I am considering a DSLR purchase to be used for widefield astrophotography (timelapse and still) and for scuba diving (4k movies and stills - low light sensitivity is important)
Looking at these two cameras which appear to have come down in cost - Canon is as low as $3300 - and the Nikon as low as $4200 - it's time to consider the pros and cons.
From the research I have done the extra $900 for the Nikon provides un-cropped 4K movies and double the battery life but it's slightly heavier and has more pixels albeit smaller ones.
So the saving I will get with the Canon will go towards a $1500 scuba case and something like a 14mm or 16mm lens.
For timelapse and widefiled astro fields, what are everyone's thoughts on these two cameras?
Nikon D850 hands down, the sensor (not produced by Nikon) is far ahead of the Canon sensor in performance. It is one of the few BSI DSLR sensors on the market.
The D850 would definetly be the "best", especially with the resolution advantage it has over the 5DS MkIV. In terms of noise they are both similar but if you view the scene comparison on dpreview you will see the D850 clearly sharper, but not necessarily "quieter". If you want full frame and 4K you should also consider the Sony A7R III. Attached is a scene comparison from dpreview of some fine text. Unfortunately the JPEG down load and upload here has blunted some of the extra contrast and sharpness in the D850, but you can still see it's higher resolution and higher limit before moire. USe the studio scene comparator on dpreview to view with less image degradation.
To be fair in the comparison below the Sony A7R III is in Normal mode. If it were in Pixel Shift Mode (4 images stacked & processed out of camera) it would be number 1 in the comparison.
Best
JA
Last edited by JA; 29-04-2018 at 01:57 AM.
Reason: typo
It has the best low light performance of all of them, is a BSI cutting edge sensor, less resolution than the Nikon.
Its probably a lot cheaper than a D850. D850 sensor is about the same as the Sony A7r3 (the Nikon may be using a Sony sensor - its not really known).
I believe Sony video is way more advanced than either Canon or Nikon, it has IBIS, full sensor readout and slow mo. There are various log type formats to boost dynamic range. Digital zooming as well.
IBIS is vital for video as jittery video is awful and Sony IBIS is now 2nd generation. It stabilises the sensor so even non Sony lenses are stabilised with it. Canikon don't have IBIS for some reason.
I don't think there is much contest really when it comes to video. Canon started it with the 5D2 then went off the rails with later models.
A7iii is a fraction of the size, has equal or better AF system, is of course very small and light and the lens selection is wide plus often the Sony or Zeiss lenses are best in class being a modern design.
Plus for Nikon and possibly the Canon is built in intervalometer- the Sony needs an external intervalometer, but they are only $40 or so.
Canon is the default choice for astro people but Canon has been sitting on its laurels for some time now and arguably have fallen behind a long way.
Nikon did an amazing job with the D850 but once you use a mirrorless camera it will still feel like a dinosaur. Much like Nokia lost its top spot Canikon are in danger of losing theirs. Sony has already knocked Nikon off 2nd spot.
The A7iii will outclass both those cameras in many ways, not the least is eye detect AF which again once you use it for portraits you would not want to be without it. The Sony A7r3 is a step beyond D850 as good as it is (I don't think its that great for video). The 5D4 is not even close to either the Sony's, not close at all.
D850 and 5D4 are probably near the pinnacle of DSLR design. But the point is the market is moving more towards the inherent advantages of the mirrorless design. Mirrors are simply no longer needed and add a lot of complexity, noise, vibration, size and weight that is not useful unless you prefer an optical viewfinder (there are some who do).
An OVF is useless for nightscapes and astro. An EVF makes focusing at night very easy as EVFs can see in the dark.
If you can get past Ken's {the angry photographer } humourous abrasive style there is plenty of no bs advise on the D850 and other cameras. With Nikons f mount you are open to a world of older nikkor lens that could prove cost effective for widefield nightscapes etc.
