Canon Vs Nikon

[Mode C]

You guys are making me salivate... I hope Canon comes out with something like that soon (that I can afford!).

For all you nikon guys out there I have a question for ya.

I just got my hands on a Nikon film FM series camera (unsure of model, seems to have rubbed off) with a motor drive, 50mm 1.8 (MF w/ aperture ring), 28-70mm 3.5-4.5 (AF with aperture ring) and a 70-300mm 4-5.6 (AF with an aperture ring).

Worth anything?

These are all Nikkor Lenses.

[Guido]

Nice shots Guido!

What lenses do you have for your D40? Do you do a lot of Bulb Exposure shots of the stars? I haven't tried those yet, but am looking forward to playing around this winter when I don't have to be up all night.... You have ay good moon shots? They're still eluding me, got few that are OK, but nothing I'd rave about.

stl

I'm still getting going with the astrophotography - by the time I moved to my new apartment where I have a decent view of the sky, the winter constellations have been beneath the horizon, so I haven't done a whole lot. I do have a couple of decent moonshots that I did with my telescope:


It's just a beginner telescope (4.5" Newtonian) so it's not the best of quality, not to mention I stitched it together by hand with photoshop.
The one I'm really proud of is the eclipse that we had this winter:


I've got two lenses, both Nikkor - one's 18mm-55mm, and the other is 55mm-200mm - both kit lenses in the package I got. They're both very good, especially the 18-55.

If you do do bulb photography (I've done a bit, but nothing spectacular just yet) make sure you get a wireless remote so that it doesn't leave the camera bouncing after you push the shutter.

Here're my other astro shots: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rev_aviato ... 971034970/

[Dust Devil]

You guys are making me salivate... I hope Canon comes out with something like that soon (that I can afford!).

For all you nikon guys out there I have a question for ya.

I just got my hands on a Nikon film FM series camera (unsure of model, seems to have rubbed off) with a motor drive, 50mm 1.8 (MF w/ aperture ring), 28-70mm 3.5-4.5 (AF with aperture ring) and a 70-300mm 4-5.6 (AF with an aperture ring).

Worth anything?

These are all Nikkor Lenses.

Those lenses would definetly be worth something to someone. I think with the exception of the D40 all Nikon bodies are backward compatable with older Nikon glass. That was my #1 reason to pick Nikon when I did. I'm not sure what all the details are regarding the D40. I've just heard there is some compatability issues.

[Dust Devil]

Nice shots Guido!

What lenses do you have for your D40? Do you do a lot of Bulb Exposure shots of the stars? I haven't tried those yet, but am looking forward to playing around this winter when I don't have to be up all night.... You have ay good moon shots? They're still eluding me, got few that are OK, but nothing I'd rave about.

stl

I'm still getting going with the astrophotography - by the time I moved to my new apartment where I have a decent view of the sky, the winter constellations have been beneath the horizon, so I haven't done a whole lot. I do have a couple of decent moonshots that I did with my telescope:


It's just a beginner telescope (4.5" Newtonian) so it's not the best of quality, not to mention I stitched it together by hand with photoshop.
The one I'm really proud of is the eclipse that we had this winter:


I've got two lenses, both Nikkor - one's 18mm-55mm, and the other is 55mm-200mm - both kit lenses in the package I got. They're both very good, especially the 18-55.

If you do do bulb photography (I've done a bit, but nothing spectacular just yet) make sure you get a wireless remote so that it doesn't leave the camera bouncing after you push the shutter.

Here're my other astro shots: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rev_aviato ... 971034970/

Do you have an adapter to hook your camera to your telescope? Or do you just hold the camera up to the eye piece. I've seen some decent astro photography done just by holding a cheap point and shoot up to the eye piece of a telescope. I'd like to get into the Astrophotography stuff. I'm just wondering about pairing all the right hardware together like adapters to the right telescope.

[Dust Devil]

This is a shot I took with my D300 in the park yesterday. I'm amazed how the camera holds detail in the shadows with out blowing out the highlights.

[sky's the limit]

Good stuff Guido.

DD, is that with the Active D Lighting on? It sure works well as evidenced by your shot. I find you can always add contract later if need be, but you can't go the other way!

stl

[Mode C]

Those lenses would definetly be worth something to someone. I think with the exception of the D40 all Nikon bodies are backward compatable with older Nikon glass. That was my #1 reason to pick Nikon when I did. I'm not sure what all the details are regarding the D40. I've just heard there is some compatability issues.

Thanks!
Toyed with the idea of buying some film and playing with the thing (still might). But I think I'll take a drive out to Henry's Camera later and see what they'll give me for it. Maybe see if I can put it towards some Canon glass. If it's not worth much I might give kijiji or ebay a shot or just give it away to some freinds of mine who are shooting Nikon.

