Canon 10D vs. Nikon D70 for astrophotography

http://astrosurf.com/buil/d70v10d/eval.htm

Text in French, but with inline English translation. Interesting observation:

"[...] the internal firmware applied a median like
filter to the three layers of the image for erase hot
pixels (local intense thermal signal). This processing
is not mentioned in Nikon documentation [...]
the RAW format of Nikon D70 is not a true raw format
[...] an image which would reflected the outgoing
signal of a CCD sensor [...]"

There is, however, a blunt workaround.

wrote in message
om...
http://astrosurf.com/buil/d70v10d/eval.htm

Text in French, but with inline English translation. Interesting observation:
There is, however, a blunt workaround.

Thanks for posting - I'm a 10D and an ETX-105 owner and I've learned a lot

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ms1938/

wrote in message
om...
http://astrosurf.com/buil/d70v10d/eval.htm

Text in French, but with inline English translation. Interesting
observation:

"[...] the internal firmware applied a median like
filter to the three layers of the image for erase hot
pixels (local intense thermal signal). This processing
is not mentioned in Nikon documentation [...]
the RAW format of Nikon D70 is not a true raw format
[...] an image which would reflected the outgoing
signal of a CCD sensor [...]"

There is, however, a blunt workaround.

This is not very good news for those of use who (like me) were considering
the D70 as an alternative to the Canon 300D.

Although the D70 looks like a great camera for daytime shooting, its
insensitivity in the H-Alpha region, the (albeit fixable) problems in the
"Noise Reduction" mode and the significantly higher CCD noise compared to
the 300D make the D70 a lot less interesting for long exposure
astrophotography. Too bad.

Jeroen.

Jeroen Smaal wrote:
wrote in message
om...

http://astrosurf.com/buil/d70v10d/eval.htm

Text in French, but with inline English translation. Interesting

observation:

"[...] the internal firmware applied a median like
filter to the three layers of the image for erase hot
pixels (local intense thermal signal). This processing
is not mentioned in Nikon documentation [...]
the RAW format of Nikon D70 is not a true raw format
[...] an image which would reflected the outgoing
signal of a CCD sensor [...]"

There is, however, a blunt workaround.


This is not very good news for those of use who (like me) were considering
the D70 as an alternative to the Canon 300D.

Although the D70 looks like a great camera for daytime shooting, its
insensitivity in the H-Alpha region, the (albeit fixable) problems in the
"Noise Reduction" mode and the significantly higher CCD noise compared to
the 300D make the D70 a lot less interesting for long exposure
astrophotography. Too bad.

Jeroen.


Unfortunately, Nikons digital slr's have tended to be noisier than
Canons, despite recent improvements in their sensors.
Though I bought my Nikon D1X primarily for wildlife photography, I had
hoped to use it for long exposure astro imaging, but initial tests a
couple of years ago indicated that anything more than 20 seconds in my
light polluted sky would be a waste of time.
Having learnt a bit more about dark frames, stacking and so on, I might
have another try sometime in a dark sky just to see what can be done,
but for now, it looks as if Canons are the ones to go for.
Interesting article anyway, thanks for posting the link.
Phil

Phil wrote in message ...
Jeroen Smaal wrote:
wrote in message
om...

http://astrosurf.com/buil/d70v10d/eval.htm

Text in French, but with inline English translation. Interesting

observation:

"[...] the internal firmware applied a median like
filter to the three layers of the image for erase hot
pixels (local intense thermal signal). This processing
is not mentioned in Nikon documentation [...]
the RAW format of Nikon D70 is not a true raw format
[...] an image which would reflected the outgoing
signal of a CCD sensor [...]"

There is, however, a blunt workaround.


This is not very good news for those of use who (like me) were considering
the D70 as an alternative to the Canon 300D.

Although the D70 looks like a great camera for daytime shooting, its
insensitivity in the H-Alpha region, the (albeit fixable) problems in the
"Noise Reduction" mode and the significantly higher CCD noise compared to
the 300D make the D70 a lot less interesting for long exposure
astrophotography. Too bad.

Jeroen.


Unfortunately, Nikons digital slr's have tended to be noisier than
Canons, despite recent improvements in their sensors.
Though I bought my Nikon D1X primarily for wildlife photography, I had
hoped to use it for long exposure astro imaging, but initial tests a
couple of years ago indicated that anything more than 20 seconds in my
light polluted sky would be a waste of time.
Having learnt a bit more about dark frames, stacking and so on, I might
have another try sometime in a dark sky just to see what can be done,
but for now, it looks as if Canons are the ones to go for.
Interesting article anyway, thanks for posting the link.
Phil


Dave Ireland posted his findings about D70 use for long exposures.
In brief, according to him the problems with RAW files and noise of
the chip are very much exaggerated.

Dave, can you elaborate and write here about your experience as
detailed as possible? Thanks for advance.