- The Nikon D810a does not do 4k video so it's out of the running I'm afraid
- Not a fan of the Sony's so unlikely to consider even though semi-pro photographers do well with them
So at this stage, given value for money, the Canon is probably in the lead even though the spec on the Nikon is better but given the cost of lenses and a scuba case, will try and cap my budget.
Whether you end up with Canon or Nikon, rather than waste money and risk a a very expensive SLR underwater consider a GoPro, relatively cheap will do 4K and very capable underwater.
Whether you end up with Canon or Nikon, rather than waste money and risk a a very expensive SLR underwater consider a GoPro, relatively cheap will do 4K and very capable underwater.
GoPros take terrible stills and the Video can be ok if you use lights and filters.
The scuba cases I have been looking at are in the $3k+ range and are totally bomber. With a Canon or a Nikon, together with the right strobe system, you can take National Geographic Magazine style images.
If you want to use a camera underwater I had great success with the little Sony RX100. I got a Meike underwater case for it and it did not leak. It was easy to use and control. Its tiny and lightweight but phenomenal IQ and sound quality.
I got many great underwater shots with it.
The key is in the processing of the shots. You need to use the eyedropper tool to set the colour temperature on a whitish point in the image. Then the excessive blue corrects and the colours become more natural and you can process the image.
The little Sony has excellent video and a zoom lens that you can control underwater. I really liked it.
On Ebay a 2nd hand Sony RX100 would not cost a lot, perhaps $450 or less.
Thanks for that - was not aware of this camera. Wonder how it does with timelapse for Astro?
DP review conclusion just googled:
The X-T3's most direct rival is the Sony a6500: another APS-C mirrorless camera able to shoot stills and 4K video. The Fujifilm wins out comfortably, for us. Autofocus performance is broadly comparable across the two cameras (though the Sony's Eye-AF system is better), but the operation and handling of the X-T3 is much better, as are its video capabilities. You'll miss out on the in-body stabilization of the a6500, but Fujifilm's array of lenses helps make the whole system more attractive.
The Nikon D500 is another obvious point of comparison. The DSLR would still be our choice for sports, action or wildlife photography but for most other photography, the X-T3's smaller size, higher resolution, attractive output and vastly better video make it the stronger option (though users of heavy lenses may prefer the D500's grip). Depending on your needs, the Fujifilm may have a wider choice of well-matched lenses than the Nikon.
Putting up more fierce competition is the Sony a7 III which, for a fair chunk more money, offers the step up in image quality that full-frame can bring, as well as in-body image stabilization and a larger grip. The X-T3 is arguably nicer to shoot and actually out-performs the 8-bit video of the Sony but it can't compete with its image quality or fully match the Sony's AF performance. However, the Fujifilm is less expensive and smaller, especially if you factor in the lenses you might want, so it depends on your priorities.
The X-T3's impressive video puts it into competition with the Panasonic GH5 and GH5S. The Panasonic pair certainly have better video support features (waveform display, uploadable LUTs for corrected displays, shutter angle control, 4:2:2 internal capture), but the Eterna color mode, along with the ability to shoot 10-bit at 60p are powerful counter-arguments. The larger sensor and more dependable AF even give the X-T3 the edge in some respects. And if you want to shoots stills too, it's a clear win to the Fujifilm.
I experiment with a Fujifilm X-A3, which is an entry level model, but I find the red/near IR (=Ha) response to be stronger than I’ve seen with unmoddified Canon models.
The X-T2 and X-T3 are great cameras - and they can be controlled by computer too, which the entry level models can’t - although because they’re not one of the big two, support is scant, besides Fujifilm’s own control software.
I have the 5D4 and have used it for several years. Wildlife in Africa with large pro tele lenses, landscapes with the odd wedding thrown in.
Its a good all rounder with a top lens selection. Sensor isnt cutting edge but good enough. I dont see a big difference in sensor performance compared to my A7R2 in real world application.
However the Nikon 850 is more modern and just a better camera. There have been questions raised regarding its AF tracking compared to the D5 though.
To be honest I wouldnt spend that sort of money on a terrestrial DSLR for astro as there are better options.