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

"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.

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.

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

"Thad Floryan" wrote in message
om...
"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:


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.

I've read both the S&T and the dpreview.com articles you're refering to.
Unfortunately AFAIK in the S&T article no actual imaging tests have been
done with cameras other than the Canon 10D and D60.

The review on the dpreview.com site does test long exposure timing and
associated image noise, but not of astronomical objects; it would not
uncover the Noise Reduction problem referred to in the French article.
Otherwise it makes a convincing case for the D70 as an astrophotography
platform.

I agree the D70 looks very good on paper, and it's still a prime candidate
on my list. Its usability and daytime image quality seems to be superior to
the 300D and I would very much like it to be good enough on astro
capabilities to compete with the Canon DSLRs.

But, at the moment, only the Canon 10D/D60/300D range has proven to offer
the low noise and usability needed for long exposure astrophotography. This
is demonstrated by VERY impressive astro-images that can be found all over
the internet. I have not found a single astro image taken with the Nikon D70
that would prove its suitability as a long exposure astrophotography
platform. Granted, the Nikon is fairly new, so this might just be a question
of time.

Jeroen.

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".

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.

I think you should carefully read the French website - The main problems
are not really noise.

Chris

Maflu wrote in message ...
[...]
I think you should carefully read the French website - The main problems
are not really noise.

I did, and the article's conclusions include the obvious solution: hack the code
(or, if demand warrants, Nikon provides a modification). The firmware can be
uploaded into the camera (though I don't know how to do it).

What puzzled me were the 18 diffraction spikes in several of the photos; seems
like the choice of lens wasn't the best given several Nikon telephoto assemblies
tout 3 ED lenses and there's obviously no spider to cause the spikes. Is that
(the spikes) something inherent with camera telephoto lenses? Curious why they
didn't shoot through a telescope.

Please note I'm a photography dilettante. :-)