Stock Fuji vs Canon Cameras - Which is best for nebulae?

[Chris]

Hello, 

Surfing the net some time ago I read some comments which suggested that Fuji cameras have weaker IR filters than Canon etc. This got me wondering how well stock Fuji cameras would perform on nebula targets? 

I've since bought an entry level Fuji XT100 and tested it out on the heart & Soul nebula (see video below). Just 60 second subs at ISO 800. 

I'm just wondering how this compares to stock Canon DLSR / mirrorless cameras? I don't currently own a Canon to test them side by side, but I'll probably pick one up for this purpose at some point soon.

 

Edited March 1, 2020 by Lockie

[RobertI]

Great result Chris, you must be dead chuffed with the result. Can you post the final image?

[Chris]

11 minutes ago, RobertI said:

Great result Chris, you must be dead chuffed with the result. Can you post the final image?

Thanks Rob, I was worried until I purchased gradientxterminator which allowed me to stretch the living daylights out of it! lol But yeah, for 60 second light frames with no darks, flats or bias etc, I don't think I could ask for much more from an off the shelf budget mirrorless camera and a 30 quid lens  

The SkyGuider Pro is going great guns too! very consistent subs from the mount and quick to setup!

Edited March 1, 2020 by Lockie

[Chris]

Jpeg below  

[RobertI]

Amazing image Chris that’s a lot of stars!

[Chris]

8 minutes ago, RobertI said:

Amazing image Chris that’s a lot of stars!

It really is a lot of stars although maybe some of them are noise? It almost looks like too many stars lol

[Nikodemuzz]

Thanks for the video! The topic is interesting to me too. I'm starting out in imaging as well, been a visual observer for a while now. I have an X-T3 which I was able to use on a couple of targets last week. Still haven't been able to process more than this one. I also picked up a used 1200D for better astro utility support, but I haven't been able to try it out yet. I will try to make a side by side comparison of these, both unmodded. Since you have a properly titled thread, I could post the results here, if that is OK with you?

[Chris]

1 hour ago, Nikodemuzz said:

Thanks for the video! The topic is interesting to me too. I'm starting out in imaging as well, been a visual observer for a while now. I have an X-T3 which I was able to use on a couple of targets last week. Still haven't been able to process more than this one. I also picked up a used 1200D for better astro utility support, but I haven't been able to try it out yet. I will try to make a side by side comparison of these, both unmodded. Since you have a properly titled thread, I could post the results here, if that is OK with you?

By all means, please use this thread for any comparisons. Very impressive image on your thread by the way! I did wonder if the xtrans bayer pattern of Fuji's high end cameras would cause issues for stacking and processing but clearly not which is great news  

[Nikodemuzz]

36 minutes ago, Lockie said:

By all means, please use this thread for any comparisons. Very impressive image on your thread by the way! I did wonder if the xtrans bayer pattern of Fuji's high end cameras would cause issues for stacking and processing but clearly not which is great news  

Thanks Chris, I will report here when I have news. Not really issues in processing, I suppose, but DSS doesn't accept Fuji RAW files as is. However if you convert them to DNG's with Adobe's converter, they work OK. Credit of the afore-mentioned method goes to senior forum members who advised me on it. 😃 I am currently trying out PixInsight, and am seeing some very long processing times, particularly debayering, which might be due to the X-trans format. But I don't have enough information to definitely say so at the moment.

[Chris]

Same issue here. Needed to convert the .RAF files into Tiff to get them to stack in DSS. I used a program called PhotoScape X (free to download) and this seemed to recognise the .RAF files so I could save them as something else.

It was a pain having to convert the files one at a time though. Does Adobe converter batch convert all your files in one go?

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Lockie

[Nikodemuzz]

59 minutes ago, Lockie said:

It was a pain having to convert the files one at a time though. Does Adobe converter batch convert all your files in one go?

 

Yes, very simple and fast. As an added benefit the DNG files are a lot smaller than the TIFF ones. At least for me.

EDIT: Take a look here: https://helpx.adobe.com/fi/photoshop/using/adobe-dng-converter.html

Edited March 2, 2020 by Nikodemuzz

[kirkster501]

If I could get a noise pollution filter for my XT2 I would use that and the magnificent Fuji 16mm F1.4 that I have instead of the Canon.

Something I need  look into.

 

[Space Oddities]

I've studied the question and wrote an article on my blog with my findings, which you can find here  You can also admire great astro pictures done with Fuji cameras, most of them unmodded! As you can see, they don't need any modding  

In short: the Fujifilm cameras use the same Sony IMX sensors that you can find in modern Nikon & Sony cameras, as well as ZWO, QHY... cameras. So the naked sensor is as sensitive as it can be. Unlike other brands though, the UV/IR cut filter used by Fujifilm seems more permissive than what other brands use. I have no idea why, but perhaps that's linked to their weird X-Trans pattern? 

