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

SL2/200D or D5300 unmodded

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 coenie777

coenie777

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Pretoria - South Africa

Posted 09 June 2018 - 03:46 PM

Any views on whether the Canon SL2 managed to close the gap on Nikon's D5300 (seeing that it uses the same sensor as the 80D)?

 

For deepsky, and no current need to stick with Canon, should one get SL2 with more modern processor and chip or stick with the tried and tested D5300? Image comparisons on Dpreview tells me D5300 still has edge:

 

https://www.dpreview...897566010148793

 

DxOMark show D5300 clearly ahead of the SL2 in terms of dynamic range and noise:

 

https://www.dxomark....5300___1171_919

 

And Photonstophotos also tells the same story.

 

http://www.photonsto...,Nikon D5300_14

 

What is the experience under the stars?



#2 dhalgren

dhalgren

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2018
  • Loc: New Jersey, USA

Posted 14 June 2018 - 07:02 AM

I have had my SL2 since March and I have been very happy so far. I did not really have an option of going away from Canon, I have too much invested in lenses, T-rings, and the ability to find all the controls by feel in total darkness. grin.gif 



#3 coenie777

coenie777

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Pretoria - South Africa

Posted 14 June 2018 - 08:33 AM

Thanks for the reply. Canon has served me very well but I am also wondering what I will be missing. I only have once Canon lens (70-200) so I can afford to make the leap if it means better image quality.



#4 Jerry Lodriguss

Jerry Lodriguss

    Vendor

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 6398
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Voorhees, NJ

Posted 14 June 2018 - 12:27 PM

You need to compare the raw files on the DPReview comparator, and if you do, you will see that there isn't much difference visually with noise in the deepest shadow areas (which is where it counts).

 

Personally I don't pay any attention to the DXO Mark scores because how they arrive at them is opaque.

 

Photons to Photons is the one to pay attention to but the numbers in the charts you link to are derived from the DxO data.

 

Here is another chart showing readout noise at various ISOs comparing the two cameras from Photons to Photons where I think the data is original. This is the one I would pay the most attention to.

 

It shows the Canon with 3.555 e- of read noise at ISO 200, and the Nikon with 2.732 e-.

 

That is a little bit of a difference in the Nikon's favor.

 

Unless you are shooting under exceptionally dark skies with either slow focal ratios or filters, this probably won't make much of a difference.

 

Between these two cameras, I would pick the one you like the most in terms of the features and ergonomics.

 

The quality of the long-exposure deepsky images produced with them will almost certainly come down to the photographer's skill and expertise than the camera's technical capabilities.

 

That said, if you are really serious and plan to shoot calibration frames, the D5300 is kind of weird with flats with some lenses.  And some of the recent Canons have had problems with artifacts from the autofocus pixels. You should research this here on Cloudy Nights where it is documented, if not actually solved.

 

"One road leads to despair and utter hopelessness and the other to total extinction." Be sure to choose wisely.  Ok, so it's not quite that bad... :-)

 

Jerry


Edited by Jerry Lodriguss, 14 June 2018 - 12:29 PM.

  • fmeschia likes this

#5 coenie777

coenie777

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Pretoria - South Africa

Posted 15 June 2018 - 02:09 PM

Thanks Jerry, as always a wise word to put it all in perspective.

 

I have settled on the 200D and look forward to the marked lower noise and higher QE over my current 40D.



#6 dhalgren

dhalgren

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2018
  • Loc: New Jersey, USA

Posted 16 June 2018 - 07:46 PM

I took this with my SL2 this morning. It is cropped in Paint Shop Pro directly from the .CR2 and converted to .png, no processing. Orion 80ED, SkyGlow filter, 3 min. ISO 800, Long Exposure Noise Reduction Enabled. I think you will be happy with the SL2, I have been having fun with mine.

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • m27.png


#7 carolinaskies

carolinaskies

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 874
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2014
  • Loc: Greenville SC

Posted 15 August 2018 - 06:55 PM

I picked up an SL2 earlier this year. Due to poor weather since the end of April I haven't done any AP with it.  

