Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Nikon 810a vs A7S vs A7S ii

  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 Seiko4169

Seiko4169

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 546
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2009

Posted 02 October 2017 - 05:04 AM

Wanted to get some opinions on the above cameras. I’ve searched and read the CN posts on these two and still can’t decide. Scope is an FSQ130 at F5 or F3.5 with the .7 reducer. Mount is the EM 200 (unguided) which is slightly under mounted. Seeing is average and moderate LP. Targets will initially be the brighter and easier ones. My aim is not to worry about sensational results but to ease my way into AP with a camera that can also be used photographically, wild life and woodland shots.

 

810a pro’s :- higher pixel count and modified. Seemed a good match to the FSQ130 resolution.

 

810a con’s :- no articulated screen, live view isn’t great. A little worried about the normal picture taking with a possible red shift effecting all pictures? Larger files.

 

-

 

A7S pro’s :- superb live view, articulated screen, excellent sensitivity which should help with quick captures?  It isn’t modified so should produce nicer normal photographs. Smaller files. Lighter than 810a.

 

A7S con’s :- star eater for anything over 30’s. Didn’t appear to be a good pixel size for the FSQ? 

It isn’t and won’t be modified so wont help bring nebula details out as well as the 810a.

 

 

-

 

A7Sii pro’s :- IS for normal photography. Genuine 4K video recording. Slim chance star eater might get fixed over the original.

 

A7Sii con’s :- worse cooling due to IS. More expensive than A7S. Star eater kicks in after 4s.

 

 

 

So thats my current understanding. I’m drawn to the A7S original because I’m thinking it will be easy to grab quick data and repeat if required. The live view will be a pleasant experience almost emulating NV and EAA. I’m concerned about the Sony because the star eater algorithm appears to rediculous. The supporting software limited and the pixels don’t seem an ideal match for the FSQ.

 

I’m drawn to the 810a because the pixel size seems a good match and it’s modifications help with the AP. I’m concerned about the Nikon because the modifications can be seen in normal photography and the live view isn’t anything like the impressive Sony.

 

Can the Sony’s sensitivity and capability to quickly capture data help overcome its short comings?

 

Thoughts?


Edited by Seiko4169, 02 October 2017 - 06:16 AM.


#2 KLWalsh

KLWalsh

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 948
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2014
  • Loc: North Georgia, USA

Posted 02 October 2017 - 05:35 AM

I have the 810a and use it for regular photography. I can't tell any difference in colors between it and my unmodified D5100.
Perhaps pro photographers who need precise colors for portraiture might notice a difference.
If you plan to use a computer with your scope, the Backyard Nikon software is a great way to control the camera, and since you see the live views and images on your monitor, the lack of an articulated screen doesn't matter. As of now, there isn't a version of 'Backyard' for the Sony.
If weight or backfocus is a concern, though, a Sony might be a better choice.

#3 Seiko4169

Seiko4169

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 546
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2009

Posted 02 October 2017 - 06:19 AM

I have the 810a and use it for regular photography. I can't tell any difference in colors between it and my unmodified D5100.
Perhaps pro photographers who need precise colors for portraiture might notice a difference.
If you plan to use a computer with your scope, the Backyard Nikon software is a great way to control the camera, and since you see the live views and images on your monitor, the lack of an articulated screen doesn't matter. As of now, there isn't a version of 'Backyard' for the Sony.
If weight or backfocus is a concern, though, a Sony might be a better choice.

Thanks, I’m undecided on the computer. Initially I had hoped not to use one in the field as it would quickly lead me down to guiding and then I’d be thinking about a dedicated Astro cam. This intermediate step is very much a ‘fun’ orinetated one as opposed to incredible images. Those ‘incredible’ images will have to wait a few years until I have a permanent observatory.



#4 charotarguy

charotarguy

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 10 Sep 2014

Posted 02 October 2017 - 08:31 AM

Why can't you consider Sony A7R or A7Rii? Following is from FSQ106N and A7Rii from last weekend (Sept 23). Guess thats another option you can consider, not an expert on cameras or AP in general so hopefully you'll get more input from experienced members here.

