Canon v Nikon

[EddieDog]

OK all, this question has probably been asked in some form, but I'm a bit more specific. I am looking to replace my Olympus E500 next year, and am considering one of two replacement cameras:
a) Canon EOS 60D
b) Nikon D7000
Has anyone used any of these for any astro work and thus have advice
Ta
Eddie

[skysurfer]

I think both are good for astro work. Canon has an IR filter which makes reflection nebulas less 'red', I don't know about Nikon. But I have a Canon 40d which makes excellent astrophotos.
Canon has a larger bayonet mount which enables adapters from ebay (http://www.ebay.com.au/sch/i.html?_dlg=1&_jgr=1&LH_PrefLoc=2&LH_BIN=1&_ftrt=901&_ftrv=1&_nkw=Nikon+adapter+for+Canon+EOS) to fit Nikon lenses to the bodies. Old lenses fit as well, but no autofocus. Similar adapters exist for all other mounts (including your existing Olympus lenses) except Canon FD.
The 60d is even better in noise reduction you can take pictures @ 3200 ASA which I sometimes do with the 40d.
Look on the internet for noise comparisons between these cameras.
Of course fullframe is better yet (Canon EOS5Mk2 or Nikon D700) but prices are > $2000 body only.

[leon]

From what I have heard and some research both are great Camera's Eddie, but me being a Canon man, I cant help much in regard to Nikon.

Leon

[EddieDog]

Yes, thanks for that, from reports the Nikon seems to have slightly better noise reduction, but I like Canon's swing electronic finder (Much like the G5 we have), as when on the end of my scope it can be low down and impossibles to see. Not sure if my Oly lenses are good enough for Canon (my 300mm would be 480mm Canon). I know Canon has, in the past, been the preferred choice for Astro an sport.

Eddie

[EddieDog]

My initial preference (Bias), Leon, is towards Canon, though the slightly lower noise and, the double mem card facility of the Nikon are tempting. I negate Canon's better video as I don't see me doing much of that.

Eddie

[jjjnettie]

Most astro software for DSLR's is made mainly with Canon cameras in mind.
You'll find more support in the astronomy community for Canon too, as most of us have them and understand their little quirks.
Not to say that other brands can't do the job, but that's just the way it is. Canon have lead the way for so long, the brand is ingrained into the hobby.

[hotspur]

Both Canon and Nikon are very good cameras.Regardless of what you choose,be aware you enter a 'System' of one or the other.Its best to think on what future photography may hold for you.The reason why Canon tends to be more popular on this and many forums is the great range of lenses and other gear they make for Canon cameras.

Another option is Pentax,there is a chap that visits our property he has a K5 body,the low level noise is amazing,way ahead of Canon,these bodies might be very good for astro work because of that,the down side is Pentax lens range much less than Canon,and tend to be super expensive,even second hand.

This forum regularly has good second hand Canon gear for sale,which makes life easier.

Good luck on what ever you buy.

[Bassnut]

Canon vs Nikon?. Thats easy. Its a well known fact that Canon is gods creation and Nikon is just crap, the devils work to extract your hard earned and toss it in the bin.

The 60D wins hands down, no brainer.

[renormalised]

Funny you should say that, Fred. The best shots of the comet have so far been taken by Nikons:):P

[renormalised]

Have a look at Alex's or Wayne's piccies. Proof's in the pudding, so to speak:):)

There's some good Canon shots as well, but no better than any Nikon's.

In any case, the camera is only part of the equation....it's how the camera's operated that really counts:)

[skysurfer]

These discussions ....

Android vs iOS
Samsung vs Apple
Canon vs Nikon

They all are / make good products but the choice is personal. I have Canon but I think Nikon is as good. If you like that pre-1987 lenses fit on your SLR without adapter or want to use a 6mm fisheye (http://images.google.com/search?tab=wi&newwindow=1&num=100&q=Nikon+6mm+f%2F2.8&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=670&sei=Acz9TsDWBdHu-gbTrYjjBw&tbm=isch) (actually a fishbowl) lens of 5kg with a FOV of 220 degrees, choose the yellow brand.
If you want to use long telephoto lenses up to 1200 f/5.6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_1200mm_lens) which don't bend in direct sunlight (due to heat absorption of black finish) choose the red brand.