The difference between the SL2 and 5300 aren't significant in end result.  I give the edge to SL2 for Liveview imaging of planets if that's a main subject. 

For a look at performance of the SL2 here is a video I posted on Youtube jumping my ISO up while retaining the same timing.  https://youtu.be/al7E6PVKu7c


 

 



#8 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 4154
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 20 August 2018 - 11:18 PM

I have the same question; in particular, whether there are artifacts from the autofocus pixels.  (Surely standard calibration should take care of that.)

 

I currently have a lot of Canons plus a D5300 (bought because it was such an advance over the Canons at the time it came out).  PhotonsToPhotos tests tell me that the Canon 200D seems to have caught up.  (Jerry points out a slightly higher read noise level at ISO 200, but only slightly.  Photographically, 3.5/2.7 is a factor of 1.3, which is less than 0.4 stop.

 

So... How well is the 200D serving people in practice?



#9 RichA

RichA

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 964
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 20 August 2018 - 11:20 PM

Any views on whether the Canon SL2 managed to close the gap on Nikon's D5300 (seeing that it uses the same sensor as the 80D)?

 

For deepsky, and no current need to stick with Canon, should one get SL2 with more modern processor and chip or stick with the tried and tested D5300? Image comparisons on Dpreview tells me D5300 still has edge:

 

https://www.dpreview...897566010148793

 

DxOMark show D5300 clearly ahead of the SL2 in terms of dynamic range and noise:

 

https://www.dxomark....5300___1171_919

 

And Photonstophotos also tells the same story.

 

http://www.photonsto...,Nikon D5300_14

 

What is the experience under the stars?

All Nikons beat Canons for sensor quality.  Courtesy of Sony.



#10 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 4154
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 20 August 2018 - 11:42 PM

I know the D5300 has a *slight* edge in measured sensor performance, but it is very slight.  I am curious about *other* drawbacks or advantages of the cameras.

Nikon's raw files use a (slightly) lossy compression scheme to store 14-bit values in less than 14 bits.  Canon does not.  In theory, this might produce both better pictures from Canons and worse test results (if the compression masks any of the noise).  But I don't know.

 

Anyone out there actually using a 200D for astrophotography?  I've looked at the sensor specs.  What I want to know about is actual astrophotographic experience.


Edited by Michael Covington, 20 August 2018 - 11:46 PM.


#11 carolinaskies

carolinaskies

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 874
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2014
  • Loc: Greenville SC

Posted Yesterday, 07:59 AM

The last time I got to use my Canon 200d was months ago before the clouds rain and utterly inconsistent weather settled in this year. I have been pleased with its performance up to that point for an unmodified camera.

Part of the reason of course for choosing the 200d Canon was for the live view capture ability which is superior to the Nikon. The early reports and comparisons of chips show that the 200 d while being the new cheapest entry by Canon into the AP SC class and having the rotatable screen have performance extremely close to that of the 5300.

I'm on my mobile phone right now so I don't have access to my pictures but I know that there's a couple of threads on here where I did share them.

Depending on how you intend to shoe weather with a higher ISO and shorter time frame or a lower ISO on a higher time frame I think the Canon is a good DSLR for the money features and performance.

Since now we are using software to do stacking and image manipulation the differences between the various models is becoming less of a concern as long as the performance is similar enough.

And recently I know that when I checked the companies who are doing the mods for astrophotography have included the 200d which wasn't the case 6 months ago.

I haven't dug around the web recently even on Astro been to check for 200 D photos but maybe that's something I'll have to do to see if I can find someone who's had better opportunity that I to do some shooting with their 200d.

#12 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 4154
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted Yesterday, 09:07 AM

Thanks.  The biggest concern that I have is whether the special pixels that are used for focusing leave any artifacts in the picture.  On the other thread, someone has said that Canon sensors have traditionally suffered more self-heating than Nikon, but we don't know if that is still the case.  Of course I would like to know about fixed-pattern noise too.




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