At this point in time which DSLR rules the skies for deep sky?
I'm a bit out of touch with the new technology, and they keep bringing out new models every 5 minutes! How am I supposed to keep up with that?
Number of megapixels aside, how does the old Canon 300D stack up with the latest offerings?
My main concerns are sensitivity and noise level of the CCD/Cmos at low light.
The other problem is that many of my lenses and telescopes are adapted to Pentax. Been watching the latest Pentax offerings, such as the K100D. But it all boils down to how good the chip is in low light.
Since I already have a good digital compact for daylight photos, should I bother with a DSLR for DSI or go straight to an astro specific camera?
As always $$$ matter. I don't want to go over $1000 by too much.
if you get an old canon 300d, get it modded and a russian firmware hack and get that going, you will be amazed as to how much more sky you will capture for less time.
on the other note, I am not sure how the pentax will go modded, but with deepsky it needs the IR/UV filter added and turn off the noise routine, do separate darks flats and bias shots and process with images plus or similar.
COnfused well then go to the search on the top right and then search for canon or pentax or nikon and have a good read on the site, many questions are already answered.
Kevin if I were you I'd be considering the Canon range.
I'd even be looking at a good second hand Canon camera within your price range.
Lot's of people upgrade to the latest model so you can pick up a good used early model quite cheaply.
As seajanus said the Canons are exceptionally good for astro work.
It seems there is more info around than I thought at first, mostly in the "cameras and photography" forum. I thought that was just for daylight topics so I didn't go there for a read. Silly me.
That's interesting. I don't suppose there's a 350D hack to turn on the LCD display during a bulb exposure so I can see the counter without having to constantly press the button?
