Sorry, but Canon ceased being the best astro cameras about five years ago

When Sony sensors became the very best you could get.
So, Nikon, Sony, Olympus and Pentax all have better sensors by area than Canon now and yet Canon seems to be the ones recommended for basic deep-sky photography all because someone used a Canon 8mp Rebel in the dim past.

The ONLY exception was the Canon stripped of its IR filter and anyone can do that to any DSLR simply by sending in to a firm like "Lifepixel."

On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:00:38 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
When Sony sensors became the very best you could get.
So, Nikon, Sony, Olympus and Pentax all have better sensors by area than Canon now and yet Canon seems to be the ones recommended for basic deep-sky photography all because someone used a Canon 8mp Rebel in the dim past.

The Canon "eco-system" for astrophotography seems to have developed earlier and maybe that head-start is significant?

When looking at sensor size, keep in mind that star fields are rough on lenses and telescopes.

The ONLY exception was the Canon stripped of its IR filter and anyone can do that to any DSLR simply by sending in to a firm like "Lifepixel."

The H-Alpha conversion was usually easier on a Canon for DIY. If you pay a shop to do the conversion you might want to consider whether to spend that money on a older camera with some miles on it, or on a new camera.

Some Nikons are better than some Canons, and some Canons are better than some Nikons, for DSLR astrophotography, depending mainly on each individual's situation.

On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 20:00:37 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

When Sony sensors became the very best you could get.
So, Nikon, Sony, Olympus and Pentax all have better sensors by area than Canon now and yet Canon seems to be the ones recommended for basic deep-sky photography all because someone used a Canon 8mp Rebel in the dim past.

On the DSLR side, Canon sensors remain very good. Better than Pentax,
similar to Sony and Nikon. Processing inside the camera still makes
Nikon frames less than ideal for certain kinds of processing.

For all but the most technical users, however, any of these cameras
will produce very good results (nothing close to what can be achieved
with a cooled CCD camera and external filters, but still very good).
For most people, the choice of camera is probably dictated by its
other uses and by the investment in lenses and accessories, not by
actual performance.

On Thursday, December 4, 2014 6:58:23 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:00:38 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
When Sony sensors became the very best you could get.
So, Nikon, Sony, Olympus and Pentax all have better sensors by area than Canon now and yet Canon seems to be the ones recommended for basic deep-sky photography all because someone used a Canon 8mp Rebel in the dim past.

The Canon "eco-system" for astrophotography seems to have developed earlier and maybe that head-start is significant?

When looking at sensor size, keep in mind that star fields are rough on lenses and telescopes.

The ONLY exception was the Canon stripped of its IR filter and anyone can do that to any DSLR simply by sending in to a firm like "Lifepixel."

The H-Alpha conversion was usually easier on a Canon for DIY. If you pay a shop to do the conversion you might want to consider whether to spend that money on a older camera with some miles on it, or on a new camera.

Some Nikons are better than some Canons, and some Canons are better than some Nikons, for DSLR astrophotography, depending mainly on each individual's situation.

All Nikons are better than all same-class Canons when it comes to sensors. The easiest H-Alpha conversion can be done on the old Nikon D70 camera. I've done one in 15 minutes myself.

On Thursday, December 4, 2014 9:36:46 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 20:00:37 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

When Sony sensors became the very best you could get.
So, Nikon, Sony, Olympus and Pentax all have better sensors by area than Canon now and yet Canon seems to be the ones recommended for basic deep-sky photography all because someone used a Canon 8mp Rebel in the dim past.

On the DSLR side, Canon sensors remain very good. Better than Pentax,
similar to Sony and Nikon.

Pentax APS sensors are almost as noise-free as Canon FF sensors.

On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 14:27:51 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On the DSLR side, Canon sensors remain very good. Better than Pentax,
similar to Sony and Nikon.

Pentax APS sensors are almost as noise-free as Canon FF sensors.

Noise isn't the only important factor in astroimaging. Also very
important are the temperature stability of noise, fixed pattern
artifacts, and processing performed before writing the raw file format
(some cameras have raw formats that are more processed than others;
none are truly just the raw data as read from each pixel).

On Thursday, December 4, 2014 5:27:07 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, December 4, 2014 6:58:23 AM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:

Some Nikons are better than some Canons, and some Canons are better than
some Nikons, for DSLR astrophotography, depending mainly on each individual's
situation.

All Nikons are better than all same-class Canons when it comes to sensors.

A camera that wants to treat a star as an artifact is NOT to be preferred to one that doesn't, sensors be ****ed and AEBE,MoL.

A larger sensor isn't much help unless the off-axis performance of the lens or scope is good to excellent WRT stars.