 

gallery_232910_8301_785544.jpg

 

 


  • DuncanM, Lightning, bsavoie and 2 others like this

#5 t_image

t_image

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,499
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015

Posted 02 October 2017 - 09:51 AM

Wanted to get some opinions on the above cameras. I’ve searched and read the CN posts on these two and still can’t decide. Scope is an FSQ130 at F5 or F3.5 with the .7 reducer. Mount is the EM 200 (unguided) which is slightly under mounted. Seeing is average and moderate LP. Targets will initially be the brighter and easier ones. My aim is not to worry about sensational results but to ease my way into AP with a camera that can also be used photographically, wild life and woodland shots.

 

810a pro’s :- higher pixel count and modified. Seemed a good match to the FSQ130 resolution.

 

810a con’s :- no articulated screen, live view isn’t great. A little worried about the normal picture taking with a possible red shift effecting all pictures? Larger files.

 

-

 

A7S pro’s :- superb live view, articulated screen, excellent sensitivity which should help with quick captures?  It isn’t modified so should produce nicer normal photographs. Smaller files. Lighter than 810a.

 

A7S con’s :- star eater for anything over 30’s. Didn’t appear to be a good pixel size for the FSQ? 

It isn’t and won’t be modified so wont help bring nebula details out as well as the 810a.

 

 

-

 

A7Sii pro’s :- IS for normal photography. Genuine 4K video recording. Slim chance star eater might get fixed over the original.

 

A7Sii con’s :- worse cooling due to IS. More expensive than A7S. Star eater kicks in after 4s.

 

 

 

So thats my current understanding. I’m drawn to the A7S original because I’m thinking it will be easy to grab quick data and repeat if required. The live view will be a pleasant experience almost emulating NV and EAA. I’m concerned about the Sony because the star eater algorithm appears to rediculous. The supporting software limited and the pixels don’t seem an ideal match for the FSQ.

 

I’m drawn to the 810a because the pixel size seems a good match and it’s modifications help with the AP. I’m concerned about the Nikon because the modifications can be seen in normal photography and the live view isn’t anything like the impressive Sony.

 

Can the Sony’s sensitivity and capability to quickly capture data help overcome its short comings?

 

Thoughts?

Seems like you are familiar with the literature on the matters.

Let me point out a matter you didn't mention:

Silent shutter (Sony). Drops bitdepth from (13+1) to 12bit, but great for wildlife shooting were clicks could make some creatures jumpy. Great for timelapse for not wearing out camera shutter.

 

Reminder: the Sony a7s already has decent sensitivity for the h-a 656.3 red without any modification needed. In fact I get a higher red response with a 7nm h-alpha narrowband filter on an unmodded a7s (at highest ISOs for sample shots) compared to a modded Sony a5100 with the IR filter removed and same optics and narrowband h-a filter used with its highest ISO for sample shots, meaning the high ISO boost available in a7s more than compensates for the lower 656.3nm transmission on the unmodded a7s camera compared with a modded camera with lesser low light capability.....

Of course no mod=longer exposure that moves you closer to >30s and star eater, if the effects are noticeable to you for the particular targets in the first place..

 

Handicap of LP: if you are certain to limit yourself to locations that wont give you dark skies, you may be hindering benefits one or the other brings to the table.

 

As to "live view"," the point is you can ramp up to 409,600 while using 1/30 sec in movie mode to frame the shot being able to see quite faint stars.

You can go crazy there dropping to 1/4 second to give a boost if your skies aren't blown out (at ISO 409,600) but works in dark skies, just the 1/4 sec has motion blur....

Using live view, especially if you have a display (either a portable 7") or larger attached with HDMI you can easily frame the shot and focus (also with the focus magnifier setting)....

After getting things set, you then drop down to a reasonable ISO and set your longer exposure and take shots....

 

As to the particular benefits and problems, the key dilemma is appointing an accurate "weight" to what they contribute/detract to the situation.

