Digital Cameras

[Deimos]

I need to start thinking about getting a digital camera (as apart from my mobile phone my only cameras are still film). One aspect of what I’m looking to take pictures of/with mean that it will need to be a (Digital) SLR. Current film cameras are Olympus so quite like the idea o the Olympus DSLRs (as I can get an adapter from my existing lenses), but that’s just a brand bias.

Specific aspect dictate SLR but otherwise more general purpose. I actually really like my existing film cameras (OM4, OM1) but need to go digital now. Small is nice (e.g. OM4 size). Light is nice (but I guess they will all be lighter than e.g. film SLRs). High quality is good – I hate the idea of taking a fantastic picture (unlikely) only to find it can only be printed to postcard sized.

Does anybody have any recommendations (good or bad) or thoughts, considerations, etc.. I am not particularly familiar with digital photography though OK with the computer side.

Many thanks

Ian

[Dick Smith]

I use a Nikon D70 as does my son (D70s) and my friend Alan (D70). We are all mightily impressed, and Alan is an ex-Olympus user.

You can see Matt's work at

www.fishandonions.com

[Russethouse]

My husbands just bought an SLR digital Cannon (because he wants to screw it to his telescope, don't ask ! it had to be SLR)

Its the one below the one that paparazzi are rumored to use, when they are not using film.

It got good reviews and he is pleased with the results so far.

When I'm looking for this type of stuff  I usually go to google and enter the make etc plus the word 'review' ie  Cannon digital SLR camera reviews.

Can be very interesting !

[powerdesal]

The Canon IXUS i5 with 5.0 megapixels is small, light, has reasonable battery life and seems to produce good results. It all depends what level of photog you are I suppose.

Mine was a pressie and I'm more than happy with it, particularly the ability to take absolute masses of photos and then only save the selected few, I think that is the main advantage. Its probably a good idea to get a spare battery and the biggest memory card that you can find, or have spares of the card. Another advantage is that XP recognises the camera directly and you can download to any XP user anywhere.

Just a few thoughts.

Regards

[Deimos]

[Russethouse wrote] “because he wants to screw it to his telescope, don't ask ! it had to be SLR”

Also happens to be the reason I need a DSLR – keen to try prime focus photography.

Trouble is I am a bit brand biased. My preference having looked a bit was Olympus (E-500), Nikon or Canon. Must confess that my “brand bias” means I also like Nikon (after the old F1, good if a bit bulky).

Trouble with Nikon is the lower priced ones seem only 6 MP and the higher MP models get quite expensive). However, experience and recommendations from others is very helpful and valuable. I can go into a shop and hold one for a few minutes but that is completely different to having one, carrying it around, on holiday, etc. (something even the reviewers tend not to do).

Many thanks for the comments.

Ian

[Quillan]

I bought a Canon 350D as a kit with a 18/55mm lens. I do a lot of macro stuff and bought a Canon 60mm Macro Lens with ultrasonic focusing because they (canon) say you can't use normal through the lens focusing acuratly in macro mode. My biggest complaint is that the built in flash is rather limiting and to get a decent flash, and of course you have to have a canon one, is rather expensive. The other thing is I have always shot film with my old EOS camera but non of the lens's fit my new one and there are no adaptors.

The best bit I like is being able to shoot in raw format which means you do the image processing on the desktop, you can then do some really neat things. Over all I think it's a good camera at a very good price. If you do fast stuff it can shoot at 3 frames a second in 8mp mode, got some brilliant shots of the guys throwing their balls at the regional boules competition (ouch).

I forgot, I bought mine direct from Hong Kong on mail order and saved a fortune (Ebay), the kit I have is around 900€ in France I paid just over half that and it's got a valid canon 3 year warranty because it verified OK when I activated it on their website. Got the macro lens the same way.

[sandt]

 hi i can appreciate your quandry i used olympus for many years before selling all my kit some years ago. but olympus is a bit thin on the ground in france  at least where i live it is. but if you have lenses already you at least only have to buy the body.  your lenses can be used but the focal length will be higher.  apart from that no problem. i use a canon now which for me is greatly improved on their film slr cameras in handling and fell 

[hastobe]

I also have a Canon SLR - been very pleased with it.  I bought mine in Gibralter this summer - and although it was a good price (duty free etc - and I bought it before it went on sale officially in the UK) - I think Quillan got his at a better price.  (I think I am a luddite when it comes to cameras - I still have all my old film camera stuff including a beautiful Bronica ETRSi medium format SLR - a bit dated now but still produces amazing pictures.)

