http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/NIK_CAN.HTM
An excellant article on dslr cameras for astrophotography.
An excellant article on dslr cameras for astrophotography.
New Camera Recommendations
- Thread starter james ungehajer
- Start date
I've read different things, depending on which lens you're interested in. A good source for info is the review section at fredmiranda. They have sections devoted to Canon as well as Sigma and other lenses: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/
FWIW, that isn't enough information. f2.7 is the "speed" of the lens (its light-gathering capability). You also need to know the focal length, which is expressed in millimeters. These two specs operate independently of each other. For example, one 50mm lens might have a speed of f1.4 and another might be f2.8. The smaller the f number, the more sensitive the lens will be to light. So if you want to take pictures in dark places, look for the smallest possible f number. Unfortunately, you will pay a big premium for these "fast" lenses.
Zoom lenses have specs which indicate their range of focal lengths. For example, a 35-70mm lens can be set anywhere between 35mm and 70mm. Typically, zoom lenses also have a range of f numbers, so using the same example you might see a spec that says 35-70mm f2.8-4.0. That means the f number changes depending on the zoom setting so it would be equivalent to 35mm f2.8 at full wide zoom or 70mm f4.0 at the telephoto end.
F numbers can be very confusing. Each "full stop" reduces the amount of light by 50%; here's a list of full f stops:
f1.4
f2.0
f2.8
f4.0
f5.6
f8
f11
f16
f22
It's important to keep this in mind when shopping for a lens. For example, an f2.8 lens will require four times as much light as an f1.4 lens. So all things being equal, smaller numbers are better. But of course if the optics aren't good then a lower f number doesn't matter much.... unless you like to take blurry or distorted pictures in low light.
FWIW, that isn't enough information. f2.7 is the "speed" of the lens (its light-gathering capability). You also need to know the focal length, which is expressed in millimeters. These two specs operate independently of each other. For example, one 50mm lens might have a speed of f1.4 and another might be f2.8. The smaller the f number, the more sensitive the lens will be to light. So if you want to take pictures in dark places, look for the smallest possible f number. Unfortunately, you will pay a big premium for these "fast" lenses.
Zoom lenses have specs which indicate their range of focal lengths. For example, a 35-70mm lens can be set anywhere between 35mm and 70mm. Typically, zoom lenses also have a range of f numbers, so using the same example you might see a spec that says 35-70mm f2.8-4.0. That means the f number changes depending on the zoom setting so it would be equivalent to 35mm f2.8 at full wide zoom or 70mm f4.0 at the telephoto end.
F numbers can be very confusing. Each "full stop" reduces the amount of light by 50%; here's a list of full f stops:
f1.4
f2.0
f2.8
f4.0
f5.6
f8
f11
f16
f22
It's important to keep this in mind when shopping for a lens. For example, an f2.8 lens will require four times as much light as an f1.4 lens. So all things being equal, smaller numbers are better. But of course if the optics aren't good then a lower f number doesn't matter much.... unless you like to take blurry or distorted pictures in low light.
I am looking at the f/2.8 wide angle lens for piggyback photography on top of the telescope,full constellation pics,10 or more images stacked at 30 seconds on each shot,plus a remote shutter release.Thanks,jim
Figured I'd add my opinion, I think the Canon A series cameras are excellent. I use an A610 (5MP) and really have no desire for anything more. You can adjust everything manually (focus, white bal, aperture, shutter speed,etc) or set it to automatic. Photo quality is excellent. Since it's an older model you can get it for $150 or less. That's half the price of an iPod.
Figured I'd add my opinion, I think the Canon A series cameras are excellent. I use an A610 (5MP) and really have no desire for anything more. You can adjust everything manually (focus, white bal, aperture, shutter speed,etc) or set it to automatic. Photo quality is excellent. Since it's an older model you can get it for $150 or less. That's half the price of an iPod.
You have something against Apple today! Do you work for Bill Gates?
Guy
Really! If you don't like their stuff then that's fine, but try to get the facts straight. The iPod shuffle costs $80, the Nano prices run from $150 to $250, 30GB video iPod is $250....
Yeah but you really cant compare a shuffle or a nano to an MD recorder or most mp3 players out there since they hold much less.
