D70 in astrophotography

[RonGafron]

I'm looking at the D70 and the 300D for astrophotography purposes. I recently heard that, at least for longer exposures, the Nikon D70 does not provide you with a "real" RAW image but actually does some internal processing to eliminate "hot pixels", which could result in the loss of some star images. Has anyone heard about this, or have any experience with either camera in an astrophotography role?

thanks a bunch.

Ron

 

[PhotoLeon1935]

Hot pixel mapping should preserve stars, not eliminate them. You need this feature whether you choose this camera or any other. This process is your friend.

I'm looking at the D70 and the 300D for astrophotography purposes.
I recently heard that, at least for longer exposures, the Nikon D70
does not provide you with a "real" RAW image but actually does some
internal processing to eliminate "hot pixels", which could result
in the loss of some star images. Has anyone heard about this, or
have any experience with either camera in an astrophotography role?

thanks a bunch.

Ron

--
TANSTAAFL - There aint no such thing as a free lunch.
If it sounds too good to be true it just might be so.
D70 Owner

 

[mchaboud]

Presumably, this->

http://astrosurf.com/buil/d70v10d/eval.htm

is what you're talking about, right?

I have to be honest, it's been some time since I did a lot of astrophotography, but this is making me strongly consider the 10D (and a bunch of new glass for everyday shooting) option.

I'm hoping that Nikon will have a D70 RAW fix other than shutting off the camera part-way through the exposure.

 

[RonGafron]

Presumably, this->

http://astrosurf.com/buil/d70v10d/eval.htm

is what you're talking about, right?

Yep, that's exactly the article I had been pointed to. I wasn't quite sure what everything meant, but I thought if there were some folks with practical experience using the camera for that purpose, they'd know if it was a problem or not.

Thanks.

Ron

 

[RonGafron]

Hot pixel mapping should preserve stars, not eliminate them. You
need this feature whether you choose this camera or any other. This
process is your friend.

Hi, and thanks for your reponse.

I guess I'm confused now. I had read a French review, translated into English, that implied that this was a "bad" thing. IN essence, what they said was that, for long exposures, the camera used a "median filter" to eliminate hot pixels, so that you couldn't really get a true RAW file for those kinds of pictures. And they did say that it was possible to lose star images because of that. The other responder to my message had the link to the French review, if you'd like to see it. Could be (Probably is that) I'm just not explaining it correctly.

Thanks again.

Ron

 

[Barry Carter]

Ron, I dabble in astrophotography, and I selected the D70 over the Canon (as the better "overall" camera ). If you intend to focus primarily on imaging the stars, then maybe your focus is different than mine. This crazy mid-west weather has dampened my imaging, but I did manage to photograph the Transit of Venus with the D70 hooked to my Questar telescope. This link may be able to give you more insight into some D70 star shooting: http://valerie.desnoux.free.fr/neat/nikonD70.htm

http://www.barrie-tao.com/astro_photo.html

Ciao....Barry

Hot pixel mapping should preserve stars, not eliminate them. You
need this feature whether you choose this camera or any other. This
process is your friend.

Hi, and thanks for your reponse.

I guess I'm confused now. I had read a French review, translated
into English, that implied that this was a "bad" thing. IN essence,
what they said was that, for long exposures, the camera used a
"median filter" to eliminate hot pixels, so that you couldn't
really get a true RAW file for those kinds of pictures. And they
did say that it was possible to lose star images because of that.
The other responder to my message had the link to the French
review, if you'd like to see it. Could be (Probably is that) I'm
just not explaining it correctly.

Thanks again.

Ron

 

[RonGafron]

Ron, I dabble in astrophotography, and I selected the D70 over the
Canon (as the better "overall" camera ). If you intend to focus
primarily on imaging the stars, then maybe your focus is different
than mine. This crazy mid-west weather has dampened my imaging,
but I did manage to photograph the Transit of Venus with the D70
hooked to my Questar telescope. This link may be able to give you
more insight into some D70 star shooting:
http://valerie.desnoux.free.fr/neat/nikonD70.htm

http://www.barrie-tao.com/astro_photo.html

Ciao....Barry

Hi Barry, and thanks for the reply.

