Fuji cameras Ha sensitivity

[Maged]

Hi All,

I heard very positive feedback on fuji mirrorless cameras having better Ha sensitivity compared to canons making fuji images compare to astro modified canons, but at the same time I can hardly find astrophotographers using fuji cameras attached to their scopes !!

Can anybody confirm if fuji cameras are that good and if there are some specific models you recommend based on use?

Cheers,

Edited January 15, 2021 by Maged

[Alien 13]

Difficult one to compare, what is true is that camera manufacturers dont put in IR cut filters etc for fun or to be awkward, there is a reason which is due to the camera lens its likely to be used with.  I cant comment on Fuji cameras specifically but even with the canon range the Ha sensitivity difference between models is certainly significant but still limited by what a lens can handle.

The reason that Canon and to a lesser extent Nikon are the most popular for AP is down to third party software availability which is in some cases critical.

Alan

[wxsatuser]

1 hour ago, Maged said:

Hi All,

I heard very positive feedback on fuji mirrorless cameras having better Ha sensitivity compared to canons making fuji images compare to astro modified canons, but at the same time I can hardly find astrophotographers using fuji cameras attached to their scopes !!

Can anybody confirm if fuji cameras are that good and if there are some specific models you recommend based on use?

Cheers,

I believe they are reasonable, may be better than Canon but no first hand info.

Take a look at Digiborg and type fuji in the search box

[Chris]

I have some experience shooting astro with a Fuji XT100. I'll dig a videos I made regarding imaging with Fuji for you to look at. I did find it to have a very low noise sensor plus  a bit better Ha sensitivity compared to most stock cameras, but you can decide for yourself, the image from the video was with 60 sec subs ISO800.  

I really like tactile controls on some fuji cameras and the colour science is spot on straight out of camera, but one thing to mention for astro is that you need to convert Fuji's RAW files to FITS or TIFF with one of the free online file converters before they will work with Deep Sky Stacker.

 

[Chris]

P.s. I would love to try some astro stuff with one of Fuji's digital medium format cameras. Can you imagine!

[wxsatuser]

7 minutes ago, Lockie said:

P.s. I would love to try some astro stuff with one of Fuji's digital medium format cameras. Can you imagine!

You will need a decent scope to cover it, 55mm diagonal or the expensive GF lenses.

BTW the Fuji medium format is a cropped medium at 0.79 where as full medium is 0.64.

[Maged]

6 minutes ago, wxsatuser said:

You will need a decent scope to cover it, 55mm diagonal or the expensive GF lenses.

BTW the Fuji medium format is a cropped medium at 0.79 where as full medium is 0.64.

All I have is redcat 51 wondering if you think it may work with it?

[Chris]

11 hours ago, wxsatuser said:

You will need a decent scope to cover it, 55mm diagonal or the expensive GF lenses.

BTW the Fuji medium format is a cropped medium at 0.79 where as full medium is 0.64.

It's a very expensive dream lol But I was thinking once the price of the bodies drop a little more a MF Fuji would be fantastic for astro landscapes on a tripod or on a sturdy startracker with adapted vintage medium format lenses. I think some vintage Canon lenses cover MF, I saw a YT video about that.

I understand the MF size argument and I'm in the camp that says anything that's larger than FF is medium format. The reason I think this is because 0.79 crop is barely affordable and practical for amateurs in terms of cost and size of lenses and camera bodies. I think to differentiate between 0.79 and 0.64 crop we would need a name like cropped medium format and things are confusing enough as it is. For me at least lol

Edited January 16, 2021 by Lockie

[Chris]

11 hours ago, Maged said:

All I have is redcat 51 wondering if you think it may work with it?

It's a good question, I know it covers full frame but what's the imaging circle again? 

[wxsatuser]

23 minutes ago, Lockie said:

It's a very expensive dream lol But I was thinking once the price of the bodies drop a little more a MF Fuji would be fantastic for astro landscapes on a tripod or on a sturdy startracker with adapted vintage medium format lenses. I think some vintage Canon lenses cover MF, I saw a YT video about that.

I understand the MF size argument and I'm in the camp that says anything that's larger than FF is medium format. The reason I think this is because 0.79 crop is barely affordable and practical for amateurs in terms of cost and size of lenses and camera bodies. I think to differentiate between 0.79 and 0.64 crop we would need a name like cropped medium format and things are confusing enough as it is. For me at least lol

When compared to Hasselblad they are reasonable. 🤔

 

[kirkster501]

I have never quite got on with Fuji and Astrophotography.  I have their X-T2 and the X-T4 and several prime Fuji lenses and they are magnificent cameras for photography and videography, I love it.  You'd think the magnificent 16mm F1.4 would be made for AP but I have struggled with it.

Maybe I need to try a bit more with it and experiment further.

[The Admiral]

18 hours ago, Maged said:

Hi All,

I heard very positive feedback on fuji mirrorless cameras having better Ha sensitivity compared to canons making fuji images compare to astro modified canons, but at the same time I can hardly find astrophotographers using fuji cameras attached to their scopes !!

Can anybody confirm if fuji cameras are that good and if there are some specific models you recommend based on use?

Cheers,

I am one of a small number of people on the Lounge who use a Fuji camera for astro photography. I didn't buy it specifically for that use, but for conventional photography. I continue to use the earlier 16MP X-T1, so I can't vouch for the performance of other models in this role.

