Nikon d810a vs modified Canon 6D

[HunterHarling]

I'm thinking about getting a camera to replace the Canon 7d Mk II for milky way photos.

Obviously the nikon is better, but is it worth the extra cost? And would either of them be a large improvement to an unmodified 7d Mk II?

Thanks

[MarsG76]

Any modded camera will outperform a unmodded camera for astrophotography substantially....

 

[Charic]

If you were able to mod the Canon yourself, it would still be a lot cheaper than the 810a, but the Nikon is nice.
There are so many 'charts' for the best, the Canon EOS6D is in there, although un-modded.

[MilwaukeeLion]

The chip on the D810a is so deep into camera impossible to achieve correct distance with my refractor flatteners/reducers.  I'd go different route.

[ollypenrice]

7 hours ago, MilwaukeeLion said:

The chip on the D810a is so deep into camera impossible to achieve correct distance with my refractor flatteners/reducers.  I'd go different route.

Sounds like you need a petzval...

Olly

[wxsatuser]

Canon 6D does'nt need modifying imo.

Have done 30sec exposures with mine that show plenty of Ha.

Here is mine at 7 x 30secs.

[davew]

12 hours ago, MilwaukeeLion said:

The chip on the D810a is so deep into camera impossible to achieve correct distance with my refractor flatteners/reducers.  I'd go different route.

I think there's something you aren't telling us. The normal back focus distance for a reducer these days is 55 mm as provided for from a standard T adaptor. The chip is recessed 46.5 mm, same as all the other Nikons. It sounds as if you're putting much more than an adaptor in the line.

14 hours ago, HunterHarling said:

I'm thinking about getting a camera to replace the Canon 7d Mk II for milky way photos.

Oviously the nikon is better, but is it worth the extra cost? And would either of them be a large improvement to an unmodified 7d Mk II?

Thanks

On cost alone I'd go for the 6D. Getting to be cheap as chips these days ! Modifying is relatively easy from what I'm told and it's one of the best timelapse machines I've seen. At around ISO 1600 or so, the dynamic range is very close to the 810a. The Nikon has the advantage below that but I doubt you'd notice that much. Read noise is better on the 6D from ISO 1600 and up but the Nikon is near invariant so not that relevant.  

If I was using the camera as an all rounder, to mainly include static shots and mounts like the adventurer in your National Parks, I'd get the D810a because it's a superior camera  IMHO.

Dave.

[MilwaukeeLion]

15 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

Sounds like you need a petzval...

Olly

Will check that out, thanks.

[MilwaukeeLion]

10 hours ago, davew said:

I think there's something you aren't telling us. The normal back focus distance for a reducer these days is 55 mm as provided for from a standard T adaptor. The chip is recessed 46.5 mm, same as all the other Nikons. It sounds as if you're putting much more than an adaptor in the line.

On cost alone I'd go for the 6D. Getting to be cheap as chips these days ! Modifying is relatively easy from what I'm told and it's one of the best timelapse machines I've seen. At around ISO 1600 or so, the dynamic range is very close to the 810a. The Nikon has the advantage below that but I doubt you'd notice that much. Read noise is better on the 6D from ISO 1600 and up but the Nikon is near invariant so not that relevant.  

If I was using the camera as an all rounder, to mainly include static shots and mounts like the adventurer in your National Parks, I'd get the D810a because it's a superior camera  IMHO.

Dave.

Yes, sorry, my thin OAG in between.  Stars are not round on edges.