the 400D also.

[iceman]

lol I wouldn't be claiming that victory, Ingo. Terry's information is what I was after, not 3rd hand heresay from "professionals" who use a 350D.

And where does this statement come from?

Terry stated:

For the very minor differences as stated by Terry, I'd still prefer the 400D (for me) because of the greater resolution.

[Astroman]

As far as I can see and I apologise to Shane for hijacking his thread.. Is that the differences between the 350D and 400D are so small its hardly worth the debate it generates. Good on anyone who buys these Cameras, they are both great cameras and the people that know how to use them properly can produce wonderful results. I personally got my 400D for more than Astrophotography, if I could have afforded it at the time I would have gone the 5D, but this wasn't to be. I like the 2.5" screen for normal use, it gives you a big enough screen to see how your image turned out. There are some things that could be better, for night time use, but thats not exactly what this camera was designed for.

[Shane Galvin]

Thanks to everyone who has added their points,good or bad its good to read and collect as much info as possible,when I purchase the camera i will post some of my first pics.
Thanks.Shane:D

[xelasnave]

Bigger is better according to the boys in marketing...
I simply wonder if they will go this way as there seems to be a trend for them to increase each year or so..

Why do I want one... er bigger is better????
alex

[Omaroo]

Spot on Alex. The boys in marketing have everyone by the curlies over this. There seems to be a common perception amongst users that more pixels mean better pictures. Looking at all the websites I could over this question, I have come to my own conclusion that there seems to be far more to camera performance than mere megapixels. There is way too much technical info on it to even try to understand the argument as mere mortals, and this is the tool that the marketers use to baffle us - so we blindly go along thinking that resolution is the answer. The fact that there are people intent on "upgrading" to the next camera just because the newer model sports another 2 million wondrous pixels is unbelievable. I suppose they are under the impression that their work will suddenly be far more satisfactory as a result.

I agree IF users are professionals who want to put their work into large, very high quality print or for some scientific analytical task. For taking piccies of the stars for our web-based image catalogues or for print in Sky & Telescope? I'm not so sure.

[turbo_pascale]

Just to add more confusion, here's a review of the 40D in comparison with the 350D and 400D.

Nice things to note for astronomy work:
- live preview (both on the LCD and via the USB2 cable)
- long exposures can be controlled by computer without the need for a parallel/serial cable, just the single USB2 cable.

http://www.astrosurf.com/~buil/eos40d/test.htm (https://webmail.netspace.net.au/horde/util/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astrosu rf.com%2F%7Ebuil%2Feos40d%2Ftest.ht m&Horde=efe3d2d0ece51eb5f7b8e2f55caf9 908)


Hanging to get my hands on one to see what it can do.

Turbo

[ving]

i am with chris on this one... 2 extra mp! bah! what are you going to do? print posters? how many people actually print poster size prints here? not many if any. i have taken 1100 or so pictures with my new camera (d40) and havent printed a single one...
the only advantage i can see for the extra 2 mp (if kyou arent printing) is that you have a bigger picture to crop from... if you crop your pictures.
most of us take pictures for the web so the 2mp is for the most part irrelevant IMO. :)

will the 400d take good pictures? well it can but its really the users skill that takes the pictures. :)

ps: dont disregard nikons. they have great chips and software for picture taking too :)