Sky at Night DSLR TEST

[Coco]

Why has the Nikon D90 been chosen to go up against the lesser level other manufacturers?

Talk about one sided. Is it any wonder it won

Guy

[northcanadian]

Hello:

I wonder about that also. I have a Pentax K20DSLR, and so far so good, although I am a newbie and have just done lunar photos.

[Viking]

I think you also have to factor in the ease of resale. Nikons seem to hang around a bit longer that the Canons.

John

[Psychobilly]

I used a Nikon D200 for the first few months of my foray into astroimaging and compared to the 350D it was a lot noisier compared to the newer 1000D its abysmal...

I still love it (D200) as my main teresstrial camera though The newer Nikon sensors ahve been getting a much better press when it comes to low light stuff and I did try to convince the boss in work that we needed a new D90 for clinical photography as i already had the macro lenses and flash system to use with it... unfortuynately he didnt buy it so I havent had the chance to try one out onthe back of a scope...

Canon DSLR's are stil beter supported in the "astro" apps but I guess this may change...

I Will have to have a read of the review when the mag finally hits the newsagents shelves next week...

Peter...

[Andrew*]

They're giving out blatantly wrong information too - they say the 1000D captures in 14-bit colour. It's not just a typo neither.

[blinky]

Andrew, I wondered about the 14bit bit!

Also there is mention in one of the other camera's they reviewed that the raw function did not do blah blah blah unlike some other models. I assumed they were going to say this was a negative against the Nikon because as far as I had read they were not suitable for astro use due to the filtering that was still applied even to raw images but there was no mention of it.

I have to say it does look extremly as if Sky@Night was pushing the Nikon above all others, I really have no reason to believe it was an independant review!

[Andrew*]

Well Craig, the fact that they put a camera that costs double another camera in the same test, without taking into account value for money in the verdict, makes for an unfair test anyway, and the Nikon is bound to win in any case.

Andrew

[narrowbandpaul]

perhaps S@N have an affiliation with Nikon that they havent told us. It therefore casts doubt on their other reviews.

p

[themos]

I noticed that 14-bit claim as well and I've been wondering about the price differential of the Nikon. Anyone reading the review would steer clear of the Nikon since the benefits vs the Canon 1000D are marginal and the price more than double. For that extra money you can have your 1000D converted to H-alpha friendly IR filter. If, on the other hand you only saw the S@N Group Winner sticker on some website, you might be tempted to buy it...

[tinvek]

i'd say the review of the sony was pretty accurate and ties in well with my experience using mine, especially the amp glow. the only thing they didn't do very well was their actual shot of the moon, the colour of it was poor compared to the others having a yellow tinge yet i've always had excellent results on it both with and without any proccessing and even just as jpgs on occasion. also they could have mentioned that for objects like the moon, the large image size means you can get some spectacular results. i posted a huge single image of a full moon a while back and since then it's handled being blown up to a 20" x 30" poster ok.

despite this i'm planning to get a canon 1000d for astro work, the sony is a great terrestial camera (which is what it was bought for) but the canon with it's suitability and the online experience base in using canon for astro work mean it's the winner for me.

EDIT: fopr anyone who missed it, here's the link to the almost full size image

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll9/tinvek/DSC04537a.jpg

[jgs001]

People seeing the review will grab the Canon over the Nikon if wanted for Astro use, not much in it for ability, but the Canon was the cheapest. As for the actual review, it would be interesting to know why the D90 was chosen instead of the D60 which is similar spec to the others, and at a similar price point.

[Lee]

I must admit that when I saw the camera choices for review I was a little surprised myself.

I could not bring myself to read the review as the outcome was a given.

Let's face it this is not the first time S@N have done this and I am sure it won't be the last ether. Quite dissapointing really.

Lee.

[dph1nm]

Comparing DSLRs for astro use is a very tricky business. I recommend a read of Roger Clark's comparison site

Clarkvision: Digital Camera Sensor Performance Summary

Even this is not perfect, as he doesn't compare dark current. One important thing to note is that you should compare at unity gain (where you get 1e- per photon). This can be at very different ISO setting for different cameras (e.g. ISO1600 for the Canon 5D but only ISO800 for the Nikon D200).

NigelM

[Nic]

Totally agree with the sentiments expressed regarding the comparison with the D90. I have a D60, which I use for landscapes and portraits (I've not braved astro imaging yet). This has proved an excellent camera, especially with the Nikor vibration reduction lenses (I have the 18mm to 55mm and the 70mm to 200mm). I was very very surprised that the D60 was not selected for the comparison test. A real missed opportunity to provide some impartial advice to prospective DSLR imagers.

[Dave]

I was quite pleased with some of the results my Nikon D70 gave me, that was until I upgraded to a Nikon D300 (OK, so it was more expensive) and compared the results. I have no complaints about the new camera and its outstanding performance. I just need to learn how to get the best out of it now under these conditions in the UK.

I've learnt my lesson a few times now, that you should always aim to buy something a little bit more advanced than you currently need if you can (even if you have to wait a bit longer until you can afford it) as it will take muchlonger for you to grow out of it's usefulness as you progress.

I guess another lesson from this is that these reviews are usually based on a limited range. It's best to see what other people are doing with different cameras, forums, Internet searches etc. in the real world and make your decision based on those.

[Starman]

Hi all,

I'm not going to go into the ins and outs of the review but I can clarify why the D90 was chosen over the D60 or D70. The reason was simply that the D90 is the first up the 'normal' range that has a Live View focus assist facility and as any DSLR user will tell you this is a real bonus when taking astro images. It's a pity that the lower models don't have it. Focusing is one of the bugbears of DSLR imaging and in my opinion, Live View technology is now an essential part of using DSLRs for astro imaging and needed to be included in a review of DSLR cameras for astro imaging.

I know that the Nikon D300 and D3 also have Live View but the D90 is newer than the D300 and the D3 is very much more expensive than the D90.

[Psychobilly]

First "Nikon" the lesser Canons have it as well.... and you have much better software support for Canons than Nikons... I use both and Konika Minoltas as well having got a KM5D , Nikon D50 and D200 and Canon 350D and 1000D the Nikons for terrestrial and the Canons for Astro...

I haven't got my hands on any of the newer generation Nikon Sensor yet but they are supposed to be "better" than the previous ones which are really pretty dire compared to the Canon ones...

I was really "surprised" at the result...

And I'm really chuffed that my lowly 1000D is 14bit

Peter...

[themos]

in my opinion, Live View technology is now an essential part of using DSLRs for astro imaging

Pity that this didn't make it into the test report, unless I missed it.