ICEINSPACE
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
Waxing Crescent 40.5%
|
|
08-01-2008, 02:11 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 559
|
|
40D Astrophotography Disappointment
I was just outside imaging Orion trying to get some nebulosity from M42.
My settings were:
ISO 800 NR On, Long Exposure NR On
5" Exposure
Live View for 10x zoom star focusing
I only had time to do 5 light frames and 5 dark frames this time before clouds came over. I stacked them and the images came out far more noisy than any other camera I've used. My Nikon D50 outperformed this in Astrophotography with a single light frame.
Am I doing something wrong?
|
08-01-2008, 02:30 PM
|
|
Let there be night...
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hobart, TAS
Posts: 7,639
|
|
Got an example Ingo?
|
08-01-2008, 02:46 PM
|
|
Let there be night...
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hobart, TAS
Posts: 7,639
|
|
What did you mount it on Ingo? Are you able to track for 30 secs and actually do a comparative light frame?
|
08-01-2008, 02:49 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 559
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaroo
What did you mount it on Ingo? Are you able to track for 30 secs and actually do a comparative light frame?
|
It's just on a tripod as I've not gotten an EQ mount yet. I couldn't do 30s here anyways due to light pollution
|
08-01-2008, 04:11 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hahndorf, South Australia
Posts: 4,269
|
|
Not sure if 5 seconds is long enough for ICNR to kick in!!??
Perhaps that's it, but stacking should increase the Signal/Noise ratio anyway!
Mysterious!
Doug
|
08-01-2008, 08:21 PM
|
|
amateur
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,967
|
|
I am using 400D but it has only slightly worse noise performance according to Christian Buil.. ( http://www.astrosurf.org/buil/eos40d/test.htm)
5 sec is very short exposure and there is not enough light signal collected (BTW, what FL did you use? what f number?).. light pollution at your site seems to be quite horrible as well, and you used a lot of stretching obviously to bring out the image above background.. increasing the readout noise in the process (banding is visible, but IMO this will be reduced to almost nothing with 10 frames or more), surely 5 frames is not enough to reduce it sufficiently.
You will have to go out in the country....
|
08-01-2008, 09:55 PM
|
|
Galaxy hitchhiking guide
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,134
|
|
Ingo,
Try much longer exposures at least 1 minute sub-frames, preferably 5 minutes.....and yes this means you require a mount that can track. Use the camera's built in noise reduction. ISO 400 to 800 is fine.
Most camera lenses will not perform very well wide open, so no matter what lens you are using, close it down two stops (but sure you are free to experiment here).
DSLR's don't like ubran skies. You'll need to find a darker country sky to boost the S/N in your images.
Cheers
Peter
|
09-01-2008, 06:10 AM
|
|
Let there be night...
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hobart, TAS
Posts: 7,639
|
|
Ingo - as a Nikon owner, I'd be very interested, in your skies, to see a direct comparison from you of the two cameras (40D and D70) by taking images of the same patch of sky for the same amount of time (whatever that may be) and at the same settings - i.e. ISO, speed and f-stop. It would certainly be interesting. Slight star trails are OK - just expose for 10 secs and see what we get, huh!
|
09-01-2008, 06:12 AM
|
|
Sir Post a Lot!
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,763
|
|
ditto to Chris... and the same processing! ie: none! Take them in RAW, convert to jpeg and post them.
|
09-01-2008, 06:26 AM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 559
|
|
I no longer have the D50
I might be able to borrow it back though.
The sensitivity to light between the 40D and D50 is very unequal though. The D50 loses in that. So I'd have to do like F8 on the 40D, and F4.5 on the Nikon.
|
09-01-2008, 07:36 AM
|
|
Let there be night...
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hobart, TAS
Posts: 7,639
|
|
Oh, that's right - you had a D50. Hmmm... we need to do a more direct comparison - one between two cameras of similar age and similar specification between the two brands.
If I get a D300 soon (hopefully wait a bit and go a D3) that'd be a better match to the 40D - they compete in the same market segment, i.e. high-end consumer, semi pro.
