cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

DSLR 4 Me

Ohaganrh
Contributor

Hello all!

 

I have been a point and shoot guy for years(stop rolling your eyes 🙂 ), however I now want more out of my photography, more versatility and capabilities.  I'm struggling big time in deciding which DSLR to get, not even completely settled on Canon yet (don't hate me). I'm looking for some insight and help deciding which is best for me coming in fresh with no brand commitment, no prior model commitment, it's all going to be new and equally confusing at first.  Clean slate, where do I start?? 

 

Here is some insight into my needs:

 

- Travel.  I travel  an average amount and like to document everything.  The compactness of the P+S is nice but they're just so delicate and limited. I just want more capabilities and mainly lens options.  I looked into mirrorless some but think I'm more DSLR suited. Variety in subject makes DSLR attractive, close up, far away, landscape, sports...can do it all with good quality. The mirrorless still feel kind of 'tinny' to me compared to DSLR.

 

- Main point for me is long exposure/low light performance.  I'm very into astronomy, and someday would like to transition to astrophotography so would like the camera to be able to grow into that role a few years from now.  I just don't know what matters and how much here.  High ISO?  ISO noise?  Pixel and sensor size?  How important are bigger numbers in these?  Pixel-peeper.com seems like most people rarely surpass 1600 ISO to do night sky star shots.  For the time being I want to be able to take nice clear shots of the night sky(without a scope) with little noise.   Can't afford the 60Da, figured I'd get out ahead of that one. 

 

-Video:  I only really use this for travel, once in awhile I'll shoot a quick clip of something extra interesting, but not a huge concern, don't need a high end video orirented machine.  I do however feel like the vari-angle screen would be handy in shooting stills too, not a neccessity.  Those of you who have used both could be more helpful on this?

 

- Budget.  I can't afford a professional FF camera which I'm sure would be best for night sky shots.  I want to be under $1000 with a basic lens, and preferably well below unless an option really stands out above the cheaper options.

 

Also based on what I've described, recommendations in lenses would be greatly appreciated.  Again, on a budget and for awhile the kit lens will have to do for me.  seems like I'd want a telephoto with IS, the nifty fifty, and a wide angle for landscape.  Any suggestions/ input?

 

Here is what I've been looking at:

Canon 60d, Canon 7D used, Canon T3i/T4i, Nikon D5200, Pentax K50, Sony A65.  The K50 looked great on paper but I read over and over to get into one of the 'ecosystems' of Canon or Nikon.  Not to mention every site I've checked says Canon over Nikon for astrophotography.  Can anyone back that up?

 

Hope you guys can help because I am stumped!  I wish the choices were much more clean cut and obvious.  I'm constantly doing the, 'well for another $200.....' dance.  Where do you draw the line? If canon had greater pixel/sensor size and better noise handling (Nikon D5200) it'd be an easy choice of Canon.  Then again, I don't understand how important that really is when it looks glaringly better on paper.  Thanks in advance!

 

Rory

24 REPLIES 24

cicopo
Elite

Both brands (Canon & Nikon) take excellent photos & I can confess to having recently added a Nikon D7100 to my bag. It will become my travel camera coupled to their 28-300 & a yet to be determined lens in the 10-25 range. I have a lot of Canon & have shot Canon since the mid 70's so I'm very familiar with their gear. I had hoped the extra pixels from the Nikon would help with my Radio Control event photography but unfortunately their lens line up isn't meeting my needs. It would seem that Nikon lenses don't AF as fast as Conon L series lenses & Nikon doesn't offer a lens line up similar to the L's. This may not be an issue for you or countless others but it is something to be aware of.

This is however one of those cases where the equipment limits my results & although I have only been using the Nikon for a short time vs years of shooting Canon I know it's the equipment more than how I'm adapting to it, PLUS the increase (by 50%) in pixel count which means a 50% increase in softness when camera shake / or a poor pan smears the well defined areas in a photo. A higher pixel count sensor requires a more stable user, or higher shutter speed & or better lenses to get the same sharpness the lower pixel count sensor produced when both images are examined at 100%. If you didn't need to crop deeply it most likely wouldn't affect a normal sized print but if you do crop heavily it will.

These are things to consider because they can't be compared head to head at reasonable cost.

"A skill is developed through constant practice with a passion to improve, not bought."


@cicopo wrote:

I can confess to having recently added a Nikon D7100 to my bag.


Heretic!

 

...just kidding  🙂

We often wonder if the other brand is as good or better & in my case I had been researching Nikon since the D800 came out. Fortunately I was overdue for a new camera for business purposes & could justify buying it with the kit lens (18-105 on the D7100) and I found a sale that allowed buying the 70-300 VC lens at well below it's used value if bought with the camera / kit lens as a package. Now I can't justify the 70-300 as a business purchase but I can own it for at least a year & sell it for more than I paid. In actual fact I thought the sale price was too good to be true & the price on the 70-300 went up $90 right after I bought it. It was a good thing that I had printed the ad & took it to the store.