Not to mention the battery isn't replacable. That's the real shortcoming, if you are on a long flight and your battery dies you're screwed, because it's built in. And often after a year the battery won't hold a charge as long or at all and Apple charges you $50 to replace it.
Apple likes to have stuff "built in" to their products, denying the user flexibility. I like flexibility and reasonable prices, how "chic" a product looks I could care less about (Apple cares more about image than flexibility).
That's why I love the Canon A series. It's flexible, you can even use add on lenses. And of course use AA batteries, not some proprietary battery that you have to deal with.
All I can say is thank God Apple doesn't make cameras. But maybe I spoke too soon, the iCam is just around the corner, the size of an iPod nano with a fixed focus lens, auto everything, and a built in battery.:rofl:
Not to mention the battery isn't replacable. That's the real shortcoming, if you are on a long flight and your battery dies you're screwed, because it's built in. And often after a year the battery won't hold a charge as long or at all and Apple charges you $50 to replace it.
Apple likes to have stuff "built in" to their products, denying the user flexibility. I like flexibility and reasonable prices, how "chic" a product looks I could care less about (Apple cares more about image than flexibility).
That's why I love the Canon A series. It's flexible, you can even use add on lenses. And of course use AA batteries, not some proprietary battery that you have to deal with.
All I can say is thank God Apple doesn't make cameras. But maybe I spoke too soon, the iCam is just around the corner, the size of an iPod nano with a fixed focus lens, auto everything, and a built in battery.:rofl:
On Saturday, I toasted my Casio Exilim when the canoe tipped and flooded the camera. I like simplicity and the ability to snap a half-decent picture from a small device. That was the main reason I went with the Exilim Series. I don't recall the model I had, but it was the top of the line in the Exilim Series. Now I see they have released the "EXILIM Zoom EX-Z1200", which appears to be a souped-up version of the one I had, so I'm thinking about getting it.
I know it's probably too new to be reviewed by anyone, but I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on it (not to meant to be a thread thief).
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...1200BKDBB_Exilim_EX_Z1200_Digital_Camera.html
I know it's probably too new to be reviewed by anyone, but I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on it (not to meant to be a thread thief).
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...1200BKDBB_Exilim_EX_Z1200_Digital_Camera.html
This looks like a similar model with a 10MP sensor instead of 12MP:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/read_opinions.asp?prodkey=casio_exz1050
I have a Canon SD600 which I bought for times when I want to travel light but still be able to take snapshots. When I got it a year ago, it was the smallest one I could find. It's great for this kind of use - small enough that you can put it in your pocket and forget it's even there. Of course it's no match for my Nikon DSLR, but it ain't bad for a point and shoot camera.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_sd600.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/read_opinions.asp?prodkey=casio_exz1050
I have a Canon SD600 which I bought for times when I want to travel light but still be able to take snapshots. When I got it a year ago, it was the smallest one I could find. It's great for this kind of use - small enough that you can put it in your pocket and forget it's even there. Of course it's no match for my Nikon DSLR, but it ain't bad for a point and shoot camera.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_sd600.asp
http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?...& Accessories&cat3=Digital Cameras&Startat=21
I will be receiving my second digital rebel xt from this camera store in Manhattan which IMHO is comparable with B&H, the price is real nice at $566.95, the first camera as i stated before was for astrophotography as i had to get the ir lens removed.
This camera will be used exclusively forr my pine barrens outings, i will be using it on my outings this Friday and Saturday, i will be using it for the first time so i do not know how the pics will turn out, but i will give it my best after reading the instruction booklet about 100 times.
There will be no more just verbal trips, pics from now on with verbiage added to them, i cannot wait.
I will be receiving my second digital rebel xt from this camera store in Manhattan which IMHO is comparable with B&H, the price is real nice at $566.95, the first camera as i stated before was for astrophotography as i had to get the ir lens removed.
This camera will be used exclusively forr my pine barrens outings, i will be using it on my outings this Friday and Saturday, i will be using it for the first time so i do not know how the pics will turn out, but i will give it my best after reading the instruction booklet about 100 times.
There will be no more just verbal trips, pics from now on with verbiage added to them, i cannot wait.