I'd do one with the D40 - except I'm not sure what the equivalent Canon is... I suppose the 400D, which is quite a bit more expensive. What IS Canons' entry-level offering these days?
|
09-01-2008, 08:32 AM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 559
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaroo
Oh, that's right - you had a D50. Hmmm... we need to do a more direct comparison - one between two cameras of similar age and similar specification between the two brands.
If I get a D300 soon (hopefully wait a bit and go a D3) that'd be a better match to the 40D - they compete in the same market segment, i.e. high-end consumer, semi pro.
I'd do one with the D40 - except I'm not sure what the equivalent Canon is... I suppose the 400D, which is quite a bit more expensive. What IS Canons' entry-level offering these days?
|
D40x would be close to the 400D. I personally don't like Nikon's new series at all. They don't feel like real cameras to me, and feel like fischer price toys. I loved my D50...sturdy, reliable, and very low noise. It could most likely compete against a D300 if it had 1/3 ISO stops.
|
09-01-2008, 08:36 AM
|
|
Let there be night...
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hobart, TAS
Posts: 7,639
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingo
D40x would be close to the 400D. I personally don't like Nikon's new series at all. They don't feel like real cameras to me, and feel like fischer price toys. I loved my D50...sturdy, reliable, and very low noise. It could most likely compete against a D300 if it had 1/3 ISO stops.
|
LOL!! I thought that we were talking about noise performance here, not camera feel.
On the flip side, I personally (as do many people) LOVE the way the new entry-level Nikons feel - it is THE reason I went with this camera in the first place - well, apart from having a dozen Nikkor prime lenses I want to keep. The new series are small, lightweight and feel perfect in my hands because of the polycarbonate body. Not everyone's hands are the same and cameras handle way differently from person to person. Nikon has had great success with this slightly smaller format - read the general comments on forums such as Nikonians, where you'll find hundreds of comments like mine. After a walking around for a full day shooting 900 to 1,200 hand-held photos I still feel unaffected by its weight - which is a real boon to me. I reckon that other manufacturers will follow suit at some stage.
Funny that you should mention this, and talking of Fisher Price - that's the way the current low-end Canon's (especially in silver) feel and look that way to me. To me they feel plasticky, fragile and clunky, so there you have it! LOL! My Canon video camera is simply horrible - another silver kids toy.
Anyway - what happened to the original thread? Are you going to get you D50 back for a comparison? I'd probably have done this before you dumped the D50, but that's me....
Last edited by Omaroo; 09-01-2008 at 11:45 AM.
|
09-01-2008, 03:10 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 559
|
|
Yeah I kind of side tracked I forgot this was not Canon Photography-On -The.Net forum.
But I love the feel of the 40D...sturdy, feels like the camera is made of nice material and no plasticy feeling either. My photography teacher goes "Now this feels like a CAMERA"
Anyway, over the weekend if it's clear I can do some tests since the person I sold my D50 to was my step-father
|
10-01-2008, 06:36 AM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 559
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry B
|
I do know Nikon uses some kind of blur filter to remove noise which removes some detail and sharpness. Canon shoots fully RAW images though with none of that rigamarole.
|
10-01-2008, 07:53 AM
|
|
Let there be night...
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hobart, TAS
Posts: 7,639
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingo
I stacked them and the images came out far more noisy than any other camera I've used. My Nikon D50 outperformed this in Astrophotography with a single light frame.
|
The "rigmarole" that you now complaining about is what, in your opening question, made images from the D50 more acceptable to you? You're getting confusing old mate....
|
10-01-2008, 01:23 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 559
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaroo
The "rigmarole" that you now complaining about is what, in your opening question, made images from the D50 more acceptable to you? You're getting confusing old mate....
|
Well no doubt the Canon images are way sharper and have more detail...but right now my 40D is really lacking in noise control compared to the D50...
It's probably just the user though
|
10-01-2008, 07:56 PM
|
|
Narrowfield rules!
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Torquay
Posts: 5,064
|
|
The 40D is also 14bit, an improvement over previous 12 bit models (for astophotography). From the reviews and pics Ive seen, youve got the premium DSLR for astropics, perservere with it, its also has the lowest noise in the market, must be a "user anomaly" ;-).
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +10. The time is now 03:07 PM.
|
|