|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Canon A70 instead? (was Canon S400 ok for astro?)
In article ,
Esmail Bonakdarian wrote: John Steinberg wrote: Esmail Bonakdarian wrote: The camera is the Canon PowerShot S400. I used one, briefly, recently. Thought it was well made and fairly feature rich. Only problem, for me, was that it's a wee bit too small. Hi John, Well, I made the track to the local Best Buy and was simply surprised how tiny the S400 is. Now I am thinking of getting the A70 instead. While it's only 3.2 megapixels instead of 4, it does have full manual controls, and a video mode of 640x480 (instead 320x200 for the S400). I am thinking that the video mode might come in handy for collecting and then later stacking images, but I know very little about astro photography at this point. This camera might give me a good starting point for exploring. Still, having full control over settings is a plus. And the camera isn't so tiny that I might forget or step on it ;-) but still not a big huge hunk of technology. And it's $100-150 cheaper. I can't see why I would need to have 4 megapixels at this point. I don't plan on printing poster sized pics, mostly just put them on-line and print out a few in "regular" print size (5x7?). The reason you might want 4 megtapixels is for cropping daytime photos. Especially with moving objects (like kids) I find myself mostly using the camera zoomed out (wide angle), and later cropping away the extraneous parts of the image on my computer. If you throw away the outer half of a 4 MP image, you still have a 2 MP image left. If you ever print 8x10s, 2 MP is about the minimum. So, using a camera with more pixels than you need functions as a useful type of digital zoom. The worst thying to do is zoom in, and then mmiss your subject because they move. Another reason for favoring the wide end of the zoom is its faster f/ratio. As an example, the S400 is f/2.8 at its wide end, but only f/4.9 at its telephoto end. Large flash cards (I use a 256 MB card in my S400) are cheap enough, so in-camera storage isn't a problem. As for its small size, the benefit is pocketabiliity -- carrrying it in your pocket whenever you go somewhere that might be interesting. I wonder if anyone has used the Canon A70 successfully for some astro pics ... I certainly would try out various things. Esmail --- Esmail Bonakdarian - esmailATmyrealboxDOTcom - http://www.cs.mercer.edu/bonak 32N 83W |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Canon A70 instead? (was Canon S400 ok for astro?)
I've been using a Canon Powershot A70 camera for a couple of months
now and have had much success. Wonderful stills of Saturn, Mars, Jupiter and the moon have exceeded my expectations. I've been using a camera/eyepiece clamp up to now, but I am anxiously awaiting delivery of a Digi-T camera adapter. All shots were taken through a 10" f/5 newtonian on a GEM - no drive - with a 6mm eyepiece. Exposure times for the major planets generally range from 1/30 to 1/100 sec so drift is no problem. Using the camera 10 second self-timer however, is a must. I've tried video of Saturn and the moon with so-so results. It seems my first (and only) attemt to date was thwarted by poor focus (my fault) and clouds (mother nature's fault). Nonetheless, some frame grabs look promising. Just as soon as these clouds clear, I'll be outside trying again. Would I recommend the A70 ... absolutely! Mike On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 10:09:21 -0500, Esmail Bonakdarian wrote: John Steinberg wrote: Esmail Bonakdarian wrote: The camera is the Canon PowerShot S400. I used one, briefly, recently. Thought it was well made and fairly feature rich. Only problem, for me, was that it's a wee bit too small. Hi John, Well, I made the track to the local Best Buy and was simply surprised how tiny the S400 is. Now I am thinking of getting the A70 instead. While it's only 3.2 megapixels instead of 4, it does have full manual controls, and a video mode of 640x480 (instead 320x200 for the S400). I am thinking that the video mode might come in handy for collecting and then later stacking images, but I know very little about astro photography at this point. This camera might give me a good starting point for exploring. Still, having full control over settings is a plus. And the camera isn't so tiny that I might forget or step on it ;-) but still not a big huge hunk of technology. And it's $100-150 cheaper. I can't see why I would need to have 4 megapixels at this point. I don't plan on printing poster sized pics, mostly just put them on-line and print out a few in "regular" print size (5x7?). I wonder if anyone has used the Canon A70 successfully for some astro pics ... I certainly would try out various things. Esmail --- Esmail Bonakdarian - esmailATmyrealboxDOTcom - http://www.cs.mercer.edu/bonak 32N 83W |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Canon A70 instead? (was Canon S400 ok for astro?)
In article ,
Esmail Bonakdarian wrote: Hi Alan, Alan Charlesworth wrote: The reason you might want 4 megtapixels is for cropping daytime photos. .. I find myself mostly using the camera zoomed out (wide angle), and later cropping away the extraneous parts of the image on my computer. If you throw away the outer half of a 4 MP image, you still have a 2 MP image left. If you ever print 8x10s, 2 MP is about the minimum. So, using a camera with more pixels than you need functions as a useful type of digital zoom. Ah, I see your point. I think I will be ok with the 3.2 mpixels, but this is a useful thing to keep in mind with that camera too. .. Another reason for favoring the wide end of the zoom is its faster f/ratio. As an example, the S400 is f/2.8 at its wide end, but only f/4.9 at its telephoto end. Another good point. I used to use film exclusively (develop my own film and make my own prints) but now working with digital media opens up a whole new range of things I can do. Large flash cards (I use a 256 MB card in my S400) are cheap enough, so in-camera storage isn't a problem. As for its small size, the benefit is pocketabiliity -- carrrying it in your pocket whenever you go somewhere that might be interesting. Yes, the size can definetly make a difference. By the way, do you think the memory cards are pretty much the same in terms of quality regardless of manufacturer? I am fairly certain I'll be getting a larger card too - at least 128MB. Viking ok? I started three years ago with the Canon S100 2 MP, 2x zoom. Whenever Frys had a 128 MB compactt flash card on sale, I bouht another card for about $40 back then. Didn't care about brand, and it didn't seem to make any difference. [Viking is actually a name brand, so they should be Fine]. I eventually accumulated about seven cards, enough to take a week trip without reusing cards. When I got the 4 MP Canon S400 this spring, I bought a couple of 256 MB cards, and paid a bit extra for faster write speed, since that ultimately determines how rapidly you can take shots. A 128 MB card with a 2 MP camera (or 256 MB with a 4 MP camera) holds about 200 images at Canon's fine commpression setting. Canon claims that their newer camera have a better image processing chip which uses less power. Last summer on trips, I found that the S400 would shoot (mostly using the view finder, not the screen) two days worth of shots before running out of batttery. Out of paranoia, I usually carry a spare flash card and changed second battery on trips. Thanks for the post, I'm learning a lot. Esmail -- Esmail Bonakdarian - esmailATmyrealboxDOTcom - http://www.cs.mercer.edu/bonak 32N 83W |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon S400 ok for astro? | Alson Wong | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | October 25th 03 03:07 PM |
Canon EOS Rebel Digital | Tdcarls | Amateur Astronomy | 9 | September 22nd 03 07:58 PM |
Canon IS binocs/Nikon Superior E/Fuji 16x70. | David McHarg | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | August 14th 03 11:39 PM |