 

I will say that if you owned a 810a and switched to an a7s, you would immediately appreciate the advantage of the feedback of the high ISO potential and from my experience it has helped me learn quickly the nuances of data acquisition and has allowed me to spend less time aligning, finding alignment stars, starring at a computer screen to focus or to see whether a faint image has the correct information in it,

and more time just taking pictures, glancing at what samples look like, and then taking more shots.....

 

I'd love to see a group experiment with new photographers, some given the 810a and others given a Sony a7s version.

Give them a period of months to shoot under dark skies and learn how to improve their shots.

Then compare the images, especially if there could be a neutral "image processor" individual that would stack the different samples, so the comparison stayed with the use of the cameras and not developed skills on how to stack and process images....

Imagine such being tested^ How different would the images appear (given a range of targets)? Would they even be noticeable? Did the camera features allow certain individuals to learn and get images more efficiently? Are there ceilings on the benefits the different cameras provide? Are there minimums needed externally to best enhance what the features bring to the table?

Again the more balanced and properly weighted the pros/cons, the more accurate your conclusions on what will help.

However, I can't really say the literature correctly demonstrates an accurately weighted value to the benefits/cons of the different features....

There are enough on CN and astrobin to give a nice sample of images (done right) that can be done by your different candidates...

Not to mention individual differences in requirements pertaining to styles of workflow, convenience of process, etc. etc.....

 

It is best to see the features/cons as having starts and ends/minimums/ceilings depending on context and not as all or none qualities..

For example: Sony live view: best at f/2.8 and under, helpful at f/6.3 and under, worthless about f/8...

ISO 409,600: not even useful in high light pollution where a live image can reveal blown out skies with fast optics.......

Noticeable difference in spatial resolution give pixel size v optics: depends on the target, what you do with the image (4K display? print? just browse on phone, etc).....

h/a sensitivity useless on glob clusters, etc..


  • Miguelo likes this

#6 Seiko4169

Seiko4169

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 546
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2009

Posted 02 October 2017 - 01:57 PM

Why can't you consider Sony A7R or A7Rii? Following is from FSQ106N and A7Rii from last weekend (Sept 23). Guess thats another option you can consider, not an expert on cameras or AP in general so hopefully you'll get more input from experienced members here.
 
gallery_232910_8301_785544.jpg


That’s a fantastic picture. I’d kind of dismissed the other Sony 7 series as inferior to th A7S for AP work? Looks like that really isn’t the case although how do you get over the 4 second limit before the star water problem kicks in?

#7 Seiko4169

Seiko4169

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 546
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2009

Posted 02 October 2017 - 02:00 PM

Wanted to get some opinions on the above cameras. I’ve searched and read the CN posts on these two and still can’t decide. Scope is an FSQ130 at F5 or F3.5 with the .7 reducer. Mount is the EM 200 (unguided) which is slightly under mounted. Seeing is average and moderate LP. Targets will initially be the brighter and easier ones. My aim is not to worry about sensational results but to ease my way into AP with a camera that can also be used photographically, wild life and woodland shots.
 
810a pro’s :- higher pixel count and modified. Seemed a good match to the FSQ130 resolution.
 
810a con’s :- no articulated screen, live view isn’t great. A little worried about the normal picture taking with a possible red shift effecting all pictures? Larger files.
 
-
 
A7S pro’s :- superb live view, articulated screen, excellent sensitivity which should help with quick captures?  It isn’t modified so should produce nicer normal photographs. Smaller files. Lighter than 810a.
 
A7S con’s :- star eater for anything over 30’s. Didn’t appear to be a good pixel size for the FSQ? 
It isn’t and won’t be modified so wont help bring nebula details out as well as the 810a.
 
 
-
 
A7Sii pro’s :- IS for normal photography. Genuine 4K video recording. Slim chance star eater might get fixed over the original.
 
A7Sii con’s :- worse cooling due to IS. More expensive than A7S. Star eater kicks in after 4s.
 
 
 
So thats my current understanding. I’m drawn to the A7S original because I’m thinking it will be easy to grab quick data and repeat if required. The live view will be a pleasant experience almost emulating NV and EAA. I’m concerned about the Sony because the star eater algorithm appears to rediculous. The supporting software limited and the pixels don’t seem an ideal match for the FSQ.
 
