Digital Cameras

I am wondering if anyone can advise on what digi camera
one should buy for all round use including telescopic and spotting scope
use. I want one that is cost effective but also good quality and
what adapters are needed for scope attachment. I would think that
4 mega pixel minimum is a good start for less than 600 US.

Thanks for your support.

If I were you I would visit Digital_Astro group on Yahoo! groups and
read and read and read...
You can get a lot of knowledge from there.
Roman

moT wrote:

I am wondering if anyone can advise on what digi camera
one should buy for all round use including telescopic and spotting scope
use.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:10:45 GMT, "moT" wrote:

I am wondering if anyone can advise on what digi camera
one should buy for all round use including telescopic and spotting scope
use. I want one that is cost effective but also good quality and
what adapters are needed for scope attachment. I would think that
4 mega pixel minimum is a good start for less than 600 US.

Thanks for your support.

In the U.S. at least, you can now get the Canon 300D for around $700 ($800 for
the kit, less $100 rebate). If that's not out of your range, I'd seriously
consider it. The camera performance is better than just about anything else out
there, better than 35mm film for conventional photography, and with the
removable lenses and low noise very good for astroimaging.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

:

I am wondering if anyone can advise on what digi camera
one should buy for all round use including telescopic and spotting scope
use. I want one that is cost effective but also good quality and
what adapters are needed for scope attachment. I would think that
4 mega pixel minimum is a good start for less than 600 US.

Thanks for your support.

In the U.S. at least, you can now get the Canon 300D for around $700 ($800
for
the kit, less $100 rebate). If that's not out of your range, I'd seriously
consider it. The camera performance is better than just about anything
else out
there, better than 35mm film for conventional photography, and with the
removable lenses and low noise very good for astroimaging.

I wonder what others have removable lenses?

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 01:50:37 +0000, Tim Auton
wrote:


The 300D is among the cheapest digital SLRs out there and I don't
recall seeing anything but an SLR with a removeable lens. The Nikon
D70 is in the same price range, but I've heard bad things about its
RAW mode (it's processed [presumably] to remove hot pixels; stars look
a lot like hot pixels to a basic image-processing algorithm designed
for terrestrial work). The 300D sensor (which it has in common with
the 10D) has been proven to be excellent for astro work. If I wasn't
currently flushed with cash I'd be looking at a 300D. As it is I'm
trying my hardest to find a 20D (I thought waiting list were just for
AP scopes and Morgans!).

Even flush with cash, I'd be looking at the 300D over the 20D. I think it is a
better camera. I've seen data that suggests the smaller pixels on the 20D come
at the expense of some dynamic range, costing perhaps as much as a bit (that is,
the 20D gives closer to 11-bit performance than 12-bit, and for astronomical
imaging that's significant. And it isn't clear that the 20D delivers
significantly better results for ordinary photography, either. Maybe even a
little worse.

I know people using the D70 for astroimaging. I wouldn't call it bad by a long
shot, but I do think the Canon cameras are better. Bang for the buck, nothing
really comes close to the 300D.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 01:50:37 +0000, Tim Auton
wrote:

The 300D is among the cheapest digital SLRs out there and I don't
recall seeing anything but an SLR with a removeable lens. The Nikon
D70 is in the same price range, but I've heard bad things about its
RAW mode (it's processed [presumably] to remove hot pixels; stars look
a lot like hot pixels to a basic image-processing algorithm designed
for terrestrial work). The 300D sensor (which it has in common with
the 10D) has been proven to be excellent for astro work. If I wasn't
currently flushed with cash I'd be looking at a 300D. As it is I'm
trying my hardest to find a 20D (I thought waiting list were just for
AP scopes and Morgans!).

Even flush with cash, I'd be looking at the 300D over the 20D. I think it is a
better camera. I've seen data that suggests the smaller pixels on the 20D come
at the expense of some dynamic range, costing perhaps as much as a bit (that is,
the 20D gives closer to 11-bit performance than 12-bit, and for astronomical
imaging that's significant. And it isn't clear that the 20D delivers
significantly better results for ordinary photography, either. Maybe even a
little worse.

The sample images I've seen don't suggest worse ordinary photography,
at least not noticeably. Noise performance seems to be similar too.
I've not seen any results showing the worsened dynamic range, but I'd
certainly be interested to, do you have a link or reference?

I expect to be using it as much for normal photography as astro work,
so things like the almost instant turn-on, improved auto-focus and
faster CF writes were a factor for me but would mostly be irrelevant
for someone primarily wanting an astro-cam.