[Octane]

What a load of bollocks.

Have you even seen an ISO-3200 image from a 5D Mark II or a 1D/1Ds Mark III or 1D Mark IV?

They eat Pentax high ISO performance for breakfast.

H

[EddieDog]

Fred, you appear to hate Nikon. I am looking for considered opion, especially from users. Whilst I agree that Canon has been the camera of choice for astro work (and sport), the new Nikon d7000 is the first to seriously challenge Canon's low noise specs. My personal choice would be the 5D Mark II, as I'd love a full fram cam, but it beyond my budget at the mo. The Nikon also has a slightly larger senser than the 60D and 100% optical viewfinder image and deeper colour depth. But I'm still thinking 60D.

Eddie looking for lotto win

[hotspur]

You are correct H,when comparing to the 5D2,I should have stated that that observation of the K5 was against canon, crop sensor cameras,not the 5D2,so do not get upset:)

Just my opinion-but regardless of what camera brand is used,particularly these high end models-the skill of the person behind the camera makes a major difference.

BTW last time I looked this was not a Canon sponsored forum,and people are allowed to have different view points on different makes of cameras.If the OP wishes to buy Nikon,he will do very well.

[dannat]

I think the Nikon 7000 series havebthe same sensor as the Pentax, don't forget the gps add on for Pentax let's you take tripod mounted shots, the mirror shake is used to correct for trailing, 3mins at 200mm on a tripod
If it were me I'd be going the Pentax or nikon

[renormalised]

Well, since this appears to be a showdown (in some people's minds) about Canon and Nikon and their respective abilities, why not blow both of them out of the water and let's throw in Hasselblad and Mamiya and compare the first two to these cameras. Neither Canon or Nikon would live in the same room. For any spec or picture characteristic either of those cameras have. But then again, you're paying for the privilege of owning one. Anyone here got $17000 to buy the little 'Blad??

Canon and Nikon are both very good cameras and will do whatever job you ask them to do very well. I've seen just as good astropics taken by Nikon's as Canon's. But if the person wielding the camera doesn't know how to use them, both of them can also take bad shots (in any situation). I mean, if you want to compare a Nikon D3100 to a Canon 5D MkII or better, go right ahead. But it's a case of comparing apples and oranges. People who can afford upper mid level or professional level cameras (of any make), that's great, but don't disparage the little guy with his cheaper Nikon (or Canon) for taking "sub standard" shots just because he owns one of them. Especially when you have a bias towards one camera make.

[Octane]

Carl,

Of course. The bigger the sensor, the greater the image. I spend a lot of time on medium format photography forums, and even the $30K+ digital backs (sitting on a Hasselblad or Mamiya or xyz) have colour casts and ape skin tones. Furthermore, those cameras are not designed for long exposure astrophotographic use. Indeed, a lot of them struggle past ISO-400; they are designed for a specific purpose. There are issues wherever you go. How I long for one, but, I digress.

But, we're specifically discussing Canon and Nikon here.

I'm yet to see a deep space image taken by a Nikon system that rivals the fidelity and colour and sharpness of a Canon system.

I'm not talking widefield sky landscapes or lunar images. Both of these can be fulfilled by either system.

If I can find the time today, I will go hunting examples of high ISO images of the Pentax system with the equivalent level Canon system. If the Pentax has better noise characteristics, I'll offer a full apology, eat my shorts and not post anything photography related again. There's clearly people here who have greater experience and understanding than I do.

H

[renormalised]

You don't see the point I'm getting at H. Both cameras have the good and bad points and depending on your particular "bent" one is better than the other. But, there are always bigger and better beasts on the block. Even amongst either brand. For instance, your 5D Mk II is going to out perform someone's little 600D. Someone's D7000 is going to out perform my D3000. But your 5D MkII and someone's D3S or D3X will be fairly close.