I’m drawn to the 810a because the pixel size seems a good match and it’s modifications help with the AP. I’m concerned about the Nikon because the modifications can be seen in normal photography and the live view isn’t anything like the impressive Sony.
 
Can the Sony’s sensitivity and capability to quickly capture data help overcome its short comings?
 
Thoughts?

Seems like you are familiar with the literature on the matters.
Let me point out a matter you didn't mention:
Silent shutter (Sony). Drops bitdepth from (13+1) to 12bit, but great for wildlife shooting were clicks could make some creatures jumpy. Great for timelapse for not wearing out camera shutter.
 
Reminder: the Sony a7s already has decent sensitivity for the h-a 656.3 red without any modification needed. In fact I get a higher red response with a 7nm h-alpha narrowband filter on an unmodded a7s (at highest ISOs for sample shots) compared to a modded Sony a5100 with the IR filter removed and same optics and narrowband h-a filter used with its highest ISO for sample shots, meaning the high ISO boost available in a7s more than compensates for the lower 656.3nm transmission on the unmodded a7s camera compared with a modded camera with lesser low light capability.....
Of course no mod=longer exposure that moves you closer to >30s and star eater, if the effects are noticeable to you for the particular targets in the first place..
 
Handicap of LP: if you are certain to limit yourself to locations that wont give you dark skies, you may be hindering benefits one or the other brings to the table.
 
As to "live view"," the point is you can ramp up to 409,600 while using 1/30 sec in movie mode to frame the shot being able to see quite faint stars.
You can go crazy there dropping to 1/4 second to give a boost if your skies aren't blown out (at ISO 409,600) but works in dark skies, just the 1/4 sec has motion blur....
Using live view, especially if you have a display (either a portable 7") or larger attached with HDMI you can easily frame the shot and focus (also with the focus magnifier setting)....
After getting things set, you then drop down to a reasonable ISO and set your longer exposure and take shots....
 
As to the particular benefits and problems, the key dilemma is appointing an accurate "weight" to what they contribute/detract to the situation.
 
I will say that if you owned a 810a and switched to an a7s, you would immediately appreciate the advantage of the feedback of the high ISO potential and from my experience it has helped me learn quickly the nuances of data acquisition and has allowed me to spend less time aligning, finding alignment stars, starring at a computer screen to focus or to see whether a faint image has the correct information in it,
and more time just taking pictures, glancing at what samples look like, and then taking more shots.....
 
I'd love to see a group experiment with new photographers, some given the 810a and others given a Sony a7s version.
Give them a period of months to shoot under dark skies and learn how to improve their shots.
Then compare the images, especially if there could be a neutral "image processor" individual that would stack the different samples, so the comparison stayed with the use of the cameras and not developed skills on how to stack and process images....
Imagine such being tested^ How different would the images appear (given a range of targets)? Would they even be noticeable? Did the camera features allow certain individuals to learn and get images more efficiently? Are there ceilings on the benefits the different cameras provide? Are there minimums needed externally to best enhance what the features bring to the table?
Again the more balanced and properly weighted the pros/cons, the more accurate your conclusions on what will help.
However, I can't really say the literature correctly demonstrates an accurately weighted value to the benefits/cons of the different features....
There are enough on CN and astrobin to give a nice sample of images (done right) that can be done by your different candidates...
Not to mention individual differences in requirements pertaining to styles of workflow, convenience of process, etc. etc.....
 
It is best to see the features/cons as having starts and ends/minimums/ceilings depending on context and not as all or none qualities..
For example: Sony live view: best at f/2.8 and under, helpful at f/6.3 and under, worthless about f/8...
ISO 409,600: not even useful in high light pollution where a live image can reveal blown out skies with fast optics.......
Noticeable difference in spatial resolution give pixel size v optics: depends on the target, what you do with the image (4K display? print? just browse on phone, etc).....
h/a sensitivity useless on glob clusters, etc..


Thanks for taking the time to provide such a detailed response. Really appreciate it and lots too consider.