(I believe the D40 just lacks the AF motor in the body so it will only work with the newer lenses with the built in AF motor. The AF lenses I have need the in body AF motor)

[Dust Devil]

Good stuff Guido.

DD, is that with the Active D Lighting on? It sure works well as evidenced by your shot. I find you can always add contract later if need be, but you can't go the other way!

stl

Ya that's active d lighting and the vivid feature switched on. I like this camera more and more every day. I was just at the Rider practice watching the rookies get geared up for the new season and captured some pretty nice action shots. The way this camera handles higher ISO's works just fantastic. I need to get a bigger CF card though. Shooting RAW I can only get about 45 shots on a 1 gig card.

[sky's the limit]

I've got an 8GB and a 4GB in the D3, works well.

I mostly shoot in Jpeg, unless it's really challenging light, then I go to RAW, but even for commercial blow-ups of 20 X 30 inches and more, the Jpegs are just fine, and WAY less work.

stl

[Guido]

Nice shots Guido!

What lenses do you have for your D40? Do you do a lot of Bulb Exposure shots of the stars? I haven't tried those yet, but am looking forward to playing around this winter when I don't have to be up all night.... You have ay good moon shots? They're still eluding me, got few that are OK, but nothing I'd rave about.

stl

I'm still getting going with the astrophotography - by the time I moved to my new apartment where I have a decent view of the sky, the winter constellations have been beneath the horizon, so I haven't done a whole lot. I do have a couple of decent moonshots that I did with my telescope:


It's just a beginner telescope (4.5" Newtonian) so it's not the best of quality, not to mention I stitched it together by hand with photoshop.
The one I'm really proud of is the eclipse that we had this winter:


I've got two lenses, both Nikkor - one's 18mm-55mm, and the other is 55mm-200mm - both kit lenses in the package I got. They're both very good, especially the 18-55.

If you do do bulb photography (I've done a bit, but nothing spectacular just yet) make sure you get a wireless remote so that it doesn't leave the camera bouncing after you push the shutter.

Here're my other astro shots: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rev_aviato ... 971034970/

Do you have an adapter to hook your camera to your telescope? Or do you just hold the camera up to the eye piece. I've seen some decent astro photography done just by holding a cheap point and shoot up to the eye piece of a telescope. I'd like to get into the Astrophotography stuff. I'm just wondering about pairing all the right hardware together like adapters to the right telescope.

Yeah, I bought an adapter because eventually I'd like to get set up with a motion tracking mount for the telescope so that I can start doing /real/ long exposures. Right now I'm limited to a couple of seconds through the telescope because of how quickly everything moves across the view with high magnification... not a cheap hobby, unfortunately... especially for a student. I've seen some pretty fantastic shots as well with even a little webcam hooked up to the eyepiece.

The trick with doing astrophotography with a telescope, unless you've got some serious cash, is to buy with upgrading in mind. I've got a decent intermediate/beginner telescope on a very basic mount right now... my plan is to next buy a mount that I'll be able to motorize to do tracking, then install some motors on it as money comes in. Eventually, I'll upgrade the telescope itself. Then I'll buy a nice property in the country where there's no light pollution...

There's still a lot that can be done with just the regular lenses for the camera too, so don't rush into it. However, if you do buy a telescope right away and never use it, I'll take it off your hands

[Dust Devil]

are the eye pieces on telescopes a standard? meaning does the adapter have to match a particular brand of telescope? Obviously it would on the camera side. It's the telescope side that confuses me.

I'm thinking with the extreme ISO capabilities of the new Nikons I should be able to get away with even shorter exposures.

[Guido]

I believe there are two standards for the telescope eyepieces - but different brands probably make telescopes with both sizes of eyepiece - I think the smaller is around 1.25" and the other is around 2"...

Just checked, and those guesses were right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyepiece#Barrel_diameter

As to the ISO stuff, you might check on some astrophotography how-tos to see what's preferred. I know with my D40, anything above 800 (1600 or "HI-1" [3200 equivalent]) tends to get a relatively large amount of noise...

[Mode C]

Those lenses would definetly be worth something to someone. I think with the exception of the D40 all Nikon bodies are backward compatable with older Nikon glass. That was my #1 reason to pick Nikon when I did. I'm not sure what all the details are regarding the D40. I've just heard there is some compatability issues.

Thanks!
Toyed with the idea of buying some film and playing with the thing (still might). But I think I'll take a drive out to Henry's Camera later and see what they'll give me for it. Maybe see if I can put it towards some Canon glass. If it's not worth much I might give kijiji or ebay a shot or just give it away to some freinds of mine who are shooting Nikon.

