Telescope Reviews: Thoughts on wide-field film astrophotography

I am somewhat bemused with this thread, the unconverted preaching to the unconverted

Unfortunately a number of observations are being made that, shall we say, stretch the truth quite a bit. Film has no noise? Hmnnn. I did dabble in film astrophotography before purchasing my first DSLR some years back. The biggest handicap with film is the absolute need for a very dark sky. Problem is that the nonlinear curve in response makes stacking inordinately problematic. The other, when it comes to prints, is film grain. A properly exposed/processed DSLR image(or stack of images) has neither problem. What I found is that, with sufficiently good lenses, a 35mm format DSLR compares well, and often surpasses, a Medium Format film camera. And a MF digital sensor can compete with a 4x5 film camera. It realy is no problem to produce huge, grain-free, ultrawide Milky Way vistas with a DSLR. Here is my own example of one that produced a grain-free 6ftx4ft print:

Data, and larger version available here. The Canon 1Ds used, now positively ancient, has already been superceded at least by two newer generations, hence lower noise, higher pixel density, etc. Unfortunately, currently most widefield DSLR astroimages are more compromised by lens quality (applies to film too!), rather than sensor quality. Actually, film is much more tolerant of poor lenses than DSLRs. The tails coming out of bright stars from astigmatism and coma show up much less on film, because of the nonlinear sensitivity, than in DSLRs. I agree that there is a lot to be said for large format film widefields, subtle tonality and gradation, etc. But getting large prints from 35mm format film ain't one of them, IMHO of course. There is also a lot to be said of the simplicity at the taking stage, no PC or huge batteries, etc. For this very reason I have now simplified my portable astroimaging enormously, comparable to taking film widefields, but I can shoot both widefields and at a long enough focal length to frame M31 nicely with a DSLR, and be able to deliver decent A3 sized prints quite routinely. Yes, all I need is a tiny, unguided mount, a DSLR and a camera lens, togther with a timer/programmer cable release. Here's how I do it. So, film guys, you CAN have the simplicity of film and use a DSLR. Are the results superior? Of course it's in the eye of the operator. It is technically far easier with DSLRs, enabling larger prints, from less than ideal sites. But film does look different and if that particular look appeals strongly enough to outweigh the DSLR advantages, then one should stick to film

The LOOK of the final product in the taste of the beholder should be the determinant. It's akin to choice in painting using water colors or acrylics. The fact that any DSLR becomes positively ancient within 3 years is of course a major annoyance, at least psychologically, even though the newer versions do not invalidate the competence of the 3-year old model. One may still deprived in not using the newest and best. But, hey, that should not apply to film guys, should it?

--------------------
Bored? Peruse my website:
http://www.samirkharusi.net/