Hastobe

[Tag]

A couple of years ago when hunting for a digital camera in the Vendée and Deux Sèvres I noticed that prices for particular items in a specific area were all remarkably similar (and high when compared to the net). Finally after discreet pumping, a shop assistent admitted that all the shops round there had come to an agreement to fix prices to within a couple of percentage points of each other. Nice and illegal.

Just a thought.

[sid]

You'll probably get umpteen different recommendations, we all like to think we've made the best choice, but it's down to personal preference in the end. So here's another... I've plumped for Sony DSC-R1, it has all the features of an SLR but is purely digital (no mirror). It has a superb lens. Some critics don't like the viewfinder. It has a 10 mega-pixel capability. I particularly didn't want a camera with interchangeable lenses; dust can be a big problem if it gets on the CCD.

Get a memory card of at least 1gb, I got a high speed compact flash card on Ebay from a seller in Hong Kong.

The price of the camera here in France beats anything I could get in UK and I got mine from Alifax in Paris by mail order, great service and delivery within days. I'm very pleased with it.

http://www.alifax.fr/SONY/DSC-R1_1235_4006.htm

Good luck

Sid

[Dave Plumb]

Having been an SLR and film user for a very long time I was not sure about this new digital idea that was banded around, the press went on about them not having the same quality of image, but I still went out and bought a top of the range (at the time )3meg Sony, zoom lens but not SLR,  paid a lot of money as this was around 5 years ago, printed the pictures off. absolute crap untill I printed them from my mates HP printer, these same pictures were unbealevable, as good as,if not better then film, at least to my and everyone elses eye, since then I have also bought a 6 meg camera but to tel the truth there is not a lot of difference unless I need to blow up a small part of the image they will both print to A4 with no problem.

I do not see the need for me to use an SLR, between the cameras I get the same quality images with a lot less hassle, I dont have to carry around a large camera and aray of lenses, filters, film and bags.

I would advise to start first with a mid range portable camera with zoom lens  and the money saved put this towards a decent printer and imaging software, dont use the one supplied with the camera, use this experience to find what you need in an Slr before U dive in spend a lot of money and pick something you dont really need.

for instance, dont pick a camera that uses things like recharable AA type batteries they will run down very fast and you will miss that all important shot having to change them if you are lucky to have a spare set on you, one of my camera's uses an infolithium battery that lasts for days and shows me in mins how long I have left till recharge, the other uses a mobile phone type battery and lasts for weeks.

As you will be using your PC as a darkroom U can over come the need for longer lenses by useing a high res image and blowing it up.

If your need for an SLR is for your image and not for photography ignor all the above and buy the biggest, most expensive camera you can find

Hope this helps in your choice

 

Dave

[Quillan]

Dave has touched on some very good points about what yu want and don't forget the printer. The higher quality camera the higher quality printer you need to go with it. If your getting up to 8M pixels you might consider going A3 with the printer as that is where the higher res comes in to it's own.

I went down the SLR route because I had a Canon EOS 620 and a bucket full of lenses. Although the focal lenth changes they do fit the EOS 350D and work OK. I do a lot of macro work and the Canon EFS 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM which has had the most unbelievably good write ups leaving the competition way behind and what they said is correct it's brilliant.

The only real negative I have is the flash. The built in one is OKish but you really need an external one and anything decent will cost around £200 which is the cost of a compact digital camera. There is a special one available for macro use and it costs nearly as much as the camera so I guess I shall have to wait for that.

There is one thing it does do very well if you like sport and need a fast camera, it cyles at 3 frames a second which is the same as my 620 that uses film and it takes .2 sec to start from cold.

[Russethouse]

I'm not 100% sure but if Deimos wants his camera for something like my husband, ie taking pictures with the camera attached to a telescope, I believe SLR is the only option to cope with the very long exposure time. (If I've got this wrong my husband will kill me [:$])

[Deimos]

I think I will be wanting to take pictures through my telescope (in the longer term – I only got the telescope the other day and its been cloudy every night since then !!!).  Initially thought about buying a dedicated eyepiece CCD (e.g. Celestron’s or Meade’s models).  However, these devices can only be used in a telescope (plus they need a laptop which I don’t have at the moment) and if spending money, its probably better spent on something that can be used both on the telescope and as a general purpose camera.

