Canon 350D v's 20D

[Merlin66]

Guys,
Help me here...
These two cameras appear to have the same CMOS 8.2Megapixel, and the same features ie 30sec + Bulb settings.
What's the REAL difference when considering either for astro DSO work????
There's a hellava price difference???!!!!

[acropolite]

Early reports that I have read indicated that the 20D does not have the same sensor as the 350D and that the 350D sensor is in fact only 8mP, whereas the 20D is 8.2mP (no real size difference there). The performance seems to be close if not the same, given the choice I would take the 350D with a quality lens for the same price as the 20D with a budget lens. The 20D has better burst frame rates and is built quite a bit more solidly. (the 350D was non existent when I bought my 20D) If you have the money the 20DA factory modded for astro use is a good option as it will still take daylight pics without additional filters, whereas hutech modified 20D/350D/5D need a screw on filter to correct colour balance for daytime use. :camera:

[Striker]

For value for money you can't beat the 350d.

The chip is different but the biggest difference is the quality of the make...the 350D is all plastic...the 20D or DA is Magnezium body.

Most Pro photographers consider the 350 a toy compared to the 20D but again it has more to do with the build quality....once you put a large lense on a 350d it is way to heavy for the plastic 350D.

Saying all this...like I said for astrophotography you cant beat the 350D for value for money.

[Vermin]

The 20D has been superseded by the 30D, a few improvements (same chip) and cheaper too.

Read about it here: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022114canoneos30d.asp

Only available in Australia at the moment, but all reports so far are good.

New features at a glance:


Redesigned body (more EOS 5D like)
Larger LCD monitor (2.5")
Soft-touch shutter release button
AE/AF lock remains set if shutter is kept half-pressed between shots
Faster startup and wake from sleep times
Direct print button on rear of camera (woo!)
Spot metering
100,000 shot shutter cycle
ISO selectable in third stop steps
ISO speed shown in viewfinder as you change it (still not once changed though)
Selectable 5 or 3 fps continuous shooting
PictureStyles instead of simple image parameters
9,999 images per folder (instead of 100 as per the EOS 20D)
15 menu languages (3 new)

[fringe_dweller]

AFAIK? I have read a few times, the 20D allows you turn power down/switch off? the internal amp during long exposures, thus removing the need to remove the amp noise later in processing.
The 350d doesnt have this feature - this would be the biggest diff. re astro work I would imagine, if my memory is correct in this.

[Merlin66]

Harvey Norman and others seem to have some good prices on the 350D. There's a twin lens package for $1600, plus memory plus adaptors etc takes the "package" up to about $2000. Still a lot to pay!!!!!!!!
Need to sell the Olympus gear first I think!!

[cjmarsh81]

A couple of weeks ago Harvey Norman was advertising the canon 350d with the two lenses for $1488. It is still on the website. Awfully tempting, if only the budget extended that far.

If you want to find out the features of these cameras do a google search for Steve's Digicams. It is a website that provides really good reviews of most cameras available on the market.

Striker. Are you serious about the large lenses being too heavy for the plastic case? I am currently saving up for a 350d, might keep saving for a 20d if they are too plasticky.

[Striker]

I personaly wouldn't worry about the weight.....I have just read from lots of reviews that owners didn't like the feal of the camera with large lenses as the 350D camera is so light making the lense so call top heavy compared to the camera.

Best thing to do is to have a look at the camera and put a decent size lense on it...they say it's all got to do with the feel.

[rogerg]

IMHO You have to be very serious about your photography to care about the "ruggedness" and lens handling capabilities of the 350D.

I've had a 300 (film) for years, used it extensively with my 70-200 F/4 L and 100-400 IS L. I don't have any problem using these lenses with the 350D. The 300 (film) even had a plastic lens mount, still had no problem with that (years of hiking, outdoor use swapping lenses etc). When you get to anything even the size of the 70-200 you don't just hold the camera, you hold it by the tripod colar on the lens, it's not like you have to support all the weight by just holding the trip on the camera. Of course that's how you pick it up but I'm talking about stabalising yourself for a good shot.