The quick acquisition and framing is very important so the Sony’s have the edge. The picture above alone is enough to get me excited noting that was taken with another pixel monster. Do the pixels on the A7S help or hinder the FSQ?

#8 charotarguy

charotarguy

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 10 Sep 2014

Posted 02 October 2017 - 02:43 PM

 

Why can't you consider Sony A7R or A7Rii? Following is from FSQ106N and A7Rii from last weekend (Sept 23). Guess thats another option you can consider, not an expert on cameras or AP in general so hopefully you'll get more input from experienced members here.
 
gallery_232910_8301_785544.jpg


That’s a fantastic picture. I’d kind of dismissed the other Sony 7 series as inferior to th A7S for AP work? Looks like that really isn’t the case although how do you get over the 4 second limit before the star water problem kicks in?

 

Thanks, yeah didn't really care about the 4 sec limit, not a pixel peeper. Having said that I did sign up the proposal on change.org for Sony to fix the issue.



#9 AnakChan

AnakChan

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,377
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2014
  • Loc: Oz

Posted 02 October 2017 - 08:34 PM

I have both the A7S (cool mod by CDS), and the D810A. I also have scopes of 2 main focal length - the Pentax 125SDP (125mm/F6.4), and the Takahashi µ250CRS (2500mm/F10). As per my sig suggests, I use the CDS A7S with the µ250CRS and the D810A with the 125SDP.

With the A7S on the 125SDP, I do get the doughnuts per sub. However dither and that kinda goes away so it's not been a big deal for me. A7S with the µ250CRS, no problems with doughnuts at all. But why have the D810A with the 125SDP, purely 'cos I can. I've not played with that combo enough despite owning the equip for 18 mths, I tend to take the A7S out more mainly 'cos it has cooling.

 

t_image has raised some good points that the A7S (and esp mine where it's cooled), has a big advantage of it's sensitivity and super high ISO which I use regularly for setup/framing - just remember to put it back down to the appropriate ISO for the real subs (I've wasted 3 hrs before snapping away 10 min at ISO 409,600 - lesson learnt, don't be over confident and sleep in the car - check every now and then).

 

Cons of the D810A, whilst I'm still learning about it, trying to find the right balance right exposure vs sensor noise. Maybe the D810A will need to be my winter camera.



#10 sharkmelley

sharkmelley

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,667
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2013
  • Loc: UK

Posted 03 October 2017 - 02:40 AM

With the A7S on the 125SDP, I do get the doughnuts per sub. However dither and that kinda goes away so it's not been a big deal for me. A7S with the µ250CRS, no problems with doughnuts at all.

Can you explain what the doughnuts are?

 

Mark


  • Miguelo likes this

#11 jag32

jag32

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,075
  • Joined: 30 May 2017

Posted 03 October 2017 - 10:25 PM

It was my understanding that the Sony A7S star eater issue did not "activate" unless used in bulb mode for shots beyond 30 seconds, but shots AT or below 30 seconds (in bulb mode or not) were not effected by the star eater issue.  This is the first i've heard that it was now at 4 seconds.  I'm talking about the newer Mk 2 version.  Can someone confirm?



#12 mmalik

mmalik

    DSLR camera modifications

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 11,894
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 04 October 2017 - 12:11 AM

When it comes to light anomalies... post-mod, a7SII may not be a good choice.

 

 

a7S... (first generation I mean) is the best astro camera out there, bar none!


Edited by mmalik, 04 October 2017 - 12:13 AM.


#13 sharkmelley

sharkmelley

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,667
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2013
  • Loc: UK

Posted 04 October 2017 - 12:27 AM

It was my understanding that the Sony A7S star eater issue did not "activate" unless used in bulb mode for shots beyond 30 seconds, but shots AT or below 30 seconds (in bulb mode or not) were not effected by the star eater issue.  This is the first i've heard that it was now at 4 seconds.  I'm talking about the newer Mk 2 version.  Can someone confirm?

Where have you been these last few months wink.gif . 