Yes, it's true that some makes do handle some stuff better than others, but that shouldn't dissuade anyone from purchasing those other brands. It all depends on what you're going to be using them for, apart from astropics.

Here's another thing...what were the skill levels of those using either camera.

In any case, if you're smart, you won't use a DSLR for high ISO imaging through a scope. You'll go and grab yourself a CCD camera and be done with it:):) Jump into the deep end:)

[Paul Haese]

We always see this argument cropping up. I have owned nikons for over half my life. I rarely use my D3 for Astro work, but I know it best to use a ccd camera for Astro work now. I used a moded Canon for Astro work for a while, and that was good, but certainly not in the same league as a ccd. I agree about looking at the system. I like Nikon personally, but not everyone does.

[CapturingTheNight]

I'll pitch in. I'm a Canon man through and through. I own two Canons- a 1000D and the 60D you are considering. While I have no experience with Nikons I can tell you that I have a problem using the 60D for astro work. For widefield fixed tripod work it is great with it's high ISO capability (although I dream every night of owning a 5D Mark II for that sort of thing- Hurry up and release the Mark III Canon so that I can hopefully pick up the II cheaper) and the articulated LCD screen makes focus and checking results a breeze. BUT....with direct comparrison with the 1000D for mounted long exposure work the lowly 1000D wins hands down with it's star colour. The 60D produces horrible purple stars when shooting with exactly the same settings and lens/telescope as the 1000D. Now, I know this can generally be tuned out in post processing but I have yet to work out a way of removing it in camera.
That's my two cents. Just thought you would appreciate the opinions of someone who actually owns one of the cameras. As for purely brand related then all has already been said in terms of software mainly being available Canon only.
Cheers
Greg

[avandonk]

See here and decide

http://www.brayebrookobservatory.org/BrayObsWebSite/HOMEPAGE/DSLR_CMOS_vs_CCD_SENSOR.html

The Canon 5D MII was not available but it easily beats the Canon 5D.


bert

[CapturingTheNight]

Interesting read Bert. I knew there was something really good about my bog standard 1000D :D

[RobF]

Yes, fascinating info thanks Bert

[Peter.M]

I own the standard nikon d3100 and while it is a great camera it has had its problems. As far as support goes the canon cameras have far better tethering support, I think that higher end nikons also have this though. For me to get tethering to work I needed to buy a shoestring astronomy shutter controler. If you are thinking of connecting your camera to a telescope then a larger frame may not be better because you will need more equipment to combat vignetting.

I think for wide field astrophotography using a lens both cameras will serve you well and it is a holden ford competition where peoples opinions influence their decisions.

[EddieDog]

Greg, many thanks for that. Appeciate your comments.

Eddie

[Poita]

I use the 5D MKII, 7D and Nikon D7000 and D90 regularly in work and for play :)

For normal photography the focus system in the D7000 absolutely slays the Canons in speed and accuracy. The twin SD card setup for the D7000 is also a big plus for me professionally.

The Full frame sensor of the 5D MKII is great in the studio, but it isn't as well suited to wildlife, sports and fast action. It is a brilliant camera for studio work, landscapes and portraits, and we utilise the video functions of it and the 7D to good effect at times as well.

The noise levels on the D7000 rival the full frame sensors, it really is a fantastic camera, and we find we are using it more and more than the Canon's when outside the studio. It's video functionality is far better than on the D90, but as with all DSLRs to do serious video work you need to spend a bundle on a focus rig to really utilise it fully. (Same for the 5D MKII and 7D)

For astro work, the D7000 will take fantastic images, but there is more options with software/hardware control for astrophotography with the Canons.

Really though, just get a dedicated CCD camera for astro work, even an old 2nd hand QHY8 (which can be had for under a grand) will beat them all out, with its cooled sensor and effectively zero noise and ease of attachment, software support etc.

