SLR

Hi guys,


Is there any point anymore in astrophotography with a non digital slr? Back in '04 I bought a Nikon F75 + 28-100mm auto zoom lens. It's a great camera and the picture quality is amazing. I have taken some pics of the night sky and I was really pleased with the results, only downside is , getting them developed and after lining up the viewfinder and the camera, you have to keep with object in the centre of the eyepiece and adjust it manually every 10 or 15 seconds, to keep star trails to a minimum.
Does anyone have any advice on making this process easier or should I just sell the old gal?

Hi Phil,

I was kind of in the same boat as you for a long time. I have a Cosina 4000S 35mm SLR. I have managed some rather nice star trail-type shots and the like. However, I never got round to going the distance with a T-mount and adapter - mostly because of the old camera model making it impossible to find a suitable alternative T-mount.

I have since been the recipient of a Canon 350D, but by no means has made the Cosina redundant. I dreamed of taking picture like those of David Malin from the Anglo Australian Telescope many an astronomy book from the 80's and early 90's would have had with the 35mm film camera. Lots of practice and waiting for developing photos just being part of the labour.

I also used to think of digital astrophotography as cheating because of the very fact that digital cameras can 'think' for you (when in any kind of auto mode) and you see the result almost immediately. Plus, being made of one's and zero's meant one can use the computer to tweak the image to how you desired, rather than seeing what the object in space is really like.

However, as I learned from practice AND the work of others, it just means that going digital makes it easier to get that important WOW! moment. I still want to get the equipment and time to go the normal SLR camera technique sometime (mount, scope, drive, and camera attachments). I have even made an allowance in my future house plans for a room where I can process and develop my own 35mm shots.

Not as instant or easy as digital, but definitely Old School!

Seanie.

Phil, Seanie.
I am actually hoping to do some film astrophotography this winter.
Film especially slide film has a quality all its own and in some respects
and applications is better than 0's & 1's.

Seanie.
Reading your post I was struck by the fact that your opinion is film gives a
'more realistic' representation of the object?
Film is just as processy as digital.
The chemist or lab tech makes decisions during devlopment from roll to roll that will
effect the final image.
Much as in the same way one can 'tweak' colour saturation or levels in Photoshop
with a digital image,
albiet, the digital image lends itself to an easier ride in the pc,
the film image is no more or no less a 'real' representation of anything,
much as in the same way a landscape painting and a photo of THAT particulat landscape painting
are both no more or no less a representation of anything, they just are what they are.

The difference is in not what or how well either media reproduce what the eye sees
but the overall effect of what the viewer perceives.

As for film 's digital
For the sake of convieniance digital is obviously the choice but
I still think when you learn a craft you should always master the basics
first and therefore a good grounding in basic film astrophotography is a plus.

Another plus is cheap equipment, I was pipped at the post on ebay this week
for a 12-24 wide angle Minolta zoom lens for 50 euro or so.
I'm hangin tough coz I'm sure there are a lot to be had and because it's
not an everyday lens I dont mind waiting for another to come on the market.
I simply can not wait to try out a long exp slide film with a wide angle lens
at a dark site with the astrotrac.
and with the cost of developing, I'll be sure to have my homework don with regards
to ISO's and exposure times!

Phil, Whereas what the guys said about is good advice, I;d still say bite the bullet and get a DSLR.

As Frank said, film still does have some advantages, but I feel overall the advantages of a DSLR vastly outweigh these. With a DSLR, YOU get to choose how the shot is processed. Its far more cost effective, and of course a DSLR is far more sensitive than any film available.

Go on and bite the bullet , "You know it makes sense"

Barberskum wrote:

Seanie.
Reading your post I was struck by the fact that your opinion is film gives a
'more realistic' representation of the object?
Film is just as processy as digital.
The chemist or lab tech makes decisions during devlopment from roll to roll that will effect the final image.
Much as in the same way one can 'tweak' colour saturation or levels in Photoshop
with a digital image

Hi Frank,
thanks for the reply. I don't believe film is as processy as digital. Some chemist developers do 'tweak' the image from a negative prior to developing, which I always request NOT to do. Leave the film exposure as it is and just print the thing. I found/find that digital photography takes the work out of astrophotography because of the plethora of possibilities post-processing on 1's and 0's available in something like Photoshop. That was my gripe. The work that was involved in taking spectacular astro images before the advent of CCD's, to me, was real and original. A quarter of the work today with a DSLR and you have the same result because of (what I call the) cheats in programme processing. Gone out the window is the whole concept of WYSIWYG with a camera anymore.