Nikon Coolpix 4500

Seanie,
If you had the 300D, you'd probabily user iso 1600 setting.

This means you'd get more stars, you could use a shorter exposure and get less trailing.
Dont know about this camera, but the 300D comes with a zoom lens, so you can pick the frame you want.
I suspect the 300D has a bigger aperture on the standard lens, and we all know how that helps.
Also you can capture a higher res shot, great for cropping later.

Seanie,
If you had the 300D, you'd probabily user iso 1600 setting.

This means you'd get more stars, you could use a shorter exposure and get less trailing.
Dont know about this camera, but the 300D comes with a zoom lens, so you can pick the frame you want.
I suspect the 300D has a bigger aperture on the standard lens, and we all know how that helps.
Also you can capture a higher res shot, great for cropping later.

Cheers Dave,
leaving out the ISO1600, and just using the same settings as Chris's, thats the kind of opinion/difference in picture I am talking about though.

Seanie,
You need to remember that the 300D can do prime focus photography, the nikon cannot .
If I wanted just constellation shots and nothing else, I would have stuck with my 35mm film camera !
I have many constellation pics from that.

You need to remember that the 300D can do prime focus photography, the nikon cannot .
If I wanted just constellation shots and nothing else, I would have stuck with my 35mm film camera !

Ah, I see now! So, as a prospective digital camera buyer, I'd be more enclined to go for the 300D for astrophotographical use... Its basically another advantage the Canon has over many other brands in the same category.

Cheers,

Seanie.

Ah, I see now! So, as a prospective digital camera buyer, I'd be more enclined to go for the 300D for astrophotographical use... Its basically another advantage the Canon has over many other brands in the same category.

If what you are interested in is prime focus astrophotographs, then, as pointed out, you cannot go for the Nikon. However, I'm more interested in having a small, light, simple, yet good camera for taking with me on eclipse trips - the compromise of having to use eyepiece projection to get astro photographs is OK with me. Plus, I simply love the swivelling lens - it makes taking clandestine photos of unsuspecting subjects sooo much easier! Plus, the Nikon is about half the price of the Canon!

As for using ISO 1600 with the Canon - does that not increase the noise? I've found that ISO 400 or 800 on the Nikon has quite a bit more noise than ISO 100 on long exposure photographs.

Cobyrne,
Practically every image I've ever taken and posted either here or on the SAC site was done using iso1600.
Its becomes noticable after 2 or 3 minutes and can be easily subtracted using a dark frame, basically its not a problem.

Like any telescope or camera, you must define what you'll be using it for before you select the model, least you get something you wont/cant use.
Get the right tool for the right job.

If I wasn't doing prime focus photography and I didnt have a 35mm film camera already, then something like the nikon would have been at the top of the list.