Tim
--
Anyone who qualifies their comments with "just my
two cents" is usually over-valuing their contribution.

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 02:51:27 GMT, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

I know people using the D70 for astroimaging. I wouldn't call it bad by a long
shot, but I do think the Canon cameras are better. Bang for the buck, nothing
really comes close to the 300D.

Or a used Canon 10D at the same price. ;-) I speak from experience
as I obtained one on Astromart for $825.

I am quite amazed at the low noise of this camera for long exposure,
high ASA images.

---
Michael McCulloch

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:43:51 -0500, Michael McCulloch
wrote:

Or a used Canon 10D at the same price. ;-) I speak from experience
as I obtained one on Astromart for $825.

I am quite amazed at the low noise of this camera for long exposure,
high ASA images.

Yes, they are remarkable cameras. Personally, I prefer the 300D to the 10D,
because I like the user interface and menu structure better, and I like the
lighter weight. But the cameras are essentially the same in terms of performance
(my 300D is modded to give mirror lockup and most of the other 10D features).

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

In article ,
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 01:50:37 +0000, Tim Auton
wrote:


The 300D is among the cheapest digital SLRs out there and I don't
recall seeing anything but an SLR with a removeable lens. The Nikon
D70 is in the same price range, but I've heard bad things about its
RAW mode (it's processed [presumably] to remove hot pixels; stars look
a lot like hot pixels to a basic image-processing algorithm designed
for terrestrial work). The 300D sensor (which it has in common with
the 10D) has been proven to be excellent for astro work. If I wasn't
currently flushed with cash I'd be looking at a 300D. As it is I'm
trying my hardest to find a 20D (I thought waiting list were just for
AP scopes and Morgans!).

Even flush with cash, I'd be looking at the 300D over the 20D. I think it is a
better camera. I've seen data that suggests the smaller pixels on the 20D come
at the expense of some dynamic range, costing perhaps as much as a bit (that is,
the 20D gives closer to 11-bit performance than 12-bit, and for astronomical
imaging that's significant. And it isn't clear that the 20D delivers
significantly better results for ordinary photography, either. Maybe even a
little worse.

I know people using the D70 for astroimaging. I wouldn't call it bad by a long
shot, but I do think the Canon cameras are better. Bang for the buck, nothing
really comes close to the 300D.

I have been using the 300D, without the firmware hack, for astro-
photography. I have been seeing some problems with image clarity, and I
have not been able to determine whether this is due to bad seeing or
mirror vibration. I have pretty much ruled out bad tracking and bad
focus by drift aligning my C8 and using a Hartman mask in concert with
the Remote Capture program. As for the seeing, I could easily make out
Cassini's division on Saturn visually, so I would think that at least
one image would show the division. None have even come close.

I have a C8 from 1986. The drive is Byers, but there are no slow motion
controls. I have noted that there is a decent amount of periodic error,
but I don't think that that should cause the error I am seeing for shots
that are under 1/10 of a second.

Do you use the Rebel with the firmware hack to get mirror lock-up, or
should I be blaming my local weather for my difficulties?

Rob Johnson
take out the trash before replying

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:21:25 GMT, (Rob Johnson) wrote:

I have been using the 300D, without the firmware hack, for astro-
photography. I have been seeing some problems with image clarity, and I
have not been able to determine whether this is due to bad seeing or
mirror vibration. I have pretty much ruled out bad tracking and bad
focus by drift aligning my C8 and using a Hartman mask in concert with
the Remote Capture program. As for the seeing, I could easily make out
Cassini's division on Saturn visually, so I would think that at least
one image would show the division. None have even come close.

I have a C8 from 1986. The drive is Byers, but there are no slow motion
controls. I have noted that there is a decent amount of periodic error,
but I don't think that that should cause the error I am seeing for shots
that are under 1/10 of a second.

Do you use the Rebel with the firmware hack to get mirror lock-up, or
should I be blaming my local weather for my difficulties?

I haven't had any imaging problems that I couldn't attribute to bad focusing or
bad seeing. Mirror induced vibration is definitely going to be an issue if you
are imaging on a C8 at 2000mm focal length with a 1/10 second exposure. I do use
the modified firmware and suggest you do the same. In addition to the mirror
lockup feature, it provides some other nice additions, like flash exposure
compensation- badly needed by this camera- and a higher ISO limit. There is no
reason at all not to apply the patch- you can always revert to the factory
firmware if you want to.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com