Jump to content

_Sy_

Members
  • Posts

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

_Sy_'s Achievements

0

Reputation

  1. I completely understand about being able to use both the Canons and Nikons with telescopes, I guess I was just being a little picky about picture quality, but you can really see it on the video you linked, when Nico shows exactly the same shot with the 2 different camera's, you can see the amount of noise captured, especially with Canon. He also show how Nikons pick up a lot more dimmer stars in the red light band, so I'm not sure if they have better IR than a non-modded canon. I'm now wondering how much megapixel count comes into play, and whether it is negated in a zoomed in image at this distance, i just check and some of the cheaper ZWO cameras are at 20mp, where as i thought i saw a few of them were only 10mp. I guess it would make it a lot easier just to buy a colour one of these, and if i ever got to the point by where i really made use of the spotter scope, i could perhaps wire it up to my laptop and get a mono camera and filter for the main one. All pipe dream ideas, but i hope you understand the need for wanting so much. I'll have a great think about it all, decide on a nice scope and worst of all a stand and mount to use all of this with. I kept forgetting i need a star tracking mount, when i was getting used to Alt-Az and equatorials.
  2. Thanks for the video link. I have come across Nico recently, I believe he is situated or was in the northern eastern America or Canada (very jealous, good dark sky sites). So I understand what he was getting at about the ISO setting being better at differing levels, and that I think he said that Cannons are better suited for plain Astrophotography, where as Nikkon were better suited to telescope assisted astrophotography. So what i fail to comprehend is why is the lower ISO settings were better, as I always assumed that higher ISO equalled less noise in the photograph. I really want to plan to do Photography attached to a telescope, so now I'm in 2 minds about if i really want to go for Cannon or not. Another issue I'm starting to have now is, Nikkon supposedly don't have as many filters for their camera's, is this still an issue if you bought an automated lens changer, to help with the stacked imaging. One more question, is there a certain type of telescopes that attached a camera better than others. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you also, when i try to log in from my phone, it doesn't seem to want to let me. Also i just went on holiday quickly and saw a red moon of a lifetime from 30,000ft up whilst flying over Bulgaria on Sunday night. I wish i has got a half decent photo of it, but you know those double screen plane windows just say no to any photographs at all. Thanks Again.
  3. Thanks to both Terry & Feock for your responses, I didn't really need deep technical information on either of the brands, it was just information floating around about 10 years ago suddenly came to mind when looking for one to buy, you know how you go looking through Ebay for a good deal and before you outbid someone you suddenly get a thought about buying something applicable for it's use. So you would recommend any Cannons from about 2010 or later, 550D series or later maybe. Nikons on the other hand might be better off to look for something from the past 5 years, as i was looking over some of the specs of each, i noticed the bulb settings on the Nikon, i never heard about the software that could extend the exposure time, i wonder how that worked, if changed the whole software or stitched together very quickly 30 second exposures. I also like the look of the mono camera, or specialised CCD's which are built a little bit lighter and better to attach to the telescopes. Still a little bit new on these, and left me wondering if it were even worth buying a DSLR in the first place. I've seen a few and they really can get expensive, but again i also saw a few starting as low as £150, i assume greatly that these are the most basic of the basic, but even these can be made good use of, and when your comparing 5K camera's to an automated set that could included filters and camera's for less than 1K, would the ZWO be a good starting point possible instead of jumping onto a DSLR and having to mod it. I will have to have a bigger think about what i intend to do and how i plan to do it. In case your interested i would be hopeful to get into deep sky imaging, i'm slowly putting together what hardware goes with what, looking at everything that could be added to a set up, having a laptop that i can attach to the scope and camera's. Even now i need to look at the motorized mounts, the weight they can take, telescopes that can be attached, and cameras that can be attached. It's going to take a bit of information digging, i'm hoping most equipment is compatible with most stuff and that it should take too long searching. I guess making a little starting set up is first on the books. Thanks again.
  4. So I am thinking of getting into astrophotography and of course over thinking all of the equipment I could buy. I used to be into photography, and owned back them a relatively new Cannon 550D, 18mp with various lenses and filters. Anyway .... My question concerns the imaging difference between the various Cannon and Nikkon models. I'm sure the older Nikkon's had a higher MP count, but can remember if the ISO counts were better for the Cannon's. So my question really stems from which do you believe is best for astro-imaging. As some people believe the software can affect the image process, as is with mobile phones which can't fit in the larger sensors. So what type of camera's do you use, is megapixels an issue anymore. Is there much of a difference between iso 6500 & 12000. Are more auto focus points useful when imaging through a scope. And any other useful points you can think of.
×
×
  • Create New...