Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 7, 2006, 1:00 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 132
Default

What camera would be best for trying to take pictures of the stars or planets?
maryccc is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 7, 2006, 1:07 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Camera(s) with great high ISO performance, and very slow shutter speed(s).

Logically, you will not be using higher ISO levels for such photography, but a camera with great high ISO performance usually performs even better at lower ISO levels; than one withworse high ISO performance.
BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2006, 3:12 PM   #3
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Have a google for the Canon 20DA, it's a special variant on the 20D specially for astrophotography.

The Canon 5D is also excellent because of its incredible noise profile.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2006, 7:03 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 132
Default

i need something cheap
maryccc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2006, 7:17 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

The CANON EOS 350D will be a good one! Lowest ISO level of ISO 100, noise-free images at long exposures without N.R., mirror lock up (vibration reduction), and plenty of resolution from it's 8 mega-pixels CMOS image sensor. (It has very good high ISO performance too!)

The NIKON D50 will also be a great choice; it has lower noise levels than the CANON EOS 350D, and superb dynamic range!
BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2006, 8:48 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Default

Post in the digiscoping section on this forum. Some P&S are actually very good for astro as they can be cheaply mounted to a telescope. If you want pics of the planets you will need far more magnification than a regular lens can give.
Also most dslrs filter out infra red which you may not want for astronomy (this is why there is the 20Da). The digiscoping folks seem pretty clued up on all this.

jacks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2006, 9:44 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

I guessed that my physics might already be rusty...Anyway, I don't think that the 9 planets(Including Pluto)in our solar system emits much infra-red wavelengths to be of concerned. (More visible lights from them) It is the stars and galaxies that would be emitting all kinds of wavelengths. (Including radio wave lengths) The radio telescopes can pick up the shorter radio wavelengths from theground, asthe Earth's atmosphere absorb the longer radio wavelengths. Basically, anyobjects that emits heat is emitting infra-red wavelengths. (The image sensor with it's low pass filter removed can detect infrared wavelengths) Or if it had a weak low pass filter in the first place. I heard that the image sensor with a weak or no low pass filter can detect ultra-violet wavelengths as well. The ultra-violet wavelengths are just located behind the violet color of the visible color spectrum in the electromagnetic spectrum. The ultra-violet wavelengthsare having higher frequencies than the visible colors spectrum; out eyes cannot pickup higher or lower frequencies than thevisible light rays. (The colors of the rainbow) Similarly, the infrared wavelengths arelocated in front of the visible colors spectrum; infra-red wavelengths are having lower frequencies than visible light rays, and it is located just above the red end of the visible light spectrum. Basically, any wavelengths located to the left or bottom of the visible light spectrumare having higher frequencies; anything located in front of or above the visible color spectrum are having lower frequencies. Thedigital cameras'image sensors can certainly see more than our eyes can see. (Especially when you point one with it's filter removed, toward outer space...) Our Sun, like all the other stars in structure, also emits all kinds of wavelengths (Radiations) including X-rays, ultraviolet rays, & radio waves.
BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2006, 11:32 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 132
Default

What if I get a slr film camera. Will the quality be a lot worse. Can I use this to take pictures of the moon and planets?
maryccc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2006, 11:36 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 198
Default

Actually, an older mechanical film SLR is a GREAT idea - and you should be able to get something quite good for under $100 - You will also need a Telescope adapter that connects to the camera with a T-mount. You should get one with the Mirror Lock-Up feature.

Good choices would include the Olympus OM-1, the Nikkormat FTn, the Minolta SRT-101 or 102 (make sure you get one with mirror lock-up, not all of them do), Pentax Spotmatic, or Canon FTb
DougJGreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2006, 1:40 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

I personally have no experience with film, so Idon't know how proficient would it be for photographingout ourMoon, and the otherplanets as well...Can film withstand longer exposures than usual without introducing too much noise? (How are you going to post process the images?)
BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:52 AM.