 

"A skill is developed through constant practice with a passion to improve, not bought."

ebiggs1
Legend
Legend

I can give you a few considerations from actual experience. That, I have been through in my photographic life. Plus I am a founding member of our local astronomy club.

The company I worked for was 100% dedicated to Nikon in the film days. When it came time to switch to digital, the obvious choice was Canon. Out went 1000's upon 1000's of dollars worth of Nikon equipment. In the beginning Canon digital was very much better than Nikon. Nikon was, has been, in catch up mode.

The advantage has now diminished and some choices in Nikon beat Canon on paper. Key word “on paper!”

As for comparing lenses, you must specify which specific lens you are comparing. Because you can't say the Canon line is better than the Nikon line is or vice versa.

 

There is cell phone, there is point and shoot and then there is DSLR. If you think a P&S is as good as a DSLR, you probably need to be using one. Oh and, don't forget iPad's, too! Hmmm they are great!?!?!?

 

All the guys and gals in our astronomy club use Canon bodies. Most have the articulated back versions.

(For piggy-back mounting on a scope) You do know you don't need a telephoto lens for Astro-photography. Unless you are shooting the Moon, the 50mm f1.4 will do nicely.

 

I do agree with others if you are looking at Rebel class cameras, it is a coin toss between Canon and Nikon. But if you are in this for the long haul, Canon is the better choice by far.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

ebiggs1
Legend
Legend

On 3rd party lenses, I, as a rule, do not buy them. And, never, never ever buy a used 3rd party lens unless you are certain of it's history. There are just too many pit falls with them. Inability to focus and poor quality and worse poor imagine making. Not to mention lousy warranty service.

 

Canon does not reveal how it's cameras work to other companies. Thus they are left to reverse engineer the process and try to make something that works. Sometimes they are successful but most of time they are not.

 

However there are a few that are very nice and challenge Canon's own lenses. Again you must select a specific lens and go from there.

My list would say no Tokina lens, one Tamrom, the 24-70mm f2.8 and a handful of various Sigma's.

The Sigma “Art” series being some that are fantastic.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

I've owned Tokina lenses & was very satisfied with them . There's also a very good chance i'll be buying their 11-16 f2.8 as my UWA for the Nikon.

 

"A skill is developed through constant practice with a passion to improve, not bought."

"I've owned Tokina lenses & was very satisfied with them"

 

I should have qualified my statement with the "specific lens" comparison. I am sure a given specific lens can be very good and I myself have seen some.

But as a general rule, I stand firmly by my above post. Now, of course, to each his own. I hope you have good luck and usage from yours.

 

The Tokina 24-70 ATX PRO or PRO II are pretty nice glass. I will not buy one but they are pretty good lenses.

 

And to ever consider buying any of these 3rd party lenses used is a crap shoot at best. You better know it's past.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

Thanks for the input ebiggs!  I'm happy to get a response from someone with some astrophotography background.  I'm hoping you could take a minute to fine tune some research I've done on trying to understand what is and is not important for nightsky photography.  Since it will be a little while before I'm able to afford a better scope and mount, I'd like to focus less on astrophotography in that sense, and more on just nightsky shooting with a lens.  Also, I understand it'll take years for me to become comfortable with a DSLR in my hand, and to understand how to properly use one, pair lenses, and so on.  I just want to make sure I have a good foundation in the DSLR to build off of for my needs. 

 

So I've discovered, that Canon is the preferred body for AP.  I realize that by removing the IR filter is the best camera mod, but the 60Da is too expensive, and to get it done second hand is not cheap either.  Many readings I've come across have said not to even worry, just get a cheap older body and get the IRF removed.  That's all great if accurate but again, it'll be some time before I'm at that stage of piggybacking on scopes and such.  Also, I don't want my first camera to be in this class as I assume removing the IRF makes it useless in day to day photography?  So I'm just looking for a good entry level camera, for day to day, yet will also perform well enough for night sky shots as that will be much of what I do, but not all. I'm not expecting Tom Lowe quality images, just enough quality to maintain interest and develop ability. 

 

I live in Genesee, PA.  Near to Cherry Springs if you are familiar.  So light pollution is next to nothing here.  I have noticed most nightsky shots rarely surpass 6400 ISO.  So should I not care so much about cameras like the Pentax K50 who can reach 51,600 ISO?  Is it just too noisey at those extreme ISO levels?  In reviews, they often have sections where you can see ISO performance but I'm not sure how this translates.  Photographyblog.com for example is a favorite of mine.  Yet they do their ISO tests on a crop of a magazine label.  How does that transfer into nightsky shots?  Obviously you really notice the noise against a crisp font and bold contrasting colors.  But when it's implemented instead into a nightsky shot, is it more or less noticeable?  Can you go higher in ISO in real life without losing quality, or without noticing it as well I should say?  I've then checked uncage the soul, which only tests high end cameras.  I know doing AP without a FF camera body is not ideal maybe, but surely there is a site out there for my class, who can't dole out $3k on a camera but want to have some fun and get started in AP.