The 350D does have a metal "chasis" and metal lens mount, but plastic body/case and definitely not as solid as the 20D which is has much more metal construction.

I am disapointed that the 350D has a smaller grip than the 300 (film) did, but I've come to get used to it. I would only ever use the 350D (or 300 for that matter) with a verticle grip, to provide the extra gripping capability.

I bought the 350D instead of the 20D because of price, I simply don't have the extra money for the 20D right now. Also, I always go on the philosiphy of buying top lenses (hence the L's) and upgrading body later. The glass in the lenses lasts for ever, the technology in the 350D/20D gets out-grown in months.

Considering all the other factors that can affect every photograph (daytime or astronomy) (skill, lighting, tracking, DOF, focus, etc etc) I wouldn't worry much about the difference if you can't decide, and get the 350D. Then later upgrade to a 12+ megapixel camera if you outgrow the 350D.

Roger.

[Merlin66]

I agree 100% with rogerg.
If you worked for the AGE, or were a war co-orespondent where your job and reputation were on the line every day in difficult situations, then of course you could justify the 20D.
For average guys like us who will use it one or twice a week, come on...
the 350D body I'm sure can handle the minor knocks and bumps we're likely to give it.

[cjmarsh81]

Thanks. You had me worried there that the 350d was a little plasticky. I haven't seen one of these yet. I have played with a 300d and thought that felt reasonably solid.

Rogerg. Your theory of keeping the lenses and upgrading the camera body would have been ok for film cameras. However, I do not think they are as compatible in Digital ones. You can't change brands of cameras and keep the lenses as far as I know. And who is to say that canon won't decide to use a different mount down the track.

I find the fact that the 350d doesn't take film lenses very annoying. My dad has an old pentax SLR with hundreds of dollars of lenses that can't be used on a digital slr.

[rogerg]

I disagree.

The 350D takes all the standard canon EF lenses, just as my film EOS 300 did. Those EF lenses have been the same format for something like 10 years or more, and I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

You cannot change camera brands and keep the lenses, but that is usual, that was always the case with film and will always be the case with digital, they'll never agree on a standard format, it's not in their best interest.

I made the choice when I first bought my EOS 300 about 6 years ago that I was going to go with Canon and stick with them for the forseeable future. Having done that, my lenses are compatible with all their current SLR/DSLR cameras and I'd expect that to continue for years to come.

I'm not very knowledgeable on the FD and EF formats but my impression (which could be wrong) is: If you have the older FD canon lenses then I believe there are adaptors to be able to use these on EOS without autofocus apabilities of course. In the comparison between FD and EF you are looking at manual vs the introduction of electronics, with EF they are a standard that's capable of handling extra electronics/processing as lenses evolve vs FD which simply had no electronics.

Roger.

[cjmarsh81]

That's good if canon do keep using the same lenses or at least making the new cameras capable of using the old ones. More than likely I will stick with canon anyway, so that is good to know.

[rogerg]

There's never any guarantees, but I consider lenses much more "stable" than the body. Perhaps you get 20-30 years from lenses, when you only get 5 years from a body before it's out of date.

Roger.

[Merlin66]

I think I've got the best deal so far. About to sign up on the twin lens deal at $1430. Computerworld- Melbourne

[cjmarsh81]

I think that is the place I bought some PDA accessories. They do have some good prices at times.

[Gama]

Well, then theres Nikon. The D100 has the same CCD sensor as the Starlight Xpress SXV-M25 (6 Mpixels), and its a CCD not a cmos chip.
Then the newer Nikon D200 has a 10 Mpixel CCD chip, again not a cmos chip.
Images ive seen are great. I own a 20D, and although a nice camera, its just not a CCD camera, and thus suffers from sensitivity issues.
Do a search on the cameras, as my new camera to get is the D200 !.
Any in the market for a 20D soon .......

