Would the Nikon D40 be any good

[beamer3.6m]

I have the 200mm Explorer on an HEQ5 mount and am thinking of investing in a Nikon D40 camera for Christmas.

They appear to be pretty cheap at the mo in Jessops and I have vouchers so seems like a good idea.

My questions are as follows:

1. Would this camera be any good - I have seen some shots on SGL and they look good to me.

2. Would I be able to achieve focus without the need to alter my scope. The HEQ5 has a crayford focuser.

3. Do you need anything else to make the bulb effect work etc as I note that 30 seconds seems to be the longest without a remote, is this correct?

4. Would he images be an improvement on the Toucam Pro II.

5. Would the field of view be bigger or smaller than the Toucam Pro II

6. Can you use a barlow with the camera.

7. What is needed to connect the camera to the scope.

8. Any other infor people think relevant.

[coatesg]

1. Would this camera be any good - I have seen some shots on SGL and they look good to me.

2. Would I be able to achieve focus without the need to alter my scope. The HEQ5 has a crayford focuser.

3. Do you need anything else to make the bulb effect work etc as I note that 30 seconds seems to be the longest without a remote, is this correct?

4. Would he images be an improvement on the Toucam Pro II.

5. Would the field of view be bigger or smaller than the Toucam Pro II

6. Can you use a barlow with the camera.

7. What is needed to connect the camera to the scope.

8. Any other infor people think relevant.

Nikon makes good cameras - with perseverence, you can get excellent results. (I have a D70s by the way - I used it for the turkey eclipse and the lunar eclipse earlier this year). I'm fairly sure they have a bulb setting, but you will need a remote - either cable or IR. The Nikon would be a great improvement on the Toucam though - and the field of view will be much bigger! And there's no problem about using a barlow (though the exposures will have to be correspondingly much longer than without of course, and it demands more from the tracking).

A t-ring and suitable adaptor (eg a T to 2" nosepiece) will connect you to a scope, though unsure about reaching focus - a standard t-ring needs 55mm between the front of the t-ring and the ccd. It'll be different on different scopes so you'll have to determine where the focal plane is on your own scope...

Things that I would say:

1. The h-alpha response on digital cameras is usually pretty poor - this is due to the IR filter that sits in front of the ccd sensor. It is possible to remove/replace this filter, but you will strongly effect the white balance for daytime photography. If you intend to use it for daylight work, this is something you need to consider very carefully. This is true of pretty much all DSLRs by the way - they are all quite insensitive in red.

2. The Nikons (below the D200) do not have mirror lock up - certain canons do however (and the Canons maybe slightly easier to get "modded" as above). Therefore you need to find a way to contend with the shake due to the mirror movement (eg using the "hat-trick"). Additionally, there is no live focusing ability on the Nikons - not the end of the world, but you have to be a bit more careful and patient in focusing.

3. The Nikon D70s does something very odd when saving a RAW file (this is explained in detail on Christien Buil's site : http://astrosurf.com/buil/d70v10d/eval.htm ). In essence, unless you apply his workaround, the RAW file you save will be internally "manipulated" by the camera before saving (a kind of median filter is applied - even to RAWs regardless of whether noise reduction is on or not) - this results in stars being not as sharp as they should be. I do not know if the D40 suffers from the same thing or not, but I would guess it would...

4. The canon DSLRs appear to be better supported by software from what I can see - there are programs available to help with autofocusing using Canons if you have a suitable motorised focuser. Again - means you need to work a little harder to do the same things with a Nikon.

5. Take some great pictures - google for astronomy images with the D70 - plenty of good images out there so don't let any of the cons make you think it's impossible!

[themos]

great response from Graeme, there.

[iancandler]

My questions are as follows:

1. Would this camera be any good - I have seen some shots on SGL and they look good to me.

2. Would I be able to achieve focus without the need to alter my scope. The HEQ5 has a crayford focuser.

3. Do you need anything else to make the bulb effect work etc as I note that 30 seconds seems to be the longest without a remote, is this correct?

4. Would he images be an improvement on the Toucam Pro II.

5. Would the field of view be bigger or smaller than the Toucam Pro II

6. Can you use a barlow with the camera.

7. What is needed to connect the camera to the scope.

8. Any other infor people think relevant.

Yes but IMHO the canon 400D would be a better bet.

You should be able to achieve focus but may need a short 2" extension tube.

The field of view will be larger with the DSLR

yes you can.. I use a 2" ED one, I unscrew it and screw it onto the 2" nose piece of my T adaptor

It depends whether you have a 2" or 1.25" focuser, either way a simple t ring for your camera and either 2" or 1.25 nose piece and maybe a 2" short extension tube will sort you out.

Dont forget you are going to have to counter balance the weight of the camera on the tube.

A lockable remote lead is a far better idea than an IR one, as you can lock the shutter open for longer exposures.

There are some programable ones appearing on ebay now that appear to use electrnics similar to the zigviews to enable you to program the remote to specific exposure times when on the bulb setting and also allow you to program in an interval and number of shots you want taken.

With such and item it would be possible to automate the image taking process without connecting to a lap top.

[jonifive]

I have a d40 and I love it. Just like you I posted the same questions here before I spent my hard earned. My concise answer would be...for day to day photos...nikon all the way, for purely astropics, save a little more and get the canon.

JV

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

I'm with JV here, I got my D50 as a "normal" camera before I got into astro stuff. For astro stuff I'd buy Canon because all the software is aimed at Canon stuff and doesn't like Nikon as much. Focusing any DSLR is really awkward and ruins my images most of the times that I try it, so going Canon helps as the focusing software is available.

If you go Nikon, get the DSLR shutter software and the shoestring IR remote hardware. It works great.

Kaptain Klevtsov