 

I understand that for this a DSLR is necessary (though I’m told others have held fixed lens  cameras to the eyepiece and got OK photos).  As a novice with a telescope I’ve still got a lot to learn and the photography through it will be later – but might as well get a camera the I can use with it in future.

 

Other peoples experience and opinions having carried these things around and used them for some time is exceptionally helpful – many thanks.

 

Ian

[Russethouse]

Deimos, my husband got his telescope( I know its 8inch and skysearcher rings a bell, but apart from that I can't be more specific) in February, and since then we have had lots of cloudy (and cold) nights. Like you he will be 'playing' for a bit. Even setting up the telescope is more difficult than we thought.[geek]

[ali-cat]

Hope you don't mind me butting in.  My wife (ali@ards) pointed out this thread and I have 'a little' experience as a beginner in astrophotography.

Any camera can be used for astrophotography with the necessary adapters etc.  The type of camera depends on how and what you would like to photograph e.g :

The camera and lens can be mounted on top of the scope bypassing the telescope but using the telescope mount to track the target. Magnification will depend on thte lenses used;

Prime focus - where the camera (without lenses) is attached to the scope and the telescope effectively used as one big telephoto lens;

Afocal where the camera can be hand held to the telescope eyepiece or held in place more securely with a special adaptor;

Moon/Planetary - which are bright relatively small objects requiring high magnification but short exposure times;

Deep sky objects - which tend to be larger extended objects but very faint and requiring long exposure times from 15 secs up to many hours.

 

Very generally speaking you can get some reasonable shots of the moon and brighter planets using a compact digicam - but the best 'camera' for the planets is a modified or purpose built webcam for which you'll need a laptop.

For deep sky objects you can again opt for a specialised astrophotography camera (Starlight express etc) or a digicam which provides manual controls and long exposures - mostly only available with digital SLRs.  You can capture some objects such as the Orion Nebula or star clusters with relatively short exposures (15-30 secs) but often you need mutliple exposures often over a number of hours for the really impressive stuff (e.g spiral galaxies etc).  From what I've read the Canon Eos/Digital Rebel is frequently used and can produce some stunning photos.  However once you get into exposures over 30 secs the other elements - particularly the quality and alignment of the telescope mount - become much more critical and expensive.

For what its worth I'd spend some time getting used to the scope and see if the astronomy bug bites sufficiently for you to consider spending many hours at the telescope- often in freezing weather. Try some photos using your existing gear and read up a little on the subject.  There's plenty of info from magazines and on the web and I've included some links below.   If you still want to go down this route you'll have a much better idea what you want to photograph and what equipment you'll need and by then camera prices will have fallen further which they always do.

Cheers and hope this helps

 

Some links

Low budget astrophotography :

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/low_budget_astrophotography/messages

Deep sky imaging with digital cameras:

http://skyandtelescope.com/printable/howto/imaging/article_956.asp

Webcam astrophotography

http://www.astro.shoregalaxy.com/webcam_astro.htm

Canon Eos

http://www.astro.shoregalaxy.com/webcam_astro.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Quillan]

With Prime Focus systems where do you go to get adaptors for the telescopes. Is there a company that makes them or do you buy from the manufacturer of the telescope. Do you get adapters for different makes of camera?

[ali-cat]

Hi Quillan

You can get adapters from the manufacturer or from specialist companies.

Scopetronix is a US company that manufactures a wide range of adapters for all types of astrophotography and camera types.  You could do a google search to find a local distributor for their products.

I have also attached two GB retailers who supply adaptors for Skywatcher (did someone mention they had a Skywatcher scope?) and other manufacturers.  As I understand these adaptors - there is either a standard type for removable lens cameras or camera specific adapters for caneras with fixed lens with internal screws.

http://www.scopetronix.com/

http://www.sherwoods-photo.com/sky_watcher/skywatcher_index_accs_fs.html

http://www.iankingimaging.com/show_products.php?category=19

Hope these help and happy to try to answer any other questions - or point you in the right direction..

Cheers Mark

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.scopetronix.com/

http://www.sherwoods-photo.com/sky_watcher/skywatcher_index_accs_fs.html

http://www.iankingimaging.com/show_products.php?category=19

 

 

[Albert the infopikey]

ali@ards wrote <>

As scientific & technical photography is the only thing I'm qualified in, I'll stock in my three cents worth.