I'm looking for a camera that can be used for astrophotography, but other outdoor work as well, although, at least for now, astrophotography is my prime focus (pun almost unintended ). I'm getting the feeling that the Nikon is just a more solid camera and would be my preference if I can get this hot pixel issue clear in my head. I'd be doing mostly deepsky work, if that matters.

I'm in the Midwest as well, and just as tired of the rain as you sound to be. I'm outside of Chicago, and was going to drive down to the Adler Planetarium on the lakefront to see the transit, but the thought of getting up that early, only to have to drive back towards work in the morning Chicago rush hour dampened my enthusiasm. So, instead, I found a couple of overseas websites with near real time images, and enjoyed the transit that way.

Ron

 

[Seth Gray]

This in no way is an objective critique, I have very little knowledge of astrophotography. Its just an example of low noise qualities of the D70 in extended shutters. This was shot with NR turned off 10 second exposure.

 

[Barry Carter]

Well, it seems we are on similar pages. I'm from SE Michigan, but the weather suprisingly cleared for a perfect Transit of Venus day, then went downhill. But I have learned the D70 has a lot of positive points. For one, is the focusing. It is easy to focus just using the viewfinder (but I do have the Nikon DG-2 2x magnifier attached). And I use a Marshall VLCD4-Pro external monitor attached to the video out port to confirm my focus accuracy. Another is the IR remote shutter trigger. I suspect a future upgrade of NC to allow Bulb mode, for complete remote use of the D70 from a laptop (remember the D70 is a very new camera; whereas the Canonon has had a number of firmware tweaks). I also like the speed of the D70 in taking shots and the instant display of the image. I have several Nikkor lenses (300mm, f/4.5 ais, 180mm, f/2.8 IF-ED) that should yield some decent shots when hooked to my Vixen GP-DX tracking mount. The IR filters on digital SLR's are the real bottle-neck; not the RAW image thing IMO. So this is another issue, as it has been shown that its a lot easier to remove the IR filter from the D70 compared to the Canon. I lot of issues, and maybe a case for getting a dedicated CCD camera if you just want to do Deep Sky Imaging only IMO....

Ciao...Barry

Ron, I dabble in astrophotography, and I selected the D70 over the
Canon (as the better "overall" camera ). If you intend to focus
primarily on imaging the stars, then maybe your focus is different
than mine. This crazy mid-west weather has dampened my imaging,
but I did manage to photograph the Transit of Venus with the D70
hooked to my Questar telescope. This link may be able to give you
more insight into some D70 star shooting:
http://valerie.desnoux.free.fr/neat/nikonD70.htm

http://www.barrie-tao.com/astro_photo.html

Ciao....Barry

Hi Barry, and thanks for the reply.
I'm looking for a camera that can be used for astrophotography, but
other outdoor work as well, although, at least for now,
astrophotography is my prime focus (pun almost unintended ).
I'm getting the feeling that the Nikon is just a more solid camera
and would be my preference if I can get this hot pixel issue clear
in my head. I'd be doing mostly deepsky work, if that matters.

I'm in the Midwest as well, and just as tired of the rain as you
sound to be. I'm outside of Chicago, and was going to drive down
to the Adler Planetarium on the lakefront to see the transit, but
the thought of getting up that early, only to have to drive back
towards work in the morning Chicago rush hour dampened my
enthusiasm. So, instead, I found a couple of overseas websites
with near real time images, and enjoyed the transit that way.

Ron

--
Ciao...Barry

 

[L'homme]

What lens did you use for this shot?
L'homme

This in no way is an objective critique, I have very little
knowledge of astrophotography. Its just an example of low noise
qualities of the D70 in extended shutters. This was shot with NR
turned off 10 second exposure.