 

Yes, Sony hid a nasty surprise in one of their firmware updates for the Mk2 versions so that now any exposure (bulb and non-bulb) 4sec and longer in the Mk2 versions has star eater.  The issue began to effect more than just the astrophotographers.

 

That's why bloggers suddenly started blogging it:

https://www.lonelysp...letter-to-sony/

https://johnleathwic...trophotography/

 

And it's why a petition to Sony started:

https://www.change.o...-and-a9-cameras

 

Mark


Edited by sharkmelley, 04 October 2017 - 12:29 AM.


#14 AnakChan

AnakChan

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,377
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2014
  • Loc: Oz

Posted 04 October 2017 - 02:41 AM

 

With the A7S on the 125SDP, I do get the doughnuts per sub. However dither and that kinda goes away so it's not been a big deal for me. A7S with the µ250CRS, no problems with doughnuts at all.

Can you explain what the doughnuts are?

 

Mark

?? Prob not understanding your question but your Star Eater? Sorry if I'm not understanding your question.



#15 Seiko4169

Seiko4169

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 546
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2009

Posted 04 October 2017 - 07:53 AM

Well I’ve decided to descope the Nikon as I want to place a lot of my priorities in the ease of framing and almost EAA views of the Sony. I’ve also decided ...

 

I don’t want to use a laptop in the field.

I don’t want to auto guide.

I’d ideally like to view my picture on my 4K displays.

My acquisition time will be limited to a few hours max.

 

So, I’m now torn between..

 

A7S

A7S ii

A7R ii

 

 

This is my current order of running...

 

1st) A7Rii - High pixel count sounds great for detail and overall it’s basically the better balanced ‘normal camera’. Worried I’ll be reliant on more accurate tracking and the live view framing won’t be anything like the A7S. Oh and there seems to be a real lack of AP pictures taken with this.

 

2nd) A7Sii - latest version of A7S offering a few general improvements including genuine 4K and IS for normal photography. Wary of the low resolution. Poorer normal photographic use.

 

3rd) A7S - very close to the above but no genuine 4K, no IS and is a generation behind. Better cooling and no star eater until after 30’s.

 

Which leads me to a couple of questions..

 

Ignoring the detail am I right in thinking that either A7S will allow me to capture data quicker, I.e. shorter exposures compared with the A7R?

 

Does the A7Rii’s live view keep up with the A7S’s or is it the crazy high iso of the A7S doing the real magic for framing almost eaa liveview etc?

 

Does the A7Rii’s high pixel count mean my mount will need to perform more precisely compared with the lower resolution of the A7S’?

 

Do the improvements of the new A7Sii over the A7S really have a real world negative impact on temperatures that would hinder me?

 

Thanks again for your time and advice.

 

 

 

 

 



#16 charotarguy

charotarguy

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 10 Sep 2014

Posted 04 October 2017 - 02:14 PM

Why dont you reach out to user bwallan, I think he uses both Sony A7S and A7Rii and puts out some pretty awesome images, in fact I reached out to him when I had questions on processing the raw files from A7Rii. Think he should be able to give you a pretty good account of the pros and cons of both the cameras.



#17 jag32

jag32

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,075
  • Joined: 30 May 2017

Posted 04 October 2017 - 02:20 PM

Why dont you reach out to user bwallan, I think he uses both Sony A7S and A7Rii and puts out some pretty awesome images, in fact I reached out to him when I had questions on processing the raw files from A7Rii. Think he should be able to give you a pretty good account of the pros and cons of both the cameras.

If you do, please share your findings here!



#18 DuncanM

DuncanM

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,433
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2009
  • Loc: Arizona Sky Village or the rain forest

Posted 04 October 2017 - 02:34 PM

Well I’ve decided to descope the Nikon as I want to place a lot of my priorities in the ease of framing and almost EAA views of the Sony. I’ve also decided ...

 

I don’t want to use a laptop in the field.

I don’t want to auto guide.

I’d ideally like to view my picture on my 4K displays.

 

 

 

 

 

So you are going to have a 4K monitor with you but not a laptop?


