Camera for Astrophotography

yybmage · Post by **yybmage** » Sat Dec 27, 2008 10:43 pm

I am thinking of the Sony alpha 350 or perhaps 400 but i thought the canon 450d is also perfect. Anyone with suggestions? [smilie=confused.gif]

Also do not know which one to buy!

swat_pup6433 · Post by **swat_pup6433** » Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:01 am

450 D! canon canon all the way!!! HOOAH!

Post by **weixing** » Sun Dec 28, 2008 2:33 am

Hi,
IMHO, if you don't have any lens, go for Canon or Nikon... just avoid Nikon D40/D40X and D60 as they can only auto-focus on AF-S or AF-I lens which most AF-S lens are quite expensive.

If you thinking of using it for astro also, go for Canon 450D.

Have a nice day.

anat · Post by **anat** » Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:51 am

Go for 450D. I just finished modifying the 450D by removing an IR filter. You no longer need a shutter cable. Everything is controlled via a USB cable.

MooEy · Post by **MooEy** » Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:57 am

i somehow thought that the 350d are pretty gd deals. can easily get them 2nd handed for ard 500 bucks, compared to paying ard 1k for a brand new 450d. doesn't have live view nor 14bit a/d. but still will get u decent amt of star light. and if ur feeling rich, and ready to move on, just ditch the 350d and get a starshoot pro.

swat_pup6433 · Post by **swat_pup6433** » Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:35 am

haha but really i think the 10X in live view is a bliss for AP when it comes to focusing.. like the poor me using 10 D tru its dark view finder at 1X u would kill urself trying to get focus. and its just to troublesome taking snapshots .. zooming in.. and taking snapshots again~

Meng Lee · Post by **Meng Lee** » Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:10 am

Hi,

My personal opinion is that actually DSLRs are more complicated than CCD astro cameras. Compare these points between Meade DSI3 and DSLR:

1) Cost : About the same
2) Noise: CCD is much cleaner and thus more data is captured, easier to process as well
3) Bit Depth: CCD has 16 bits, allowing longer exposure before saturation by light pollution, and more data left after removing light pollution gradient
4) Focusing: CCD focus straight from laptop with no shutter to vibrate the system. For DSLR, even if you have 10x liveview, u will still need to bend over to see the screen.
5) Cables: DSI3 has only 1 cable, where dslr needs 3 cables (USB, shutter, power)

One of the main arguments is that DSLR has a much larger sensor which is really nice, but if you do not have an optical system with large enough (and flat) image circle, then the edges of the image will have distorted stars. Ok, there is a cropping function, but if you throw away data, then you might as well get a smaller sensor. Or you can also downsample the image to keep the whole image, but when you downsample, the resolution is lower which data is also forever gone. With DSI3, you need not have such a large image circle.

My personal view is that, your setup must give you as much data as possible and through the processing, data must be kept intact as much as possible. We do not have dark skies and many clear nights, so if you want to take pictures, then you must grab the most data in one session.

yybmage · Post by **yybmage** » Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:14 am

Well thanks for all your comments. Research on the 450 d is on the way! [smilie=studying.gif]

shadowless · Post by **shadowless** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:36 am

why don't you look at dedicated CCD camera instead, modifying make it useless for normal photography anyway.

swat_pup6433 · Post by **swat_pup6433** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:48 am

haha my 10D still works fine for normal photos. just need a little custom white balance. and maybe a little more work on the post processing.. which is mostly needed for digital photos anyway.