The only explanation I have found is quite old, and only tested first generation cameras, but you can clearly see the effect by comparing these stock cameras at 656nm. Also, judging by the pictures postes in this Facebook group, newer Fuji cameras seem to be still very sensitive to Ha, so I don't think they have changed their UV/IR cut filter.

 

As you can see, a stock Fujifilm camera does a better job at 656nm than Canon cameras. However, it's fairly easy and cheap to mod a Canon DSLR, and once modded, I'm sure it rivals or even surpasses the stock Fujifilm ones. You could mod your Fuji camera of course, but that's really expensive (~£250/300) and probably not worth it.

Not to mention that most Canon cameras are compatible with all astro capture software, which is a big advantage. For Fujifilm, there is 0 software support, sadly, since they have no public SDK. You're stuck with the good old remote control   And, the additional RAF conversion step, which complicates a bit the post-processing phase. 

All in all, I'm super happy with my Fujifilm cameras. They're a joy to use, the colours are gorgeous, and I use them much more often than my older Nikon DSLR. Are they better than Canon for astro? I don't think so, but they're certainly less usable, due to software restrictions. But in terms of image quality, they're as good as any modern camera  

 

On 07/03/2020 at 13:32, kirkster501 said:

If I could get a noise pollution filter for my XT2 I would use that and the magnificent Fuji 16mm F1.4 that I have instead of the Canon.

Something I need  look into.

 

STC is the only manufacturer that makes clip-in filters for Fuji cameras. Take a look here! https://stcoptics.com/en/clip_list/available-fujifilmx/

However, it seems that the 16mm 1.4 isn't compatible with the filter. I have no idea why some lenses are and some others aren't. Perhaps because something is protruding too much inside the sensor cavity? 

Edited March 14, 2020 by Space Oddities

[The Admiral]

On 01/03/2020 at 22:42, Lockie said:

Hello, 

Surfing the net some time ago I read some comments which suggested that Fuji cameras have weaker IR filters than Canon etc. This got me wondering how well stock Fuji cameras would perform on nebula targets? 

I've since bought an entry level Fuji XT100 and tested it out on the heart & Soul nebula (see video below). Just 60 second subs at ISO 800. 

I'm just wondering how this compares to stock Canon DLSR / mirrorless cameras? I don't currently own a Canon to test them side by side, but I'll probably pick one up for this purpose at some point soon.

 

I can't compare the standard Canon response to that of the Fuji, but I must say I've been very surprised and pleased with the red response of my Fuji XT-1, not withstanding the lack of astro utilites and the processing complications with the Fuji X-Trans filter array. I've used it with Alt-Az imaging which involves taking a lot of short subs, so conversion and storage has been important. I originally converted them all to DNG using the Adobe raw file converter, quick batch processing too. I now use AstroArt for the calibration and stacking. See

https://stargazerslounge.com/gallery/image/31949-flame-and-horsehead-nebulae-ii/

That's 122 x 30s subs, but it could do with more!

However, the XT100 has, as far as I am aware, a standard Bayer filter array, so shouldn't really present a problem so long as the RAF is recognised. If you use DSS, make sure that you are using the latest version.

Ian

Edited March 14, 2020 by The Admiral

[kirkster501]

I have read good things about the Hoya red enhancer filter.  With cheap step up and step down rings this could fit multiple lenses.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hoya-Y1RA60082-red-enhancer-intensifier-RA60-filter/dp/B01M6XC78P/ref=pd_ybh_a_7?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=B7XKWT2Y5CGX7CNC2AC9

Edited March 14, 2020 by kirkster501

[Nikodemuzz]

I haven't been able to do the comparison between the Canon 1200D and the Fuji X-T3 as I promised, and now that I went and sold my mount it might take a bit longer still. I did manage to shoot a few images with the SpaceCat and the Fuji X-T3, and I thought I'll share one of the Rosette nebula while I look for a new mount. The Rosette I think is relevant as it is quite rich in Ha. This image is 100x60s, ISO1600, unguided. I'm not particularly fond of my processing work, but hopefully the image provides at least some idea of the capability of the Fuji X-T3. I really cannot judge myself, as I haven't used other cameras and am not really aware of how much is usually visible with these kind of integration times. I'm just happy that there is something! I would also happy to share the unprocessed stack of images in case someone wants to have a go at it themselves.