 

Next up is settings for the camera.  I've read and read on how to do AP and how to set your camera up for it.  It covers things like white balance, manual bulb settings for longer exposures, RAW format, etc.  Are these all settings I'll find on an entry level DSLR like the T4i/D5200?  Or are they not as open to manipulation of settings and more 'auto' oriented? 

 

I'm also considering the Sony a58.  Do you have any experience with their SLT setup for AP?  Would that in anyway be worse for shooting in low light?  I have read about the technology but haven't come across anything covering it's low light performance compared with SLR.  I'm wondering if you gain rapid fire ability at the expense of clarity in low light and excessive noise at higher ISO with the Sony technology? 

 

Thank you again for your input.  It's all very very helpful and I appreciate your patience with me while I try to get a grasp on everything. 

The very best advice I can give you on photographing the night time sky is http://tomjmartinez.blogspot.com.

This is by Tom Martinez, who is a master at photographing the night time sky. He and I became friends at Hallmark where we both worked for 40 years. He has become a published asto-photographer. He is an outstanding scope builder. He is also a very good teacher and lecturer.

 

As for you and your so far stated needs, I suggest a T3i, T4i, or the new T5i as you best choice. I imagine you can get the same performance from brand N, but I don't promote and/or recommend them. Kinda like the Ford or Chevy thing.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

Ohaganrh,

 

Ignore what the ISO can be dialed up to.  The max ISO is never very good.  I tend to shoot at ISO 800 with my 60Da to keep the noise in check.  The image stacking software will try to eliminate the noise, but the rule is the noise can be reduced by a factor of the square root of the number of frames (light frames) you shot.  

 

E.g. shoot 2 frames, you can reduce noise by some amount.

Shoot 4, you can reduce noise by twice as much

Shoot 9, you can reduce the noise by a factor of 3

Shoot 16, you can reduce the noise by a factor of 4

 

You get the idea... and most guys I know say they don't see a whole lot of improvement by going beyond 25 subs.

 

Image "acquisition" is half the problem in astrophotography, then learning how to do image "processing" is the other half.  It's much more complex than processing regular images.

 

The Canon 60Da has an IR filter, but it has a steep cut off into the IR so it leaves most of the visible spectrum (and the all important Hydrogen alpha wavelength) alone.  The camera collects more light in less time than a traditional camera because 90% of the atoms in the universe are hydrogen atoms and the Ha wavelength is the most common.  

 

If you use a 60Da to take normal daytime shots you end up with _very_ warm photos.  You can compensate by by white balance, but the out of the camera photos will always appear much too warm.

 

If you remove the IR filter (btw, if you buy a used Rebel and just want to do this yourself, the Gary Honis website has step-by-step instructions for several Canon bodies) you can buy a filter from Astronomik to allow you to use the camera for normal photography.  Just go to Google and type in "Gary Honis astrophotography" and you'll find it.  While most people who plan to modify the body buy a used body, just be warned that the procedure to modify the camera is invasive and definitely falls into the category of "doing this will void your warranty" (just in case you found a new-enough body that it still has a warranty).

 

Astronomik makes a Canon "snap in" filter that cleverly installs inside the body in front of the mirror.  They call this the OWB (which stands for Original White Balance).  Astronomik makes _very_ good filters.  The "catch" is that with the filter snapped in, the camera can't use EF-S lenses because the rear-most element on an EF-S lens protrudes slightly into the camera body and would hit the filter.

 

Canon is the preferred DSLR for AP work because it has the broadest support.  

 

Backyard EOS is one of the most popular programs on Windows for Canon owners and they of course only support Canon.

I use Nebulosity on the Mac.  Nebulosity supports lots of CCD imaging cameras designed for AP, but on their list of DSLR cameras is just one entry... Canon.  No Nikon, Sony, Pentax, etc.  It's all Canon.

 

This is why the AP community tells you to get a Canon.  It's what everybody uses (if they use a DSLR at all) and it's what all the software supports.

 

Every DSLR will have the ability to do white balance, bulb manual etc. etc.  That wont be a problem.  But you'll quickly learn that you NEED to shoot in RAW and only in RAW for AP.  You need as much bit depth as you can possibly get because the images need massive amounts of processing.

 

I highly recommend that if you're a Windows user, you get Backyard EOS (not free... but cheap and it really simplifies the image acquisition.)  Basically you'll put the camera in bulb mode, connect the USB cable to the computer, and let the software drive everything on your camera.

 

Tim Campbell
5D III, 5D IV, 60Da
Announcements