A DSLR is a good choice if you already have one for terrestrial use, as you can just get an adapter and shoot away, but I wouldn't buy one just for astro use, I'd get a proper cooled CCD that doesn't have to be modified to add cooling, remove filters etc. etc. You will be much happier even with an inexpensive 2nd hand CCD than trying to make the DSLR work.

[Poita]

What is the equivalent level Canon to the K5? I have no idea of the K5 pricing/entry point.

There is an interesting discussion on noise here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49200.0

Some of the links in the discussion are great reading.

[EddieDog]

Peter, thank you for that. No, I'm not buying specifically for astro work, it's for general use with some astro thrown in, including night scenes with terrestrial objects moon or light lit, and celestial objects visible in the sky. Low noise is important. I agree that a dedicated astro camera for dso is the way to go, but for wide field good shots can be had with DSLR's. Many of your points re Nikon D7000 are valid and worth serious consideration, though I know Canon has more astro software etc available. Oh, also the Nikon has 100% optical viewfinder.

Eddie

Eddie

[Logieberra]

I use a Nikon D40. It's a great unit for the price and uses the same sensor as the QHY8's. However, there is one feature of the Nikons that drive me insane, the 'star-eater' settings. See Covington's MODE 3 work-around, but it's fiddly: 'turn noise reduction on, and then turn the camera off while it's taking the dark frame after the main exposure. Naturally, you'll have to take a dark frame of your own (the same way) and do the subtraction on your PC when you process the pictures'.

With this in mind, I think that Canon's are better suited to AP.

See Christian Buil's and Michael Covington's articles for a full discussion on this issue:

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/michael/blog/0508/index.html
http://www.astrosurf.org/buil/d70v10d/eval.htm

Logan.

[gregbradley]

My first astro camera was a Nikon D70. At the time the hot camera was a Canon 10D but it was a bit outside my budget at the time.
Since then I have had several Canon 20Ds (I modified several myself) plus a Canon 40D.

It was an excellent camera. A few points about it though and these may no longer be valid as Nikon has obviously progressed a long way from then.

The D70 had the same sensor as the Starlight Express MX25C.
It did suffer from amp glow and it would be a purply corner that would grow to be quite extensive after about a minute.

So you had to use the noise control system which doubled exposure time. Or use library darks.

Nikon's RAW file system is not a true lossless file. A smoothing filter is applied regardless of settings that can damage faint stars. A lot was posted about this but I myself saw little difference. There was a physical workaround to prevent the filter from being applied which consisted of taking the imaging and then turning the camera off straight away. The firmware does an emergency save of the last image but no incamera processing is done.

I modified my D70 myself. It was a lot easier to do than the several Canon 20D's I modified.

Opening up the guts of both Canon 20Ds and Nikon D70 I could see why Canon has better amp glow performance. Nikon had the sensor on a metal block which had electronics on the backside of it as well. No doubt these electronics heat up when an image was taken.

The Canon had the sensor independent of any other electronics.

Also the Canon had several layers of metal shielding to prevent interference - again from internal electronic interference and possible external interference.

The Canon certainly seemed more sophicated in its guts and more attention to detail.

The Nikon had a handy cheap little infrared remote that I used to do long exposure images before I connected it to a computer.

A Nikon D70 is not apples to apples with a 20D Canon so needless to say the performance achievable from the 20D far rivalled the Nikon but I was quite happy with my little Nikon.

I think menus are more accessible in the Canon as well and more items could be modified but the Nikon was good too and is really more a matter of getting used to one over the other.

I used a 5D MK11 last week to image Comet Lovejoy and it was consdiderably better than my Canon 40D. The ability to go to ISO12600 versus ISO3200 and similar or better noise levels was terrific.

The 5D Mk11 also gave good colour rendition and an overall pleasing image.

But I found my 40D did better images of wildlife through my TEC110FL.

I put that down to the Bokeh effect where the backgound was more nicely blurred with the 40D. But that is a very specific use. So with my very limited experience of using a 5DMK11 for wildlife imaging I agree with the earlier posting that it may not be the perfect choice for that work.

