Had a really interesting experience yesterday involving a DSLR and a superzoom

Jock Elliott

Hall of Famer
Location
Troy, NY
I am always looking to improve my sky photography and lately I have been thinking specifically about low light sensitivity and color depth. Yesterday, I was wandering through a big box store yesterday when I saw a package deal on a DSLR at what appeared to be a good price: a Nikon D3200 with the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses and a bag to carry everything. The D3200 has DXO rated low light sensitivity over 1,000 (compared to around 100 for the FZ200) and significantly more color depth.

So I bought it, brought it home, and ran off a few test shots with each camera at full telephoto at a distant wood pile. (I figured for wildlife shots -- my other passion -- the 24 megapixels of the D3200 would allow me to crop the image to get the equivalent zoom of the FZ200 and possibly better image quality.)

Then came the shocker: at 100%, the D3200 with the 55-200 simply wasn't as sharp as the FZ200. Doubting what I was seeing, I moved the images from my laptop to my main work computer (which has better monitors). The result was the same: not as sharp.

I announced to my wife that I was returning the D3200. "What about the low light sensitivity for photographing the stars?" she asked.

Well, I said, I figure if it can't render a woodpile sharp at 200 yards, what is it going to do with stars at a few million light years?

So if any of the denizens here have done astrophotography with their rigs -- I know killramsey has -- I would be glad to see examples with descriptions of your setup.

Cheers, Jock
 
Not sure what you mean
FZ200 = 12.1 mega image at 300mm, (half it's full range of 600mm)
versus
DSLR = 24 meg image taken at 200mm x 1.5 = 300mm

at the same ISO, shutter speed and f setting

so you were effectively comparing a 24meg image with a 12.1 meg image both taken in RAW
 
Nikons DSLRs apply very little sharpening by default. Crank it up to 7 or 8 to match a Panasonic consumer cam if you are using jpegs. The kit lenses are not well matched to that dense sensor either even when stopped down to F8.

Crank up sharpness and shoot in 13.5 mb mode an you will be pleasantly surprised.

The D3200 is an amazing camera for the price when paired with good glass. Check out Thom Hogans review on it.
 
Bill,

No. I shot jpegs. the FZ200 at 600mm equivalent, the D3200 at 300 equivalent; P mode; I looked at both as shot (they both looked fine) and at 100%; the D3200 just looked soft. Then I ran them both through DXO9, which downloads the camera and lens modules and applies appropriate correction, and the D3200 still looked soft.

My orginal thought was: if you take a 24 mpix image at 300mm (equivalent) and crop it by 50%, you get a 12 mpix image that's equivalent to 600mm and you might get some gain in image quality . . . or am I badly in need of re-education?

In any event, I was not thrilled with the results from the D3200, and for several hundred dollars, I want to be thrilled.

Cheers, Jock
 
The kit lenses have let you down. They arent that good. The camera itself is excellent (and this from a Pentax fan) but kit lenses generally will not perform as well as you might hope. Sometimes you get lucky and get one that perfectly matches the camera and away you go, but often that isnt the case. If you want to do birding with a DSLR you have a perfectly fine body, but you need a good lens to go with it. *Then* you'll see a massive difference. Astrophotography really needs prime lenses too.
 
Nikons DSLRs apply very little sharpening by default. Crank it up to 7 or 8 to match a Panasonic consumer cam if you are using jpegs. The kit lenses are not well matched to that dense sensor either even when stopped down to F8.

Crank up sharpness and shoot in 13.5 mb mode an you will be pleasantly surprised.

The D3200 is an amazing camera for the price when paired with good glass. Check out Thom Hogans review on it.

Yakky,

I think quite possibly the operative phrase here is "good glass." Probably one would be better off with the 35mm f/1.8 and the 70-300 vr zoom.

Incidentally, these were not VR lenses, but I was shooting sitting on my front porch with my elbows braced on my knees, so I should have been pretty steady (and the shutter speeds were high).

Cheers, Jock
 
The FZ, (or F Zeeeee) 200 does look very good and Graham Houghton has produced some marvellous vids and info for free - well done that man!

no not another camera!!!!
 
Something I've discovered as megapixels rise, is that technique is critical! As I've aged, I've gotten much shakier, and I find it more difficult to achieve the same level of handheld sharpness I used to achieve. These high megapixel cameras have such high sensor density that even slight camera movement shows up as a lack of sharpness.

