Canon vs Nikon

[Rattler]

Hi guys. I'm wondering which is the best for AP. Canon or Nikon? I have a budget of around £370 and second hand is fine. Canon seems to be more popular but I've read that the CMOS sensor in some Nikon models is better and actually used in some CCD cameras. I've been looking at a second hand model 600d. Thoughts please.

[Mr Spock]

Swings v roundabouts. The canon is more popular but the equivalent Nikon has a lot less noise.

Here's an interesting comparison Canon v Nikon

[Alien 13]

The choice between the two is never easy as both have their strong points, even software availability is not realy an issue anymore.

There are a couple of areas where the Canon is better more suited and they are its ability to be readily modified and compatibility with old M42 or Olympus lenses using cheap adapters due to its shorter lens backfocus.

I am sure you would be happy with either. 

Alan

[happy-kat]

For me it was connectivity, I control my canon using my 7 inch android tablet. 

[xtreemchaos]

canon for me, but the sony alpha is worth a look, I have a A37 and it shows a lot more HA than my 1200d both unmodded. charl.

[MarsG76]

I've been using a Canon, more software are canon compatible, but I use canon more due to the fact that I was a canon man with a from  the beginning and just used my old canon 40D for Astro... later finding  a old canon 40D on eBay for $80 and modded it.

 

[Alien 13]

Although I am a Canon man I do regret not picking up a Nikon all those years ago but once you get tied in its hard/impossible to change.

Alan

[MarsG76]

3 hours ago, Alien 13 said:

Although I am a Canon man I do regret not picking up a Nikon all those years ago but once you get tied in its hard/impossible to change.

Alan

Not to mention expensive if you have a collection of lenses and other brand dependent peripherals.

[Stub Mandrel]

If you like hacking kit, second hand Canons are affordable and amenable to major hacks like removing filters or adding cooling.

[RichM63]

22 hours ago, MarsG76 said:

Not to mention expensive if you have a collection of lenses and other brand dependent peripherals.

Never a truer word spoken!

Happy Canon camper here, but the monetary price per individual picture does not bear thinking about.

[M Astronomy]

I'm using a Canon 1300d, cost £300 new, and am getting some good results without it being modded. Canon lenses are highly valued in the photography community, so consider what lenses you are going to want in the future.

 

[MarsG76]

13 hours ago, RichM63 said:

Never a truer word spoken!

Happy Canon camper here, but the monetary price per individual picture does not bear thinking about.

Same here, I love my canon gear... I have zero regrets... it's built tough, takes awesome images and easily suitable for astrophotography... modded or not...

I'm sure that a Nikon user would not regret their choice either, noise wise both would be similar, long exposure thermal noise will plague both uncooled DSLRs, and a lit of not most of the work is in post exposure processing.

Canon has a "more suited" for Astro feel to it... must DSLRs astroimagers use canons and software compatibility is a result of its popularity... not just hardware but also with raw files...

[MarsG76]

Talking about RAW files...

Canon RAW (CR2) are just that RAW, completely unaltered... but Nikon raw is slightly processed and I read about how some imagers found that Nikon raw processing removed stars thinking it was noise!!!

That might be a reason to why some perceive Nikon noise level to be less than canon!

That noise reduction should be taken care of in post and stacking rather than per sub by camera, resulting in a loss of stars.

[Mr Spock]

27 minutes ago, MarsG76 said:

Talking about RAW files...

Canon RAW (CR2) are just that RAW, completely unaltered... but Nikon raw is slightly processed and I read about how some imagers found that Nikon raw processing removed stars thinking it was noise!!!

That might be a reason to why some perceive Nikon noise level to be less than canon!

That noise reduction should be taken care of in post and stacking rather than per sub by camera, resulting in a loss of stars.

Sorry, completely false - all of it. Processed RAW images were gone in the days of the old D70 back in 2004. Nikon's better noise performance is down to using better sensors.

[MarsG76]

6 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

Sorry, completely false - all of it. Processed RAW images were gone in the days of the old D70 back in 2004. Nikon's better noise performance is down to using better sensors.