Valery Deryuzhin.

"Jeroen Smaal" wrote in message ...
wrote in message
om...
http://astrosurf.com/buil/d70v10d/eval.htm

Text in French, but with inline English translation. Interesting
observation:

"[...] the internal firmware applied a median like
filter to the three layers of the image for erase hot
pixels (local intense thermal signal). This processing
is not mentioned in Nikon documentation [...]
the RAW format of Nikon D70 is not a true raw format
[...] an image which would reflected the outgoing
signal of a CCD sensor [...]"

There is, however, a blunt workaround.

This is not very good news for those of use who (like me) were considering
the D70 as an alternative to the Canon 300D.

Although the D70 looks like a great camera for daytime shooting, its
insensitivity in the H-Alpha region, the (albeit fixable) problems in the
"Noise Reduction" mode and the significantly higher CCD noise compared to
the 300D make the D70 a lot less interesting for long exposure
astrophotography. Too bad.

That's odd. The exact opposite is cited in the June 2004 issue of SKY &
TELESCOPE. If you examine their table on page 134, only 3 DSLRs are given
three stars (for deep-sky astrophotography):

1. Canon EOS-1Ds (at $7,000)
2. Canon EOS 10 (at $1,500)
3. Nikon D70 (at $1,300)

The Canon EOS 300D (aka Digital Rebel) only rates two stars and has "limited
functions". The Nikon D70 is stated "low noise".

Basically the same is stated in Digital Photo's 100+ page review of the D70
in which it's also compared against the Digital Rebel (EOS 300D) at URL:

http://wwww.dpreview.com/ (select D70)

I would tend to believe S&T's assessment more than some translated document
which is at odds with two (2) respected journals: S&T, and Digital Photo.

On 15 May 2004 11:28:10 -0700, (Thad Floryan) wrote:

That's odd. The exact opposite is cited in the June 2004 issue of SKY &
TELESCOPE. If you examine their table on page 134, only 3 DSLRs are given
three stars (for deep-sky astrophotography):

1. Canon EOS-1Ds (at $7,000)
2. Canon EOS 10 (at $1,500)
3. Nikon D70 (at $1,300)

The Canon EOS 300D (aka Digital Rebel) only rates two stars and has "limited
functions". The Nikon D70 is stated "low noise".

The one and only useful feature the 10D has that the 300D does not (for
astroimaging) is shutter lockup. I have no idea what "limited functions" means
to S&T. I do know that I've used both the 10D and 300D, and (other than the
mirror lockup) there is absolutely no difference in how the cameras are used or
in the quality of the image produced.

I've never used the D70 for astroimaging, but I did take a 30 second dark with
one and found that the noise level is much higher than I see with the Canons.

You can now get a 300D body for under $600. That's tough to beat!

_________________________________________________

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

Chris L Peterson wrote:

The one and only useful feature the 10D has that the 300D does
not (for astroimaging) is shutter lockup. I have no idea
what "limited functions" means to S&T.

For "normal" camera use, there are big differences between the 10D and
the 300D:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/10dvs300d.html

For astrophoto purposes, though, you are right: the mirror lockup is
the #1 change. And one that can be effectively simulated by removing
a cover, so its not that big a difference in the end.

You can now get a 300D body for under $600. That's tough to beat!

Modified 300D for astro-photography:

http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/canon/index.htm

The bad news:

http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/camlist.htm

.... $1500.

http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/canon/index.htm

The bad news:

http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/camlist.htm

... $1500.

The price is not the only bad news. On top of paying up to $900 extra for
the modification, one must also give up any warranty from Canon. This means
that if your camera self-destructs in one week, you've got nothing.

Al


wrote in message
om...
Chris L Peterson wrote:

The one and only useful feature the 10D has that the 300D does
not (for astroimaging) is shutter lockup. I have no idea
what "limited functions" means to S&T.

For "normal" camera use, there are big differences between the 10D and
the 300D:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/10dvs300d.html

For astrophoto purposes, though, you are right: the mirror lockup is
the #1 change. And one that can be effectively simulated by removing
a cover, so its not that big a difference in the end.

You can now get a 300D body for under $600. That's tough to beat!

Modified 300D for astro-photography:

http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/canon/index.htm

The bad news:

http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/camlist.htm

... $1500.

On 17 May 2004 09:18:25 -0700, wrote:

Modified 300D for astro-photography:

http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/canon/index.htm

The bad news:

http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/camlist.htm

... $1500.

An insane option, IMO. This camera is fundamentally intended for "normal"
imaging. With this mod, you give that up, you give up the warranty, and you end
up with a total investment in the same range as you could get a proper
astronomical imaging camera for anyway. While the 300D does a better job at
astroimaging than any other digital camera I've seen, it still doesn't come
close to what a good, cooled, B&W astrocamera is capable of.

_________________________________________________

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