(I believe the D40 just lacks the AF motor in the body so it will only work with the newer lenses with the built in AF motor. The AF lenses I have need the in body AF motor)

Does anyone want to buy these lenses?
Nikkor 50mm 1.8
Nikkor AF 28-70mm 3.5-4.5 D
Nikkor ED AF 70-300mm 4-5.6 D
There's also a vivitar flash if anyone wants it.

The FM body is pooched. Mirror and shutter are sticking in the open position. Have to shake it violently for it to close... it'll work again for a bit and then lock again. There's also the Nikon MD-12 motor drive, not sure if it's working.

[Dust Devil]

I believe there are two standards for the telescope eyepieces - but different brands probably make telescopes with both sizes of eyepiece - I think the smaller is around 1.25" and the other is around 2"...

Just checked, and those guesses were right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyepiece#Barrel_diameter

As to the ISO stuff, you might check on some astrophotography how-tos to see what's preferred. I know with my D40, anything above 800 (1600 or "HI-1" [3200 equivalent]) tends to get a relatively large amount of noise...

I looked up some info on the whole ISO thing. It sounds like some people experience different levels of noise with the d3/d300. These cameras actually have very good noise reduction capabilities. The system works by taking two exposures. One with the shutter open (your main exposure) then takes another after the shutter is closed (pure black) then compares the two to see which pixels are hot and filters it that way.This only works on exposures in excess of 10 seconds. So it sounds like there is still some issue with noise however the d3/d300 handle it quite alot better than the lower grade cameras although there is still some limitations.

[sky's the limit]

DD,


I regularly use the D3 at ISO's of 1000 to about 4000, and the clarity is stunning, much over that and it's getting a bit grainy for my tastes. It's to the point where I've had to re-train my brain to take shots hand held in low light where I never would have considered it before. However they're doing it, it's working even at hand held shutter speeds.

My good friend here in town is a studio photographer, and he just bought a new Canon 1Ds Mk III, and we've shot a tonne of of comparisson shots with the two camera's. Other than actual footprint(size), the D3 is sharper in every condition - and WAY sharper in low light. For his purposes of Art reproduction however, the Mk III works very well. He does however regret his choice, especially as HE'S the one who talked me into going with the D3 after my 1D Mk II was stolen!

I do of course rib him about it almost every day....

stl

[sky's the limit]

A link for some high ISO comparisons.


http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/iso-1.htm


stl

[grimey]

My good friend here in town is a studio photographer, and he just bought a new Canon 1Ds Mk III, and we've shot a tonne of of comparisson shots with the two camera's. Other than actual footprint(size), the D3 is sharper in every condition - and WAY sharper in low light.

I'm looking forward to seeing how well whatever Canon replaces the 5D with performs in low light. It used to be the best DSLR for low light photography. Interesting that the D300's noise reduction basically just blurred the image in the link you posted, though.

[sky's the limit]

Yeah Grimes,

There's a big difference in the noise reduction between the D300 and the D3. I briefly considered the D300, but a number of factors lead to the D3. I too am interested to see what Canon's response will be to the D3.

If you run the image through Lightroom, it's got a fantastic sharpening tool, you can get some of that blur out. The D3 doesn't seem to suffer from the same issues in that regard, and as I've said already, I'm blown away with the low light performance of my D3 so far.

See if I can't find another image or two shot a super high ISO.


stl

[Dust Devil]

I've been shooting the Training Camp for the Riders over the last couple days and the higher ISO is awesome for sports photography. Getting away with a quick shutter and higher ISO to stop the action works great. I never changed the ISO on my D70 cause it would grain up so bad. No sign of that now. Now I'm craving a nice fast telephoto lens now. My 70-300 5.6 isn't cutting it.

[sky's the limit]

70-200mm F2.8 VR - All you need...


stl

[sky's the limit]

This afternoon:

Cropped 1:1, ISO 400, 1/320th

[lilfssister]

Awesome as usual stl!

[Guido]

That's fantastic, STL! The DOF is just perfect

[grimey]

I'm looking forward to seeing how well whatever Canon replaces the 5D with performs in low light. It used to be the best DSLR for low light photography. Interesting that the D300's noise reduction basically just blurred the image in the link you posted, though.

Canon's 5D mk II comes out in November. Looks like the low-light performance will be similar to the D3, judging from the preview shots on dpreview. And $2800 CND for a full-frame 21MP DSLR.

[sky's the limit]

You'll have to let us know when you buy one Grimes....

Nikon's got the D700 out now too, a smaller, lighter full-frame version of the D3.

stl