Maybe, I am a canon user so have not tested this, it's just what I read about Nikon raw... the thing is, this was talked about on CN (I think it was CN, a Astro forum nonetheless) only in the last few years... still we are talkIng DSLR imaging and for truly pure imaging both would need to be cooled in not using a Astro CCD/CMOS.

 

[Mr Spock]

Therein lies the danger of repeating things you have read somewhere without knowing the true facts 

[parallaxerr]

1 hour ago, Mr Spock said:

Sorry, completely false - all of it. Processed RAW images were gone in the days of the old D70 back in 2004. Nikon's better noise performance is down to using better sensors.

Agreed - one of the main reasons I think Canons continue to be recommended over Nikon, the old "star eater" stories are consigned to the history books now but they get dragged up occasionally.

I use a Nikon and the read noise is very low. No noticeable difference processing images with or without dark frame subtraction.

[Stub Mandrel]

2 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

Sorry, completely false - all of it. Processed RAW images were gone in the days of the old D70 back in 2004. Nikon's better noise performance is down to using better sensors.

It seems the choice of model is more important than whether it's a Canon or a Nikon.

Summary here:

https://petapixel.com/2016/07/08/comparing-sensor-noise-top-cameras/

Full data here (2016) so quite up to date):

http://www.brendandaveyphotography.com/more/long-exposure-sensor-testing/

[happy-kat]

Those tests don't allow for in camera noise reduction star eating analysis, arguably the cleanest image to look at has the potential to have wiped out the most stars. This is still a current issue today with some Sony cameras but that's hidden from those tests.

[Alien 13]

27 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

It seems the choice of model is more important than whether it's a Canon or a Nikon.

Summary here:

https://petapixel.com/2016/07/08/comparing-sensor-noise-top-cameras/

Full data here (2016) so quite up to date):

http://www.brendandaveyphotography.com/more/long-exposure-sensor-testing/

Interesting, If I am reading it correct then my 80D has far lower noise at higher ISO long exposures than the equivalent Nikon D7200..

Alan

[Stub Mandrel]

1 hour ago, happy-kat said:

Those tests don't allow for in camera noise reduction star eating analysis, arguably the cleanest image to look at has the potential to have wiped out the most stars. This is still a current issue today with some Sony cameras but that's hidden from those tests.

 
It's avery simple test, admittedly but:

Quote

 

Davey also found that some cameras appear to be performing extra noise reduction on photos regardless of camera settings.

“A good example of this is the Fuji X-Pro2,” Davey tells PetaPixel. “It appears that the sensor actually gets better with longer exposures. Mmm… ok.”

 

 

[MarsG76]

3 hours ago, parallaxerr said:

No noticeable difference processing images with or without dark frame subtraction.

Exactly the same thing with my 40D... I stopped dark frame subtraction since due to no positive difference it was a waste of time.

 

[MarsG76]

4 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

Therein lies the danger of repeating things you have read somewhere without knowing the true facts 

Has any one actually done a test to see whether Nikon processing doesn't kill stars as noise?

Majority of Canon users will say "canon bettah", majority of Nikon users say "Nikon bettah".. and truth is cooled sensor is best... Nikon vs Canon is like Amiga vs IBM Compatible in the past....

[MarsG76]

3 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

It seems the choice of model is more important than whether it's a Canon or a Nikon.

Summary here:

https://petapixel.com/2016/07/08/comparing-sensor-noise-top-cameras/

Full data here (2016) so quite up to date):

http://www.brendandaveyphotography.com/more/long-exposure-sensor-testing/

Looking at the link, all cameras on there will benefit from dithering, noise reduction and stacking... but I'm very impressed with the Fuji-x... seems to be the cleanest...

 

[MarsG76]

2 hours ago, happy-kat said:

Those tests don't allow for in camera noise reduction star eating analysis, arguably the cleanest image to look at has the potential to have wiped out the most stars. This is still a current issue today with some Sony cameras but that's hidden from those tests.

Yup... at the end of the day, use what you're most comfortable with, the unit that will give you personally the best results.

Why and how can anyone call a image file "RAW" if it has any processing to it...  raw is meant to be that, RAW, unaltered and it's the imager who will decide to what to do with all of the data.

Even though Nikon might claim that their units no longer process their raw files anymore, I doubt very much that they rewrote their code from scratch and most likely it might still have a leftover from the old code...