 

[Kalus]

After seeing the posts about that and reading the site and seeing the stars lost I did my own tests. I havn't used it on my telescope yet since I don'[t have an adaptor till I get one today so they were just star shots with an 80mm and 300mm lens.

I found that the filter applied does soften some stars but it didn't make any vanishs as opposed to tricking the camera into not using the filter.

That said there also wasn't any real softening, of all the stars that were captured (100+ coulnd't count) only the 2 brightest stars were effected and only slighty as you wouldn't of noticed it ust looking at both images unless you were specifically looking to see if they were any softer.

Other then that all the other stars looked exactly the same in both images. I can take some shots using having the filter active and not active later tonight and post them if you wish to see for yourself.

I also found that for longer exposures the camera did a better job espeically for hte hot pixels then I could do myself using the trick to get a true RAW image and applying my own dark frame in PS. This also produced more noise in the image then the camera gives so all in all I can only see good things about the median filter on RAW files.

I'm looking at the D70 and the 300D for astrophotography purposes.
I recently heard that, at least for longer exposures, the Nikon D70
does not provide you with a "real" RAW image but actually does some
internal processing to eliminate "hot pixels", which could result
in the loss of some star images. Has anyone heard about this, or
have any experience with either camera in an astrophotography role?

thanks a bunch.

Ron

 

[Seth Gray]

This in no way is an objective critique, I have very little
knowledge of astrophotography. Its just an example of low noise
qualities of the D70 in extended shutters. This was shot with NR
turned off 10 second exposure.

 

[RonGafron]

Other then that all the other stars looked exactly the same in both
images. I can take some shots using having the filter active and
not active later tonight and post them if you wish to see for
yourself.

Hi,

And thanks for the offer. If you happen to be out there and are of a mind to take a few shots, that would be great. Not a big deal, and I wouldn't want to impose.

Ron

 

[Newcomb]

I'm looking at the D70 and the 300D for astrophotography purposes.
I recently heard that, at least for longer exposures, the Nikon D70
does not provide you with a "real" RAW image but actually does some
internal processing to eliminate "hot pixels", which could result
in the loss of some star images. Has anyone heard about this, or
have any experience with either camera in an astrophotography role?

thanks a bunch.

Ron

Ron,

The DRebel's CMOS sensor operates much cooler than the D70's CCD. A cooler sensor means less noise. As such, the DRebel is the hands down winner if Astrophotoraphy is important.

That said, I have an interest in doing limited Astrophotography. I rejected the DRebel because my interest in Astrophotography is severly limited by my equipment. I have a 10" Dob, which means all tracking would be done by hand - obviously long exposures are not something I can do. Any astrophotography I do will be limited to the moon and planets.

Each camera has its strengths and weaknesses. The D70 will work (as evidenced by the photos from other posters), but the DRebel will work better.

In all other categories, the D70 is a superior camera.

--
Michael Newcomb, Temecula - CA

 

[Peter iNova]

I'm looking at the D70 and the 300D for astrophotography purposes.
I recently heard that, at least for longer exposures, the Nikon D70
does not provide you with a "real" RAW image but actually does some
internal processing to eliminate "hot pixels", which could result
in the loss of some star images. Has anyone heard about this, or
have any experience with either camera in an astrophotography role?

thanks a bunch.

Ron

I understand the concern. I shoot with a Meade LX200. I understand how pixel remapping works and I know that weak or missing pixels will be de-mapped by filling their pixel address with a number that averages the surrounding 4 or 8 pixels (depending on the nature of the errant pixel).

If your goal is to preserve every single pixel with absolute fidelity to the cosmos, get yourself a Hubble, not a D70. But if your planet, its atmosphere, your telescope, its diffraction limited performance, your D70 and its actual single photosite degree of astro image gathering resolution aren't actually, literally, proven to exactly resolve images down to the single pixel level, then you're fine to use the D70. Your chances of parking the image of a single star on one and only one photosite is vanishingly small (to instigate an ironic metaphor).

