Nikon D40 vs. Sony Alpha 100

[Logieberra]

Hey guys

Looking to get into the astro photo game. Will be happy to photo anything, so long as it's crisp!

I've got a bit of equipment already. Your comments would be appreciated. Would love to use this stuff if possible!

- Meade ETX 90
- Skywatcher ED80
- Nikon D40
- Sony Alpha 100
- Meade LPI
- Small/portable laptop
- Mount TBC? I'll be getting a beefy mount later in the year (thx for the advice 'H').

My biggest Q - the sony or nikon? Does anyone use these rigs. Results?

:thanx:

Logie.

[Steffen]

Hi Logie,
seeing that you've already got both the D40 and the A100 I'd love to hear from you which one is better suited ;)

I haven't seen either used in the field, so your hands-on experience would be doubly welcome.

Cheers
Steffen.

[Omaroo]

Hi Logie - and welcome.

Along with several other cameras, I really enjoy using my D40 for lunar work. It beats my Canon 350D hands down for this object - giving beter tonal graduation and colour for some reason. It also works very well for some bright-object deep space, such as M42 and a few of the clusters. The Canon is better for dimmer stuff. The D40 is quite noise-free in comparison, and amp glow is absolutely minimal. One great thing about the D40 is its inherent lightness.

In relation to the A100, it's closer to a D80 than D40, so I wouldn't be able to offer advice. Given the A100's lineage, I'd imagine that you'd also have to perform a "mode 3" exercise to stop the camera from pre-processing RAW images and removing stars as well. Not a biggie.

[Logieberra]

Thanks guys, a few useful catch words there to get the ball rolling.

Googled 'mode 3' and came across this article by Jerry Lodriguss: 'Catching the Light', http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/NIK_CAN.HTM

He touches on the M3 issues, but I'm still not sure how it works in practice!

Nikons must use an inconvenient "mode 3" work around to acquire true raw files from the Nikon DLSR cameras, documented on Christian Buil's web page (http://astrosurf.com/buil/d70v10d/eval). This appears to be true even for Nikon's latest top-of-the-line D3 camera as documented here (http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/nikon_test/test.htm).

The following image was taken Roger Brooker on the D40, so it can be done. http://lxd55.com/astrophotos/Photos/4950983.jpg

Omaroo, glad to hear that you've had good results with the D40. Surely there must be other IIC members who use this kit (or the A100). I look forward to their comments.

:question:

Thx

[Vanda]

The old Nikon star-eater work around. Does this apply to the later Nikon D90 which has several dark frame settings? Would be great if someone could test this objectively eg: mode 3 vs DF reduction, or latest Nikon vs latest Canon.

[Logieberra]

Not looking to detract from this forum, but I came across this useful yahoo group:


TheNikonD40AstrophotogrphyGroup


Be sure to join us if you want to explore the capabilities of the D40.

I'll be working with these guys and report back here as I get this beast working!

Logie :thumbsup:

[Adelastro1]

Thanks for all the info Logan. I've been going to post a question about using Nikon cameras for astrophotography and why most people on here seem to use Canons. That link you posted is excellent and answered several questions that I had.

I know this is not about the D40 but I recently bought a Nikon D3s and the low noise at high ISO is absolutely fantastic. Although the pixel size is large compared to some other mid to top range DSLRs (both Canon and Nikon) the sensor size is large (& keeps the file size manageable with 12Mp res). I've heard by talking to other people that it sets a new benchmark for high ISO quality (I can shoot up to 102,000 ISO, which is probably equivalent to old 1600ASA film in grain), and I'm beginning to find out that indeed it is that good.

I haven't tried it out too much yet on my new 12in scope but the few photos I've taken through it plus the ones I've taken wide field with DSLR lenses has excellent and images are very usable for shooting at 1600-12800 ISO. Live view is great focussing and image centering too.

I had a D80 until recently and it had the usual Nikon purple glow around the edge of long exposures (more than a minute or so), which the Canons apparently had very little of. The D3s seems to be free of this problem. I took a 10 minute exposure with lens cap on and there was no glow at all. Even though nowadays it's easy to stack multiple photos in software I look forward to trying a few really long exposure star trails and maybe even long tracked exposures piggybacked on my scope. Eventually I want to use an autoguider with it as well.

The only downside I've come across in my preliminary use of the D3s is the extra weight of the camera on the end of the scope, but I can deal with this with counterweights!

So hopefully with Nikon's latest improvements filtering down to the lower ends of their range eventually more astrophotogrphers will use Nikons! You might have something to look farward to soon if you want to upgrade your D40!

Wayne

[Logieberra]

Well I've been playing with the D40 for the last few months, and it can be done :thumbsup:

I have purchased two things that really compliment this camera setup:

- cheap ebay version IR remote; and
- Tether Pro camera control software also off ebay (sooo much cheaper than the Nikon version and works well!)

I'm still mega new to the astro stuff, but here are a few pics to demonstrate that the Nikon D40 is good enough for a Noob. They are my first guided astro photos on the NEQ6 Pro with the ED80 Pro of the Great Nebula in Carina, NGC 3372:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/4655464333_5e42cfa455_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/4655464845_d3b2bc39f6_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4030/4656083404_7c5e393968_b.jpg

[bloodhound31]

Pretty darn good so far mate! Well done. Tracking looks good and good focus.

Way better than my first attempts.

Baz.

[Adelastro1]

Those photos are great Logan. How did you take them (exposure length, ISO, stacking details, post processing etc)?

[Logieberra]

Thanks for that guys, it brought a smile to my face when the image popped up on my laptop.

Ok, there was not much science behind it, but here goes:

- Exposure: around 4-5mins on bulb, just before the clouds came back
- ISO: 800
- Stacking? None.
- Post Processing? None.

I don't know what do to about darks, stacking etc. I grabbed some info from Baz's asign site for Deep Sky Stacker, but the image looks better in its natural form b/c I don't know what I'm doing...

Hope that helps.

[Adelastro1]

Oh wow, that's excellent. Gives me hope! I wonder what a bit of processing with yours in Photoshop might produce as well.
Your tracking and focus looks spot on. Well done.

[cybereye]

Fantastic!! :)

[bmitchell82]

Great going Logan,

I did have a bit of a play with the photos that you posted over, and there is a fair bit of info in them to extract out, but all in time. Processing in PS is a bit hair rasing, and some people as me what are my methods but the thing is its all just look and see what is coming up and how its working but generally ill go though close to 30 different things to get it somewhere i like, then probably another 3-5 repros to get it right :D

Keep up the work and i hope to see some good things from the "Bertha" soon hehehe

[Logieberra]

Messing around last night with the D40. Centaurus A (NGC 5128)

Is this ok?

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4699211852_52e31ece91.jpg

Oh, and forgot to mention - I couldn't figure out why the camera would be working / processing for so long after the photo! I'd shoot for 5min and wait another 5min for the photo to show up! So I turned off noise reduction, and I just started shooting in NEF (RAW equivalent I think). Much better - and fast!!

:)

[Esseth]

That's awesome, i picked up a D40x recently as well... still learning all the nuts and bolts being my first DSLR :D