The Fuji uses sensors with both a standard Bayer array, and their X-Trans array. The X-T1 is of the latter type. This model also doesn't use a low-pass filter, or antialiasing filter, in front of the sensor (principally because the colour filter array is meant to reduce the effects of moire). As reported, I have found that the the red response of this particular sensor is pretty good, though I haven't found any response curves for it. As examples, here are a couple of images I got which hopefully show the extent of its red response. I am not putting these forward as exemplary images, just to give you some idea. I haven't used an astro camera or modified DSLR to compare it with. I wouldn't want to guarantee that other models are similarly responsive.

Another thing that has impressed me is the detail I can get out of the camera, which I put down to a lack of AA filter. Again, no direct comparison with other cameras. Here is an image I took last April.

All these images were taken with a 102mm APO with reducer/flattener, effective FL ~ 560mm, ~ f/5.5 , the first two using an AZ mount, the last one an EQ mount.

Generally, the sensor is quite low noise, though the above pictures might make you think that's not the case. The total exposures were typically 1 -1½ hours so not that long.

In all, the X-T1 is a bit of a curate's egg. The good bits I've mentioned. The not-so-good bits are

• Fuji RAFs are, I believe, not processable in DSS without first converting them to DNG files using the free Adobe DNG converter. AstrArt does process the RAFs but I'm not convinced that the calibration and stacking is 'by the book' on account of the non-Bayer array. However, AstroPixel Processor has just released a version which has been tested using Fuji RAF files (mine included ).
• Canons and Nikons are ubiquitous in the astro imaging field and as such there is software available (such as BYEOS) which can interface directly with camera, and fittings are much easier to find.

In summary, would I buy one just for astro photography? Probably not. If you've already got one, worth a go. Don't assume that all sensors will behave the same, or else be prepared to invest to find out.

Hope that helps, Ian

[Maged]

4 hours ago, The Admiral said:

I am one of a small number of people on the Lounge who use a Fuji camera for astro photography. I didn't buy it specifically for that use, but for conventional photography. I continue to use the earlier 16MP X-T1, so I can't vouch for the performance of other models in this role.

The Fuji uses sensors with both a standard Bayer array, and their X-Trans array. The X-T1 is of the latter type. This model also doesn't use a low-pass filter, or antialiasing filter, in front of the sensor (principally because the colour filter array is meant to reduce the effects of moire). As reported, I have found that the the red response of this particular sensor is pretty good, though I haven't found any response curves for it. As examples, here are a couple of images I got which hopefully show the extent of its red response. I am not putting these forward as exemplary images, just to give you some idea. I haven't used an astro camera or modified DSLR to compare it with. I wouldn't want to guarantee that other models are similarly responsive.

Another thing that has impressed me is the detail I can get out of the camera, which I put down to a lack of AA filter. Again, no direct comparison with other cameras. Here is an image I took last April.

All these images were taken with a 102mm APO with reducer/flattener, effective FL ~ 560mm, ~ f/5.5 , the first two using an AZ mount, the last one an EQ mount.

Generally, the sensor is quite low noise, though the above pictures might make you think that's not the case. The total exposures were typically 1 -1½ hours so not that long.

In all, the X-T1 is a bit of a curate's egg. The good bits I've mentioned. The not-so-good bits are

• Fuji RAFs are, I believe, not processable in DSS without first converting them to DNG files using the free Adobe DNG converter. AstrArt does process the RAFs but I'm not convinced that the calibration and stacking is 'by the book' on account of the non-Bayer array. However, AstroPixel Processor has just released a version which has been tested using Fuji RAF files (mine included ).
• Canons and Nikons are ubiquitous in the astro imaging field and as such there is software available (such as BYEOS) which can interface directly with camera, and fittings are much easier to find.

In summary, would I buy one just for astro photography? Probably not. If you've already got one, worth a go. Don't assume that all sensors will behave the same, or else be prepared to invest to find out.

Hope that helps, Ian

Thanks Ian that’s very informative. As for me I don’t have one yet but Fuji cameras are always talking to me 😄. 
 

if not I will have to find a way to modify my camera but I was intimidated to do it myself. 

[Nikodemuzz]

I started out with my Fuji (X-T2 and later X-T3), but acquired a dedicated astro camera last spring. The main reason was not the sensor performance, but the lack of support by the usual astro utilities that can be of great help, focusing and controlling the camera from your laptop or even phone. In terms of image quality, focusing will be the biggest challenge if you have only the camera to use and no aids, in my opinion.

Here is a link to one of the photos I posted here, taken with the X-T3: 

 

[Maged]

On 26/01/2021 at 13:39, Nikodemuzz said:

I started out with my Fuji (X-T2 and later X-T3), but acquired a dedicated astro camera last spring. The main reason was not the sensor performance, but the lack of support by the usual astro utilities that can be of great help, focusing and controlling the camera from your laptop or even phone. In terms of image quality, focusing will be the biggest challenge if you have only the camera to use and no aids, in my opinion.

Here is a link to one of the photos I posted here, taken with the X-T3: 

 

The image is great. But I get your point, it will be hard using the camera without proper software support.

[Nikodemuzz]

1 hour ago, Maged said:

The image is great. But I get your point, it will be hard using the camera without proper software support.

It probably will, but it's all relative. With the zoomable live view, for example, focusing is still so much easier than it was before those features! Let alone using film. We are spoiled with all kinds of cadgets and software these days, and the do increase the chances of success considerably, especially for a novice. You can still get outstanding results without them, too. One just has to put more effort into knowing their equipment and how to use them.