Rich
 
Birding is expensive

prime lens = £1,500 to £6,000+ ……...tripod and gimbal

then

hide ……..camo clothing ………..bird decoy recordings …...sandwiches
etc., etc., etc., the list is never ending

birding holidays £4,000 +
valium pills to calm your excitement or disappointment ….you need to be retired or unemployed with loads of money

and finally a very understanding wife, bribes in the form of expensive presents are good)

and then you only get "moderate" images compared with the experts

I'm not there yet


OR just be happy and buy a pair of bins and walk around the local countryside
 
Something I've discovered as megapixels rise, is that technique is critical! As I've aged, I've gotten much shakier, and I find it more difficult to achieve the same level of handheld sharpness I used to achieve. These high megapixel cameras have such high sensor density that even slight camera movement shows up as a lack of sharpness.

Rich


Agreed - I am moving more to a minimum shutter speed of 1/1000th and auto ISO versus AV priority and a max ISO of 400


and using my D300 more and more versus the D7100
 
Something I've discovered as megapixels rise, is that technique is critical! As I've aged, I've gotten much shakier, and I find it more difficult to achieve the same level of handheld sharpness I used to achieve. These high megapixel cameras have such high sensor density that even slight camera movement shows up as a lack of sharpness.

Rich

Rich,

I did not know that. No wonder the pix from my Olympus D550 (3 megapixel) look so wonderful to me!:D

Cheers, Jock
 
Jock the best image I have got with a zoom - (I have only taken one or 2), is as follows

Camera Nikon D300
Lens Nikon 70mm 300mm f4.5/5.6 VR zoom
at 300mm
taken as a Jpeg then cropped
1/50th sec ISO 200 at f8 - obviously on a tripod

(Zeemen crater)

Zeeman.jpg


I will have a go now that I have a better (prime) lens

but light is everything and I'll need to wait for a clear night
 
I think it's been said already (I'm late to the party) but from my limited experience, shooting the stars is a humbling exercise for your glass. I love the look of the X100 at f2 for general shots, but as soon as I tried to render tiny pin pricks of light against a purely black backdrop, I started seeing sagital comas in the corners and other issues inherent in shooting wide open. So it seems that you've got to start with better glass than Nikon kit zooms, then you're generally better off shooting something a little wide, stopping it down (in the case of the X100 it's acceptable at 2.8, and that also gets your shutter time down to prevent trails), lowering the ISO as much as possible, etc etc. The sweet spot seems to be to do the following things in the following order:

1. No more than a 20 second exposure. Beyond that you'll get obvious trails unless you're tight on the north star. But if you have anything in the frame closer to the horizon, you will see tracks above 20 for sure.
2. Maximum acceptable f stop
3. Lowest ISO that doesn't violate Rule #1
4. Set exposure time
5. Set 2 second self timer
6. Hit the shutter

Obviosuly the lower the ISO and the lower the shutter time, the better. So a lens that looks good at 2.8 is a HUGE bonus.
 
Bill,

No. I shot jpegs. the FZ200 at 600mm equivalent, the D3200 at 300 equivalent; P mode; I looked at both as shot (they both looked fine) and at 100%; the D3200 just looked soft. Then I ran them both through DXO9, which downloads the camera and lens modules and applies appropriate correction, and the D3200 still looked soft.

My orginal thought was: if you take a 24 mpix image at 300mm (equivalent) and crop it by 50%, you get a 12 mpix image that's equivalent to 600mm and you might get some gain in image quality . . . or am I badly in need of re-education?

In any event, I was not thrilled with the results from the D3200, and for several hundred dollars, I want to be thrilled.

Cheers, Jock

If you're cropping an image to get the same field-of-view of a lens with double the focal length you are halving both the height and the width.

1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4.

1/4 x 24 = 6mp.
 
If you're cropping an image to get the same field-of-view of a lens with double the focal length you are halving both the height and the width.

1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4.

1/4 x 24 = 6mp.

Nic,

Thanks for the correction. Nevertheless, at 100% (with no cropping), I was not thrilled with the image from the D3200.

Cheers, Jock
 
So possibly one of the "supercompacts" like a GR, Coolpix A, X100 for astrophotography??

Cheers, Jock

Only if you want a wide angle.

I use my Pentax (well, I did a couple of times) one night with the DA15mm and the next with the FA43mm. It depends on what you want to do. I'm no expert but there are plenty about. Since you have the 3200 already, I'd be considering a nifty fifty, they aren't very expensive.

15mm

Milky Way 1 par Sue Wotton, on ipernity

43mm

Milky Way 27/7/2011 par Sue Wotton, on ipernity

and the same shot with extreme PP.

A Billion Suns par Sue Wotton, on ipernity
 
Back
Top