|
Nightfly
super member
Reged: 06/20/07
Posts: 199
Loc: Sullivan, Maine
|
Thoughts on wide-field film astrophotography
06/28/08 09:37 PM
|
|
|
At the risk of getting into the now typical "film vs. digital" argument (hey this is a film forum, right?) I would like to ask the question: For WIDE-FIELD astrophotography, does film still do a better job than DSLR's? I've searched the web and I see lots of interesting photos taken with DSLR's and I see one obvious advantage: You can frame a Milky Way shot with a landscape scene and expose for less than a minute and capture an amazing image, but.........
I look at those same images and stars look like *BLEEP* and are full of artifacts. The image can barely be blown up to full screen without seeing more problems in the image. I admit I am comparing these images to my own work with medium format cameras and film and others that use this format that do allot better than I.
I see a loss in quality that I do not hear people talking about. For narrow field work, I see DSLR's producing very good work, I dare say better than film, but for wide field work I do not see this.
This question does not apply to wide field lenses tied to large expensive cooled CCD's. They have my respect for doing an awesome job, a better job than film. I'm strickly talking about film, namely E200 vs. DSLR's
I will confess I am partial to film for other reasons, one is that I have used film for astrophotography for almost 25 years. If I saw a major improvement in DSLR's I would make the switch, but for now I will part ways with those who have said film is dead.
I look forward to your thoughts.
Regards,
Jim
-------------------- Jim Cormier
Sullivan, Maine, USA
www.nightfly.zoomshare.com
Pentax 67 with 55, 105, 165, and 300mm lenses
|
|
0 registered and 1 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Suk Lee, Charlie Hein, knuklhdastnmr, ClownFish
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Rating:
Thread views: 1720
|
|
|
|
|
|
|