So as previously mentioned the final use of the camera would be a mjor factor in determining which is best.

Also lenses is another factor.

I consistently read and have seen images that the Nikon 14-24 and 16-35 lenses are unrivalled and among the best ever made. Now you can get an adapter to make these work on a Canon (its about $300+) but I do not know if it affects the performance of these lenses.

For me that would be an important consideration. If you can get a 5D Mk11 to work with a Nikon 14-24 for astro work you probably are close to the perfect combo for widefield astro landscape type shots or time lapse.

The upcoming Nikon D800 may be a hard act for Canon to top. The 5D Mk111 when it finally comes out is likely to be a hot camera so keep that in mind - do you want to spend $2500 and have something that is considered outdated in 6 months time? There was a considerable jump in performance between a 20D and a 40D.

Canon seems to have been badly affected by the aftermath of the Tsunami and Thai floods. So 5DMk111 may be a while. D800 though should be soon.

Greg.

[Adelastro1]

Hi Eddie,
I thought I would weigh into this discussion because I currently use the D7000 and have had a D700 and also briefly a D3s. I can't comment on Canon or Pentax at all as I've only had one - my old film EOS 50.

In May last year I upgraded (yes upgraded!) from a D700 to D7000. I found that I wasn't using the D700 full frame capabilities with the lenses I had and couldn't afford to upgrade them, so I changed to the D7000. Since the D700 has been around for years it is somewhat outdated (we are all waiting for the D800!) and some of the features and technology found on that (and even the D3s) were put in the D7000. So effectively with the D7000 you are getting a cropped sensor version of the D700, with improvements!

I find the D7000 amazing for my widefield astro work. The high ISO is fantastic and I regularly use ISO 6400. However lenses are just as important because all I have is an f4 lens, but if I had an f2.8 I could take the same image with a lower ISO anyway. I've hired the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 and it certainly is amazing. It's my next lens, and even with my cropped sensor it will still give me 21-36mm effectively.

Another thing that I love with the D7000 is the battery capacity. It lasts for many hours which is especially good when doing timelapses. Not sure how the 60D rates for that though.

I also like how easy the D7000 is to use. All the buttons feel as if they are in the right spot and easy to get to. When I'm out shooting in the dark all the adjustments I need are reached by buttons and settings can be checked by the dim lit top view screen and I don't need to look at the menu on the main screen and ruin my night vision. It may be similar on Canon but I do like this feature on my D7000.

I know there's probably dozens that rate each higher, but here's a review that rates the D7000 higher after people have used them, not based purely on specs. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20031259-1.html

I understand the Canon has better video, but who uses that anyway?? I also imagine that you will be using it during the day, so work out what else you want to do with it. The D7000 is very fast with focussing (I think that was handed down from the D3s) which is great for wildlife, sport or subjects that need quick shooting.

[EddieDog]

Thanks Wayne, yes, I intend to use the cam on regular terrestrial use with astro as an added aside when I have time (Being mostly a nightshift worker....works against me!) The 7000 has reveiws and specs that are very favourable. However, I will do a little more research. Astro writers of the ilk of Michael Covington have no probs with Nikon. Lens are an issue I will have to look at, both cost and range.

Eddie

[DavidTrap]

I know it's in a different league, but here is some video from the new D4.

Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nZZMIo7Zfys)

Cheers
DT

[EddieDog]

Interesting, but, has the video been compressed for U-Tube, if so then we can't see the full resolution

Eddie

[DavidTrap]

True, but the clarity, depth of field and dynamic range certainly impressed me.

The slow motion bit of the "idiot" going over the falls was rather impressive from a clarity and exposure. From the number of camera angles they played in the video, he either did that a number of times or they had a lot of cameras filming it!

DT

[Poita]

One other thing I like is that Nikon has a 180 degree 10.5mm lens for their DX cameras, I don't think Canon has a true fisheye for its DX models. I could be wrong, but they didn't a couple of years ago when I wanted to buy one.