[Jonathan]

Roger has summed it up pretty well I think. Spend the money on the glass rather than the body, that's what will make the difference, especially for astrophotography. The body will be very outdated in 5 years time but you'll still have good lenses to use on your next Canon.:thumbsup:


Me too :), that is when Nikon can keep their supply up with the demand for them. Then the Australian prices should go down to where they're meant to be, still won't be cheap though.
And they work with every Nikon lens made since 1977 :P, with full metering as well from what I've read. :D

[Merlin66]

The D200 with the magnesium body appears to be also expensive, reviews quote $ 1700 us (aus$2400) for just the body!!
Sounds like a great camera, just need to mortgage the kids.

[MiG]

I strongly suggest you check out the noise of the Nikons. If there's one area where the Canons are significantly better, it's noise. I've seen comparisons of the D200 to the 20D and it's not pretty.

[Striker]

I would imagine the reason being that the Starlight camera's are cooled thus lowering the noise level.

There must be some reason why canon's are more widely used then Nikon for Astrophotgraphy because when you look at the stats the Nikon looks to be the better camera.

interesting.

[Jonathan]

Have you got a link to some examples Mig and how the tests were done? I wouldn't mind having a look myself before I blow $2500+ on a D200. The tests I've seen for the D200 (done by a pro photographer) looked pretty darn good without using any noise reduction. You're not just sledging Nikons are you mate???:lol:

[Jonathan]

Canon are more widely used everywhere Tony, but it does puzzle me why virtually no one uses Nikon for Astrophotography. There have been some great astro photo's taken with Nikon DSLR's but Canon probably outnumbers them 20 to 1 in camera ownership amongst astronomers. The Nikon D50 and D2x were reported last year as having some of the lowest noise levels at high ISO out of any camera, yet I don't recall seeing anyone using a D50, which is surprising seems they're under AU$1000 with a 18-55mm lens.
Personally, I chose to buy Nikon gear several years ago and now I will be sticking with it because I've had 100% reliability in some pretty awful conditions, and I've got over $7k of Nikon glass that I won't be getting rid of any time soon.:D

[Gama]

Here is just 1 link to a site, but you can google to your hearts content.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/d200-dark.htm
Some darks are shown down the page..
With noise, you can eliminate most from a dark frame, as we all know. But having a CCD as the sensor has a huge advantage over Cmos.
Just leave the camera outside to cool down with the scope. Might not be -10 deg, but 12 or 14 deg is pretty good.If cmos sensors (Even canons) were so good, they would be in production Astronomical cameras. But they are ALL CCD sensors, for a reason.

[Gama]

Dont forget theres the D100, so dont go looking into the D200 if price is killing you.
Just like the 350 and the 20D, we have the D100 and the D200.
Just a different view of the cameras.
Remember that the DSI's are not cooled, and guess what sensor they have ... yep CCD.

[MiG]

No I'm not sledging Nikons, I'm usually defending them on the Canon forums (they're filled with childish Nikon haters).
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/page21.asp (What's the point of a high resolution sensor if noise reduction kills the resolution?)
http://www.potatobear.com/ND200/D200G.htm (ridiculously slow site that apparently shows the 20D is better, but it's so slow that I don't know what's on there)

Having a quick look shows that the situation doesn't seem as bad as the anti-Nikon people were making it out to be. I was just warning about using the Nikon for astrophotography because I had heard nasty things. Nevertheless, if you're buying a camera for astrophotography I don't see why you'd buy a D200.

[Gama]

I have actually seen the noise and it isnt much worse than the Canon 20D.
Your not going to use high iso (As thats were the noise starts to come in) because you get too much skyglow. I use no more than ISO 800 and ISO 400 is perfect, and with the nikon you will benifit from the higher QE, as the 20D has a poor, low 20's and 30's QE compared to high 50's and low 60's with the Nikon CCD chips.
Plus, cool the camera as i do. Leave it outside to cool down before using it.
This brings the camera to 12 to 14 deg for these March days, but down to 2 or 5 deg during Winter.
You can also remove the noise with a dark, but because the 20D has lower sensitivity you also remove signal. Thats were the Nikon Shines, theres more signal there, so if a little is removed, its still much better.
Plus one of your sites is comparing to a 5D, as the 20D has about twice the noise of the 5D. So not really comparing to a D200. Again you wouldnt use ISO higher than 800, and its noise is better or same as a 5D up to ISO 1600.

[CometGuy]

Where did you get the values for Quantum efficiency?

The most thorough testing I've seen comparing quantum efficiency between the Nikon and Canon cameras suggested they had almost identical Quantum efficiency (This was the 10D and D70). See some of the graphs and comparision photos on:

http://astrosurf.com/buil/d70v10d/eval.htm

I don't think Quantum efficiency has improved greatly in the newer model cameras - maybe 5-10%. Its one area that gains are getting harder and harder to find.

Terry

[Striker]

I'm hearing all this great information about the Nikon regarding CCD chips but I still have not received the answer to why no one use's them compared to Canon camera's.

If the Nikon is so great and it's well priced why dont we buy them.?????

Going by this thread it's a no brainer that Nikon are far superior to Canon....strange when the ratio is like 10 to 1 in Canon's favour....or is it all about marketing.????????

We may have to wait for some images from the new Nikon.

[Vermin]

Well I for one did not know about the Nikon's supposed superior capabilities.

All I saw was great images coming from Canons so I did a bit of research into the 350D, 20D, 30D and 5D, and bought the best one I could afford.

If I had known about them I would have researched the Nikons too.

[Gama]

The D70 were noisy, the D100 were a next level up and were on par with the Canon 350, but people were already caught up with the Canon trend. Remember Betamax ?, VHS had the market share and people were spooked (Like You) into buying into the unknown so they bought a VHS even though it was infirier. Same applies here. Your spooked because no one you know has one etc. Remember the facts, a CCD will produce LESS noise per given temperature than a Cmos sensor, although you need to validate the data to see if its fair to compare a camera to 2 or 3 times its cost.
Heres one site for a rundown on Cmos QE http://www.molecularexpressions.com/primer/digitalimaging/cmosimagesensors.html

Also heres a picture taken with the D100, with a very small scope and 8 small frames stacked.. Its a jpeg, so you will see some artifact embeded, but you can get the jist of it. http://www.licha.de/photo_highresolution.php?id=photo/h_M42-L-RGB-plus_CKaltseis.jpg
and here for another http://www.licha.de/astro_photo_340.php . That pic was a 900 sec exposure.. wheres the noise ??.. Its been removed by a dark process, so dont panic and fall into this noise debate.. As long as you have a good QE you can afford a little noise as you can remove it later at the expence of a little signal.
I found the QE info on the web, and you wont find it from Canon, as the poor QE is enough to limit spec listing.
But its out there, just search for it. I got mine after countless searches...

[CometGuy]

The information I have indicates that the D100, D70 and D50 all use the Sony ICX413AQ CCD. It appears there have been improvements in the design - along with amplifier circuits - as the noise levels (both readout and dark) have improved over time. The D50 appears to have the lowest noise of all these cameras and somebody recently posted a 30 minute dark frame that suggests the output amplifer is turned off during long exposures (reducing 'amp glow' and possibly reducing heating of the sensor). However, Nikon apply a median filter to long exposures which degrades image quality noticeably (more so for sharp optics) and the only current way of defeating this is by powering off the camera during the NR phase.

I saw the D100 images you linked and they are nice, but whats your point? I have D70 images on my own website (sadly by Erwin Rene van der Velden how passed away last year) that are among the finest DSLR images made.

Canon don't publish any specs - but it is possible to reverse engineer the specs. The peak QE is actually closer to 40-50%. The article you linked does not specifically mention Canon CMOS and has been around a while. Canon are getting a lot of Kudos for their work with improving the CMOS sensor design. If you don't believe that a CMOS sensor can't match CCD QE then please look at the previous link I posted where a 10D and D70 were tested side by side.

Why all the agro against Canon? I reckon we should appreciate the advances in technology all the competition creates...

Terry

[rogerg]

This may sound strange at first, but hear me out:

I figure it's like buying petrol.

Some people chase the best price everywhere, if it's cheaper they'll drive to get the cheaper petrol. Other people just get petrol from the save service station all the time. Does one end up better off than the other? Unlikely, law of averages and all the rest.

Some people chase the best technology everywhere, if it's slightly better they'll hunt it down and get that slightly better spec'd gear/camera. Other people will stick to a brand they find are comfortable with and get the best they can there for the money. Does one end up better off than the other? Unlikely, at least not because of the technology, law of averages and all the rest. One day one's the best, the next the other's the best.

So, I stick to my original comments: Choose a brand (based on more than just the current technology of the body!), buy the good lenses, get what body you can afford an expect to upgrade the body soon but keep the lenses for a long time.

Roger.

[rowena]

Canon Vs Nikon is like Ford Vs Holden. Both have their pluses and their minuses.

I went canon for a few reasons.

Canon cameras where cheaper when compared to Nikon. (My first SLR was a fim eos 300 and verse a similar Nikor/Nikon it was cheaper. Also Nikon used 2 different lens types as opposed to the one type for the Canon for the bodies i was looking at)

Then Canon introducted the 300D, which basicially was the start of cheaper, higher resolution digital SLR cameras. (mind you this is only 3-4 years ago)...
(Previously Canon had the digital SLRs - D90 and D60... which was _much_ more expensive... but the options and quality on them where much in line with the canon 10D but about $1000-1500 more expensive then the 10D)

I have had problems with my 300D. There are manufacting faults which was basically an error 99 being caused from the shutter. I also get this error now a days if i use the original S series EF 28-58mm lens (this comes with the camera), as opposed to a normal EF lens. (The S series lens you cannot use on a film Canon SLR but can use on Canon Digital SLR). However I have sent my camera back when it was under warrenty and they replaced the shutter free of charge. After the replacement, I'm still getting the same error, but I at least know not to use that particular lens.

No matter which brand I do recommend getting the extended warrenty. Because these cameras are out-of-date so quickly and then being replaced on the shelf within two years because of either bugs being found or 'newer and better' cameras being made.

I really like comparing the Nikon and Canon photos to give you a good sense of the differences these two companies have made. I do like some of the options on the Nikon, but give me my Canon any day of the week. :)

[fringe_dweller]

I kept this old cut and pasted quote from digital_astro (which I dont follow like I used too) from august 2004.
It may be out of date now, but it may go a ways to explaining the popularity of the canon for astro work, especially at the time of writing, to people who are puzzled by their popularity?. Canon have kept that momentum going, I guess, since then.

'The measurements made by Terry and by Christian Buil show that the
dark current of the Canon CMOS chip is under 1 e-/sec/pixel at around
20C (room temperature). This translates to under 1 pA/cm^2. This is
about the lowest dark current I've ever seen reported for any CCD, let
alone a CMOS detector. Other CMOS imagers on the market have on the
order of 100 to 1000 times more dark current at the same temperature.

"I am currently studying CMOS detectors for a very low-power space
application, and the Canon 1D/10D/300D series cameras seem to have
phenomenal performance given that dark-current is the fundamental
limitation for an uncooled application. I hope to soon test one of
these cameras myself (anybody in or near Toronto? You'll get a session
on one of our telescopes!)

Of course, a cooled CCD "astro camera" is going to give better results
even if the Canon CMOS chips were manufactured in a modified form,
but for the future Canon's chip is extremely significant. CMOS chips
are considerably less expensive, can be read out very quickly with
little noise degradation, have low power consumption and surely will
be the way to go for monster mosaics such as proposed for the LSST.
Canon's apparent reduction of dark current implies that not much
cooling is required compared with that needed by the currently
preferred thinned back-illuminated CCDs. The CMOS quantum efficiency
can probably be made as high as for CCDs using standard tehniques. If
Terry's and Christian's measurements are correct, then monster CMOS
mosaics are the way for future astronomical imaging.

Stefan Mochnacki,
Dept. of Astronomy & Astrophysics,
University of Toronto.'

also I was under the impression that canon's (percieved?) superior and larger range of available lenses (especially the L series) was also a driving factor in their popularity. Not just for astro - but people like birders with the awesome proprietary canon Image Stabilising (IS) technology.

I agree with you Terry, the work Erwin achieved with the D70 is truly remarkable, and a benchmark, and surely an inspiration to other nikon owners (and all DSLR imagers) in what can be achieved.

I have had a few nikon P&S's and I dont like the way nikon greedily corners the market on their after market bits and pieces, and charges an arm and a leg for the (usually single) only available bits - I find that outrageous, and this is yet another area canon are superior in IMHO.

[Gama]

My point is you dont have to be dependent on having to buy a Canon just because theres more of them out there.
The cheaper D100 and the D200 can do just as good and better on some occasions as the Canon.
The figures you give on the QE is Without the filter, where as the figures i noted were with the Hot filter screen left on.
By all means, purchase what you want, but dont go for too much hype on the drawbacks of noise etc. As i said i have a Canon 20D, but i would prefer the D200 now.
As for Canon specs, they will release it if you make a formal request. They just dont advertise it.

Finally, here is a link to see how ccd's compare etc.. http://www.licha.de/astro_article_ccd_sortable_compare. php?iOrder=8

[Jonathan]

To my knowledge the current Nikon lens mount hasn't changed since 1977 so someone has given you some misleading information I think. The only thing is that some of the older manual focus lenses wouldn't give metering on some of the cheaper AF bodies, not a real problem for most people. Any new Nikkor lens is backwards compatable to the very first Nikon 35mm SLR's, except of course for the DX (for digital only) and "G" type that have no aperture ring.

As for Nikon v Canon, I doubt there's much in it either way. Nikon seem to be a bit more expensive (but not always), but they also seem to have marginally better build quality which may make the few extra $'s worth it, but I think it's splitting hairs really. Personally I don't care either way, I could just as easly purchased a Canon camera (or a Pentax) back when I got my first Nikon. I have never had a single problem with my Nikon stuff so I am very happy with the quality and performace and highly recommend it.

[Jonathan]

There's nothing in it when it comes to lens quality. You get what you pay for in any brand of lens, but I think Canon has a larger range than Nikon, but I'm quite sure the Nikon range is large enough to please almost anyone. If not, Zeiss also make a few lenses for Nikon's.

Nikon call "Image Stabilising" Vibration Reduction which has been around for a few years, and I can tell you it works very well and is worth the extra $'s. Just don't use it when you're using a tripod.;)

[CometGuy]

Gama,

Regarding "As for Canon specs, they will release it if you make a formal request. They just dont advertise it.". I wonder if this is what your refering to:

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~wang/misc/QE.jpg

I believe graph's refer to the 20D and are as follows:
1. Monochrome sensitivity of 20D (i.e If the sensor didn't have its bayer filters + 'Hot mirror')
2. Hot mirror transmission.
3. Transmission of Bayer filter layer.
4. Resultant QE of 20D with bayer filters, hot mirror, etc.

Not sure of the actual source of this, but maybe it is from Canon (I assume so as the transmission of the bayer filters is given).

Terry

[Gama]

Na, it wasnt that page, it was from a review that did some heavy testing on it. Just cant remember the site, but looks to have similar QE as what i read.
You must have spent yonks before finding that bit of info..
I know i did previously.

[Gama]

Actually they are not..
Here is a couple of quotes i cut and pasted from the web sites.

"
The CCD sensor the D70 uses is unique. The rumor is that it is made by Sanyo for Nikon using a hybrid Sony/Nikon design. It's not one of the Sony-produced 6-megapixel sensors that the D100, Pentax *ist, and other cameras have started using, though it may be derived from the same technology. The D70 sensor consists of a 3008 x 2000 array, and it has massive (compared to consumer cameras such as the Coolpix) 7 micron pixels. That's just one reason why the D70 can produce 12-bit RGB images with rich color and low noise. Like virtually all digital cameras, a filter array is placed over the D70's CCD. This filter has four purposes"
From link here :> http://www.bythom.com/D70REVIEW.HTM about half way down.

Then this quote as well:

"The CCD sensor the D50 uses is unique. No, it's not the one used in the D100 or D70 models, though it is certainly derived from the same technology. The D50 sensor consists of a 3008 x 2000 array, and it has massive (compared to consumer cameras such as the Coolpix) 7 micron pixels. That's just one reason why the D50 can produce 12-bit RGB images with rich color and low noise. Like virtually all digital cameras, a filter array is placed over the D50's CCD. "
This quote from here http://www.bythom.com/D50REVIEW.htm about half way as well.
Any way enuf said..

[Merlin66]

Check out www.astrosurf.com/buil
He has a lot of info on digital camera testing etc etc.

[Gama]

Well, i have some good news.
I will be testing a Nikon D200 very soon, as one is going to be sent to me for Astronomical evaluation.
Once i get some results i'll let you all know the progress.
But from initial results i have seen around, i would put off any purchase on the Canon 20D, 20Da, and the 5D for a while.
Also with a little support from the Astronomical Community, they may bring out a version with a better Ha response like the 20Da.
.....

[Jonathan]

I'm looking forward to your results Gama. I wonder if Hutech are going to bring out a modified version for astrophotography.

[Striker]

I also look forward to the results.

I hope they make some more future camera's with the live view like the 20da....focus is made so easy with it.

[CometGuy]

Gama,

I look forward to seeing some more on the D200. I have only seen brief snippets of info so far.

The D200 is getting a bit up there in the price range, however there are also some people reporting that the D50 is a very good performer (Teds sell the D50 for $999 with kit lens - a great bargain IMO). I wouldn't be suprised if the D50 outperformed the D200 for deep sky on account of its much larger pixels.

Another interesting recent note from a Nikon user on the Digital_astro list claimed is apparently it is it possible to cause 'mode 3' by reducing the power supply voltage to a point it causes an 'undervoltage fault' then recovering the power supply. If this is true one could supply the camera with an external power supply that can stepped down using a control signal. This would be quite a breakthrough I think for getting true - or near true - raw images.

Terry

[Gama]

Yes, the D50 or actually any other larger pixel based camera will pickup up a better photon collection, but the problem with the D50 is internal Noise. Its just too much noise, thus the signal get washed out. But still i can Bin the D100 which would eat the D50 alive.
The best so far is the D100, or the D70 with the filter removed.
Price wise, the D200 is sort of the Canon 30D now, but it has a better sensor, and with winter here now, the camera is going to be around 10 deg or less, so noise will be much better..
But like i said earlier, doesnt matter too much with the noise, as the sensors QE is so much better that you could afford a little loss to noise. Just wander how much better it would be if the D200 had no or modified filter..
That would just kick so much arse.

[CometGuy]

If you bin the pixels in the D200 you will increase noise as square of the binning since you can only do this in software. i.e bin 2x2 the noise will be 4x as much, and you will have only 4x as much signal. You will not gain anything. In an monochrome astrocam if you bin in hardware, you increase noise less than 4x since you are reading out all 4 pixels at once.

Anyway, I have asked somebody who owns both a D200 and 350D/XT to do some side-by-side and he has agreed. So I'll report back.

Terry

[iceman]

Look forward to reading the reports and seeing the results! Pictures we want pictures! :)

[avandonk]

This is a comparison of a Nikon D200 vs. Canon 5D. I know that the 5D has about half the noise of a 20D. I will let you draw your own conclusions of how the D200 would perform as an astro camera from these tests or comparisons.
Real astro tests should be interesting.

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Nikon-D200-vs-Canon-EOS-5D-Head-to-Head-Review-.htm

Bert

[Gama]

Under Maxim DSLR you can Hardware Bin a 20D to 2x2. So i would assume and hope the same for the D200, as i dont have it yet i wont know. Time will tell.

[avandonk]

My prediction is the Nikon D200 is not even in the race against a 20D, let alone a 5D. This is my opinion based on purely signal to noise. The other consideration it is only a small sensor. Nikon have set their future on C size sensors supposedly to take advantage of the 'sweet' spot of their lenses. This way their lenses will inevitably deteriorate to only accommodate small sensors.
It is sad when a fine company finally succumbs to the marketeers.

The best example of this is 10MB sensors (in P&S) that are only 7X5mm at best, with pixels about one or two micron. The noise at even an ISO of 200 is appalling!
The other consideration is that even an F2.8 lens with these sensors has an Airy disk of 3.6 micron,which is bigger than a pixel! It gets worse at F8 the Airy disk is 10.3 micron. This is for green light!
If you need more information just look it up.

Bert

[Gama]

The 20D is not better, proof is out there with heaps of reviews comparing the 20D to the D200.
QUOTE " The D200 trumps the Canon 20D (http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/20d.htm) in spades, and every time Nikon announces something Canon one-ups them the next week "
Here is just one site, but theres 1000,'s more http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200-vs-canon.htm.

Yes the 5D, with a larger sensor its better at some things and the D200 at others, and overall the 5D is a better pick, but at a cost of double $$$. Also the chip size of the D200 is fine for the money, APS size is OK with me. But if you want size, then go for the big pro's, ive seen them in the 30Mpixel plus and 3.5 inch square sensor.. Now thats a sensor !.

The D200 has its drawbacks, of course in terms of CCD heat generated. But like i said, the CCD is so much more sensitive compared to CMOS that even with the extra noise you will pick up (And remove Most with dark frames) your image will be captured more quickly. Their will obviosly be some loss of image quality, as will with the Cmos sensors, but in the end (to me anyway) 10 minutes is better than 40 minutes exposures.
There is a reason why Meade or anyone else are not using Cmos detectors for astronomy, as in this cut throat business every QE percentage is money in their bank.
Cooling down the camera should not be a huge problem, with an enclosure around it and a peltier/fan assembly cooling it should do pretty well, even for the Canon series. Theres some good methods out there to try.
Amazing what we come up with to lower the cursed noise.
Heres a link to a good site for the old Cmos Vs CCD debate.
http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp

But at the end of the day, which ever camera one can afford is usually the best camera for the job.

A question, do you own a 20D ?..
I do, and its not as good as you try to make it out to be.
It really needs alot of work to remove noise, very tedious work.

[CometGuy]

I don't doubt that the D200 is a very fine camera, but for astrophotography (deep sky) I am skeptical it will not perform as well as the larger pixel cameras like the 30D/350D or the D50/D70. This is unless there has been a dramatic improvement in Quantum efficiency over previous cameras (Its hard to tell this in normal reviews as they concentrate on shadow noise, which actually doesn't tell you the full story off how the camera performs for astrophotography). Anyway, we shall see.

Gama, I have the 300D (modified) and 350D (standard) and I find the 350D has very low noise levels and is sensitive. As a test I mounted the 350D on a tripod, with a 50mm FL lens set at f2.8 and aimed around Crux I could see stars down to mag 11.0 in just 10 seconds of exposure! A 3 minute exposure with a 100mm f2.8 lens shows stars easily to mag 14.0 - without any dark subtraction.

Terry

[Gama]

Stars will always show down to low magnitude, its the large surface areas of a galaxy or nebulae that has problems.
The 20D has a 6.4 micon pixels, the 350 has the same 6.4 micron as for the D200, its got 6 micron pixels.
While a little smaller than i'd like, still isnt a huge difference.
Regardless, the modified 300D is a great Astro camera, my end results with the Nikon are heading towards the same mods, that is remove the IR filter..
'

[CometGuy]

Just something that completely slipped my mind regarding 2 x 2 binning.

I forgot that random noise sources add in 'quadrature' so that even in software if you bin 2 x 2 you will - at least for an extended object - improve your signal 4 fold, but the noise will only increase square root of 4 or 2x. Therefore the net result should be doubling the signal to noise in an extended object (at the expense of resolution). I see where your going with this now - a 2.5 MPixel 12 micron pitch camera.

There is plenty of software that will bin your images. Actually, essentially a standard resize (i.e bilinear resample) should achieve a similiar result I think.

Terry

[Gama]

Im just hanging out to test it.
It should be here tomorow (Wednesday), but i need a T mount..
I just remembered..... Now look for a Nikon T mount to connect the bleedin thing to the scope..
The biggest killer is the filters for this model. Its pretty bad in terms of killing UV and IR. Hopefully not so much.. Cause in the end the filter is gettin ripped out !.