Virtually no image through Earth's atmosphere through a telescope is going to resolve stars at the one--count it; one--pixel level. And frankly, shots of the Milky Way made with the Kit Lens mounted on a telescope to track the sky will not suffer if a single dim star gets "averaged" rather than perfectly defined. You will, however, get fantastic images, eventually. And without reciprocity failure.

-iNova

--
http://www.digitalsecrets.net

 

[stashu72]

IF you look in Sky & Telescope Magazine June 2004, there is a very good article on Astrography with a DSLR. Canon came in first with the Nikon D70 as the best alternative. VERY GOOD ARTICLE !!!! Stan

I'm looking at the D70 and the 300D for astrophotography purposes.
I recently heard that, at least for longer exposures, the Nikon D70
does not provide you with a "real" RAW image but actually does some
internal processing to eliminate "hot pixels", which could result
in the loss of some star images. Has anyone heard about this, or
have any experience with either camera in an astrophotography role?

thanks a bunch.

Ron

Ron,

The DRebel's CMOS sensor operates much cooler than the D70's CCD.
A cooler sensor means less noise. As such, the DRebel is the hands
down winner if Astrophotoraphy is important.

That said, I have an interest in doing limited Astrophotography. I
rejected the DRebel because my interest in Astrophotography is
severly limited by my equipment. I have a 10" Dob, which means all
tracking would be done by hand - obviously long exposures are not
something I can do. Any astrophotography I do will be limited to
the moon and planets.

Each camera has its strengths and weaknesses. The D70 will work
(as evidenced by the photos from other posters), but the DRebel
will work better.

In all other categories, the D70 is a superior camera.

--
Michael Newcomb, Temecula - CA

 

[Newcomb]

I'm looking at the D70 and the 300D for astrophotography purposes.
I recently heard that, at least for longer exposures, the Nikon D70
does not provide you with a "real" RAW image but actually does some
internal processing to eliminate "hot pixels", which could result
in the loss of some star images. Has anyone heard about this, or
have any experience with either camera in an astrophotography role?

thanks a bunch.

Ron

Ron,

The DRebel's CMOS sensor operates much cooler than the D70's CCD.
A cooler sensor means less noise. As such, the DRebel is the hands
down winner if Astrophotoraphy is important.

That said, I have an interest in doing limited Astrophotography. I
rejected the DRebel because my interest in Astrophotography is
severly limited by my equipment. I have a 10" Dob, which means all
tracking would be done by hand - obviously long exposures are not
something I can do. Any astrophotography I do will be limited to
the moon and planets.

Each camera has its strengths and weaknesses. The D70 will work
(as evidenced by the photos from other posters), but the DRebel
will work better.

In all other categories, the D70 is a superior camera.

--
Michael Newcomb, Temecula - CA

Curious ... what factors did Sky & Telescope Magazine take into consideration in voting for the DRebel as the preferred choice? (I don't subscribe to Sky & Telescope Magazine)
--
Michael Newcomb, Temecula - CA

 

[KiwiD70]

It's a bit like someone saying: I'm looking for a new vehicle, I drive around quite a lot, often interstate and such, and occassionally play a bit of golf I've heard a golf cart is better at carrying clubs, should I buy a golf cart as my next vehicle?

If you want the best astro camera, buy a purpose built, peltier cooled CCD job, if you want a great all round camera that doesn't do half bad astrophotgraphs then buy a D70.

I'm looking at the D70 and the 300D for astrophotography purposes.
I recently heard that, at least for longer exposures, the Nikon D70
does not provide you with a "real" RAW image but actually does some
internal processing to eliminate "hot pixels", which could result
in the loss of some star images. Has anyone heard about this, or
have any experience with either camera in an astrophotography role?

thanks a bunch.

Ron

I understand the concern. I shoot with a Meade LX200. I understand
how pixel remapping works and I know that weak or missing pixels
will be de-mapped by filling their pixel address with a number that
averages the surrounding 4 or 8 pixels (depending on the nature of
the errant pixel).

