For astro work a Canon will always beat a Nikon. Even the Nikon D3 will not give you an unmodified raw frame. There is some sort of propriety 'noise reduction' going on even with the Nikon raw frame which loses you all the dim stars and stuff.
It is a shame as the Nikon sensor may be better but we have no way of really knowing. If the noise is not recorded then any claims of image quality are meaningless.
It is easy to have very good signal to noise if you arbitrarily set an upper floor level as noise and then set it to zero.
There is information buried in the noise so that is why we stack multiple dithered images.
Note I am not decrying Nikons. Both Canon and Nikon cameras are designed for terrestial work and for this they are both stunning compared to any film camera. It is only us amateur astrophotographers that use them for what they were not designed for.
I think you are referring to the various WASP arrays.
They each use 8 Canon 200mm f1.8 lenses with super duper back thinned E2V cameras http://www.superwasp.org/technical.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk
If you want the best lens ever built with a focal length of 200mm then the non IS Canon 200mm F1.8L is the lens to go for. It is no longer made and fetches a premium price in good nick. There is a setup with four or six? of these with astro detectors on a fork mount to do simultaneous overlapping fields to give really wide field surveys by professional astronomers. I will see if I can dig up the site.
I think you are referring to the various WASP arrays.
They each use 8 Canon 200mm f1.8 lenses with super duper back thinned E2V cameras http://www.superwasp.org/technical.htm
Damn thats cool. I used to have a 200/1.8 but bought it's successor the 200/2 as it's *much* easier to use for normal things.
[QUOTE=Paul Haese;617091]ah yes the Canon is better than Nikon tripe!
Sorry Greg, but the defining line between Canon Backs and Nikon back is well non extent anymore. Everything depends on the user and the skills of that user with the camera. I am using my Nikon D3 for some wide field astro and found it works very well unmodded. A modded version would be as equal to a Canon modded and only the deep magentas would be of more use. I own a 40d with cooling and modded and it does a lovely job but has more noise related issues than my D3. Several generations apart of course, but an unmodded can produce very good results now with the newer filters. Either Canon or Nikon would be a good choice, being modded will help but is not totally essential.
Sorry if I offended Paul as I am somewhat out of my depth here being not totally conversant with the latest Canon gear/Nikon gear. I remember there was a lot of buzz and excitement over the Nikon D3 when it was coming out and I saw some amazing daytime images with it.
My only experience with Nikon was when I started with a D70 and whilst it was a nice camera the Canon's in those days were far better. Since then I have had a couple of modded 20Ds which are spectacular cameras and I have a 40D for terrestial shots which I love. So I bow to your more experienced knowledge on the subject. I am sure the Nikon is superb.
If you want the best lens ever built with a focal length of 200mm then the non IS Canon 200mm F1.8L is the lens to go for. It is no longer made and fetches a premium price in good nick. There is a setup with four or six? of these with astro detectors on a fork mount to do simultaneous overlapping fields to give really wide field surveys by professional astronomers. I will see if I can dig up the site.
Bert
Sounds hot Bert.
Would that cover a 16803 chip though with 85mm backfocus? 16803 is 44mm square with a 52mm diagonal. It needs the backfocus to allow a
filterwheel and the focuser. Of course it would fit a 5D Mk11.
Would that cover a 16803 chip though with 85mm backfocus? 16803 is 44mm square with a 52mm diagonal. It needs the backfocus to allow a
filterwheel and the focuser. Of course it would fit a 5D Mk11.
I'll check it out.
Greg.
Greg,
The 16803 is 36x36 mm (4096 pixels x 9 um) as is the KAF9000 (3072 pixels x 9 um). The diagonal on both is as you say 52mm.
The 14-24mm Nikon is probably what I will get for terrestial and use the Proline with Pentax 67 lenses, filter wheel and pdf focuser for widefield autoguided on a mount. I am thinking a 45mm and a 150 or 200mm and ED glass.
I was recently reading lens reviews and Samyang 14mm UMC lens appears to be a good fit for ultra-wide astro and terrestrial work according to this review, mainly for very low coma and astigmatism and excellent sharpness across the frame.
I have not tried the lens, just judging it based on the review and a few opinions on the net, and they could be biased. It is about $530 on ebay.
Just thought I'd throw in another lens for consideration. It would not be suitable for guided astro-photography, but my 14-24mm on a fixed tripod stays at 14mm 95% of the time - 114 degrees diagonal field is very tempting on Milky Way shots.
From what I've read, the Samyang has displeasing bokeh. Some even referenced to it as being the Nikon 14-24mm "killer". I wouldn't believe that. The 14-24mm is a one of a kind.
While I still own some very nice Pentax/Takumar glass I have to admit to being seduced by the Canon range. (...you'll find a number of tests on the web that show the Canon to simply work a little better in the dark).
That said, I have not found a long telephoto lens...by Canon/Nikon/Pentax/Sigma etc.... that outperforms a Taka FSQ (...this is a work in progress, but I promise to put some test results onto a web page soon)
Also when considering a lens for astrophotography it's important to remember the lens aperture (not f-stop) will define its limiting stellar magnitude.
Being mindful of this, I have a fisheye (see attached) headed my way from Japan and am quite keen on seeing what sort of a job it will do on the southern Milky Way as its front element is nearly 3x the diameter of my current lens.
From what I've read, the Samyang has displeasing bokeh. Some even referenced to it as being the Nikon 14-24mm "killer". I wouldn't believe that. The 14-24mm is a one of a kind.
But, at $530, you can't really go wrong.
Samyang also do an 8mm f3.5 - seen for $360. Of course with the usual fish eye "distortion" (as discussed elsewhere).
And you can get them with Sony mounts.
Last edited by mithrandir; 03-08-2010 at 08:19 AM.
Reason: typo pointed out by Peter
Im curious (not being as knowledgable as others here on DSLRs). Greg started this thread on DSLR choices including the Eos 1D and 5D Mk2, but didnt mention the 50D. What would make one pick the 5D over the 50D?.
Obviously the MP and sensor size are different, but is that the main reason?, what are the other significant factors, built quality?. They both seem similar otherwise (both use the DIGIC 4 processor for instance), or is it features generally?.
Given they both appear to reach the limit in maximum usefull MPs, would the diff there be that significant in real world use?, and the 5D cant use EFS lenses.
