Re: PhotoForum Digest, Vol 252, Issue 1

[Gregory <fyrframe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Huh,

I could have said all of that myself. Apples and Oranges.

The Canon is perfect for the simpler jobs such as planets, the local group including asteroids or comets and M42 and globular clusters, no need to break out the big guns.

Nikon priced their camera into the high end of astronomical CCD's such as Finger Lakes Instruments, Santa Barbara Instruments Group, ATIK and others. These are inherently superior to the Nikon with features true to the requirements of imaging deep sky objects. I am not going to buy a DSLR at the price of D810a that isn't really meant to ride in my daily camera bag but more a single purpose camera. In my opinion the Nikon is overbuilt for it's intended use.

There is superior equipment available at the same price or less.

https://www.optcorp.com/nikon-d810a-astronomy-dslr-camera.html
https://www.optcorp.com/sbig-stf-8300m-monochrome-ccd-camera-self-guiding-mono-sti.html

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by an enhanced infrared system. These DSLR's have enhanced H-Alpha response because the IR filters have been removed.

Thanks for the feedback,
Gregory
Gig Harbor, WA.

On 2/25/2016 9:08 AM, Randy Little wrote:

HUH a Nikon d810a  has 2x the MP (36mp) and an actually enhanced ir system Mag Alloy Frame professional-grade shutter.   The Canon 60a OLD and is 18mp and  has a not so great H-Alpha response when compared to Converted cameras and the 810a, no weather sealing and is a amateur camera body with a standard shutter.    

The cost reasoning is pretty clear.  No one likes the 60Da.  

You can always just buy a whatever and convert it.   Sony NEX 6 or something like that is about $250 to convert and cost about $400 to buy.   

http://www.spencerscamera.com/store/store_sub.cfm?Category_ID=1&Sub_Category_ID=1

Randy S. Little
http://www.rslittle.com/

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Gregory <fyrframe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'm dabbling in Astrophotography. Both Nikon and Canon (first on the market) now market "Astro" cameras. Canon makes a beautiful piece of equipment that is fully capable. Cost is about $1500 for the body. Nikon recently released their version and the cost is about $4000. Give me a break. I'm a Nikon guy from day one, but that's a price I'm not willing to pay. If only out of principle.

Gregory
Gig Harbor, WA.

On 2/24/2016 11:22 AM, PhotoRoy6@xxxxxxx wrote:

You don't get what you don't pay for.

 

 

 

In a message dated 2/24/2016 2:13:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, danmdan3842@xxxxxxxxx writes:

You’re paying for the NAME, as much as for the product.  And overpricing is rife in the so-called “designer” market - even, dare I say, among top-grade DSLRs  e.g. 5,000 GBP for the newest Nikon, but far less for the equivalent Pentax K1 at 1600 GBP.
Do they cost so much different to make ? - almost certainly not.

And Leica prices - well wow is all I can say to them !  Do buyers actually use them, or just collect them.



dan






> On 24 Feb 2016, at 17:00, photoforum-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1.  you get what you pay.. uh.. (karl shah-jenner)
>
>
>
>

 

--
Gregory Gig Harbor, WA.

--
Gregory Gig Harbor, WA.