For some cheap initial experimentation you can make up your own adapter, using loo rolls and sticky-back plastic!

If you can rigidly mount the camera to the telescope, say using its tripod screw, then you just need to use a loo roll(or similar cardboard cylinder) big enough to fit snugly inside the camera's lens mount (don't push it in too far!), plus some black polythene to wrap around the telescope eyepiece and the front of the loo roll. For best results paint the inside of the loo roll matt black.

To go up a level, use a spare body cap (comes with an SLR body to keep muck out when there's no lens attached) with the centre cut away and mounted (somehow? glue?) to the end of a suitable piece of plastic pipe, with foam rubbber around the inside to give a push fit on the eyepiece.

With any of these you'll probably need to experiment with the length of tube so that the camera sensor falls at the prime focus.

You could even get a cheapo web-cam and saw the lens off, to experiment with direct-mounted sensors!

If you are happy enough with the Blue peter version you can then spend as much as you like on pukka mounts / adaptors.

At the other end of the scale, I've got some pictures of a seal colony taken with a disposable 35mm camera clamped to the back of a cheap (2 quid!) child's monocular. Not exhibition quality but it just shows that the principle of mounting a fixed lens camera to telescope is feasible. Things like exposure control etc. are obviously another matter.

[ali-cat]

Taken from our back garden with the webcam.  Will get Mark to try the loo roll method!!  [:)]  Hopefully it won't take as long to set up & I might get to see more of him on clear nights!!  [:D]

 

[IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e332/Livingstone_Mark/ally%20guitars/astro/mysaturn.jpg[/IMG]

[Ron Avery]

Ali@ ards

 I have answered yor PM. did you get it?

[ali-cat]

Yes!!  Thank you - I have been looking up the necessary numbers & we about to PM you back, just before I read this message!!! Spooky!!

[Deimos]

Many thanks for all the comments – all very helpful.

Got the telescope which is now on its way back to the UK as the drive mount was faulty (would only drive one direction in declination axis !!!).  Reason of buying telescope in the UK was it is £300 cheaper than in France.  I guess now I’ll purchase one in France and have to pay the extra cost.

I have been thinking for some time I should be getting a digital camera (rather than sticking with my old but excellent film cameras) and getting one that would allow me to photograph astronomical objects would be a great plus.

Unfortunately I do not have a laptop so the USB based (Starlight Express, webcams and the like) effectively become quite a lot more expensive as I would need to buy a laptop as well.  I’d been thinking about a DSLR as it would be used for a wide range of photography rather than something totally dedicated (e.g. Starlight Express CCD things), plus the Starlight Express stuff is quite expensive.  I note that Celestron for an eyepiece CCD camera quite low cost (for Solar System objects) and Meade do one as well that is a bit more but neither up to Starlight Express prices.

Still very much at the “thinking” and learning stage.  No rush but I only have film cameras which I think might make experimenting difficult or at least harder than having any sort of digital camera.

And if I ever get to take a picture even close to as good as ali@ards one of Saturn above then I will be ecstatic and will be posting it everywhere.

Many thanks all.

Ian

[Albert the infopikey]

Getting back to an earlier posting of yours about resolution, I'd say that after about 6 MP it is a bit academic unless you will be blowing up much bigger than A4 from the whole frame.

Back in the days when the only sensible way to put computer graphics on a screen was to put them on 35mm slides the standard resolution was quoted as 2,000 lines. With a 35mm frame being 1:1.5 format that equates to 2,000 (vertical) x 3,000 (horizontal)  = 6,000,000. And I used to project these on screens 20 feet across.

The overall quality of the image processing path is actually more important than the raw pixel count, particularly if you will be saving stuff as JPEG's.

For initial experiments just strap your 35mm camera on the back of the telescope (see my Blue Peter posting) and have a peer through the viewfinder. No good for dim, deep-space objects, but start with the Moon and work outwards.

Another thought: you see a lot of ridiculously cheap 3+ MP cameras nowadays. Essentially they are digital box brownies, but with the lens carefully hacked off you could have a cheap basis for experimentation.

With the amount you must have spent on the telescope you'll eventually want to buy decent kit, but no point in wasting a fair bit on something that will be discarded after a few weeks.