  • Dwight J likes this

#19 sharkmelley

sharkmelley

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,667
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2013
  • Loc: UK

Posted 04 October 2017 - 03:07 PM

 

 

With the A7S on the 125SDP, I do get the doughnuts per sub. However dither and that kinda goes away so it's not been a big deal for me. A7S with the µ250CRS, no problems with doughnuts at all.

Can you explain what the doughnuts are?

 

Mark

?? Prob not understanding your question but your Star Eater? Sorry if I'm not understanding your question.

 

Thanks now I understand - you mean the stars with their central peak obliterated, leaving a doughnut ring shape.

 

Mark



#20 Seiko4169

Seiko4169

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 546
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2009

Posted 04 October 2017 - 03:19 PM

 

Well I’ve decided to descope the Nikon as I want to place a lot of my priorities in the ease of framing and almost EAA views of the Sony. I’ve also decided ...

 

I don’t want to use a laptop in the field.

I don’t want to auto guide.

I’d ideally like to view my picture on my 4K displays.

 

 

 

 

 

So you are going to have a 4K monitor with you but not a laptop?

 

 Hi, no sorry I should have been clearer. I'd like to view the final results on my 4K monitors etc.



#21 sharkmelley

sharkmelley

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,667
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2013
  • Loc: UK

Posted 04 October 2017 - 03:36 PM

You have a top of the range astrograph, the FSQ130, and you're going to view your images on a 4K monitor.  You are clearly a discerning user who demands high quality.

 

The FSQ130 scope - you already know how tight the stars are from that beautiful piece of kit, don't you.  Those are exactly the kind of stars that the Sony spatial filtering algorithm will attack. If you buy a Sony you will, absolutely will, notice the star eater issue on your lovely 4K monitor.  You shouldn't even be considering a Sony camera.

 

My advice to you is to either buy a Nikon now or wait around to see if Sony provides some kind of firmware update to fix star eater on some or all of their A7 series cameras.

 

Mark


Edited by sharkmelley, 04 October 2017 - 03:38 PM.

  • DuncanM likes this

#22 Seiko4169

Seiko4169

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 546
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2009

Posted 04 October 2017 - 04:20 PM

Thanks Mark, sounds very sensible. I’ll wait a little longer to see what Sony does about the Star Eater. Assuming the rumour is true and they do release a firmware (big if) would the extra pixels of the r help?

#23 t_image

t_image

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,499
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015

Posted 04 October 2017 - 04:21 PM

^Mark is worthy of listening to, as he has been the one to discover a number of issues with the limits he's pushed the camera to.....

 

Again everything is about trade-offs.

You have to decide for yourself what is best for you.

It may be worth it to rent a camera and test it out for yourself...

 

I'd rather have had all the amazing time I've had with my Sony a7s cameras and the limitations I've worked around,

rather than deal with the limitations of a Nikon with a mirror and a non-existent EVF or not having a camera at all.

FWIW.....

 

Also, if you want some demonstrations of what the different models can do, there are a lot of examples out there,

and maybe some of us have old data we could pull up as well.

But again, conditions, optics, targets all will have variance....


  • sharkmelley, Miguelo and charotarguy like this

#24 jag32

jag32

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,075
  • Joined: 30 May 2017

Posted 04 October 2017 - 04:58 PM

Are there any Canon's which can be compared to the capabilities of the A7S or D810 that are worth mentioning/considering?

#25 charotarguy

charotarguy

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 10 Sep 2014

Posted 04 October 2017 - 05:05 PM

^Mark is worthy of listening to, as he has been the one to discover a number of issues with the limits he's pushed the camera to.....

 

Again everything is about trade-offs.

You have to decide for yourself what is best for you.

It may be worth it to rent a camera and test it out for yourself...

 

I'd rather have had all the amazing time I've had with my Sony a7s cameras and the limitations I've worked around,

rather than deal with the limitations of a Nikon with a mirror and a non-existent EVF or not having a camera at all.

FWIW.....

 

Also, if you want some demonstrations of what the different models can do, there are a lot of examples out there,

and maybe some of us have old data we could pull up as well.

But again, conditions, optics, targets all will have variance....

That is a great suggestion to rent it and test. 




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics