Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelopardalis
I’d speculate that there’d be more similarities than differences between the 094 and the D850, especially in winter. While Nikon undoubtedly had a hand in it themselves, technologically it would have drawn on a lot of the Sony tech.
The cooling isn’t going to make a lot of difference on a cool winter evening. On a hot summer one, it’ll certainly help keep the thermal noise in check (but the influence of this would be limited in 40 second subs). Down in Tassie, you have to consider how much that is worth to you.
Of course, the other advantage to the cooled camera is that you can create a proper set of calibration frames. But again, how much is that really worth for some widefield shots?
So long as you captured RAW data with your Nikon, then the white balance would be irrelevant since it’s usually just a profile for viewing with.
If you had the camera on the tracking mount, the quality of your images are going to be largely dictated by the aberrations of the lens the sensor is peering through.
|
Hi Dunk,
These photos were taken inner city Hobart, with the city glow directly underneath (east), and facing south, my neighbours' lights were all on too, so I knew it was going to be bad, but the tracking was very poor without proper polar alignment. The Zeiss 35mm is perfection from F3.5 (half a stop down from the 2.8 I used); the Zeiss 135 is close to perfect at 2.8, but at extreme enlargement, some edge aberrations are present. Again, F3.5 is stunning. White balance/temperature can be altered easily in LR, thank goodness, as I hate the uniform dull brown cast of the raw files.
So are you saying that the 084 would not really offer significant gains over my unmodded D850 except perhaps during summer? Food for thought.
Thanks again for the comments.
Cheers,
Richard