If your goal is to preserve every single pixel with absolute
fidelity to the cosmos, get yourself a Hubble, not a D70. But if
your planet, its atmosphere, your telescope, its diffraction
limited performance, your D70 and its actual single photosite
degree of astro image gathering resolution aren't actually,
literally, proven to exactly resolve images down to the single
pixel level, then you're fine to use the D70. Your chances of
parking the image of a single star on one and only one photosite is
vanishingly small (to instigate an ironic metaphor).

Virtually no image through Earth's atmosphere through a telescope
is going to resolve stars at the one--count it; one--pixel level.
And frankly, shots of the Milky Way made with the Kit Lens mounted
on a telescope to track the sky will not suffer if a single dim
star gets "averaged" rather than perfectly defined. You will,
however, get fantastic images, eventually. And without reciprocity
failure.

-iNova

--
http://www.digitalsecrets.net

--
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and
I’m not sure about the universe — Albert Einstein

 

[Barry Carter]

That's an easy one. The person that wrote the article is a Canon owner/user. All the example photos were taken with a Canon 10D.

I was curious why he dogged the Pentax 1stD and Olympus E-1 for astro-imaging. One has to read between the lines on many articles.

Ciao...Barry

Curious ... what factors did Sky & Telescope Magazine take into
consideration in voting for the DRebel as the preferred choice? (I
don't subscribe to Sky & Telescope Magazine)
--
Michael Newcomb, Temecula - CA

 

[Peter iNova]

It's a bit like someone saying: I'm looking for a new vehicle, I
drive around quite a lot, often interstate and such, and
occassionally play a bit of golf I've heard a golf cart is better
at carrying clubs, should I buy a golf cart as my next vehicle?

If you want the best astro camera, buy a purpose built, peltier
cooled CCD job, if you want a great all round camera that doesn't
do half bad astrophotgraphs then buy a D70.

I'm even rather encouraged from the factoid that the D70 can shoot very long exposures with such a minimum of point sensor failures. It's a good camera for working with the "flaw frame" technique seen here:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Image_Techniques/Night_Spots_01.htm

Where the camera in that article failed to deliver a 2 second shot without dramatic pixel noise, the D70 will get you several minute exposures. You will need to find a dark, dark sky area to shoot in. Unless, of course, you are crawling around inside the Moon.

-iNova

I'm looking at the D70 and the 300D for astrophotography purposes.
I recently heard that, at least for longer exposures, the Nikon D70
does not provide you with a "real" RAW image but actually does some
internal processing to eliminate "hot pixels", which could result
in the loss of some star images. Has anyone heard about this, or
have any experience with either camera in an astrophotography role?

thanks a bunch.

Ron

I understand the concern. I shoot with a Meade LX200. I understand
how pixel remapping works and I know that weak or missing pixels
will be de-mapped by filling their pixel address with a number that
averages the surrounding 4 or 8 pixels (depending on the nature of
the errant pixel).

If your goal is to preserve every single pixel with absolute
fidelity to the cosmos, get yourself a Hubble, not a D70. But if
your planet, its atmosphere, your telescope, its diffraction
limited performance, your D70 and its actual single photosite
degree of astro image gathering resolution aren't actually,
literally, proven to exactly resolve images down to the single
pixel level, then you're fine to use the D70. Your chances of
parking the image of a single star on one and only one photosite is
vanishingly small (to instigate an ironic metaphor).

Virtually no image through Earth's atmosphere through a telescope
is going to resolve stars at the one--count it; one--pixel level.
And frankly, shots of the Milky Way made with the Kit Lens mounted
on a telescope to track the sky will not suffer if a single dim
star gets "averaged" rather than perfectly defined. You will,
however, get fantastic images, eventually. And without reciprocity
failure.

-iNova

--
http://www.digitalsecrets.net

--
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and
I’m not sure about the universe — Albert Einstein

--
http://www.digitalsecrets.net