At the bottom of the page you will find links to a page that compares the Canon 350D and the Canon Xti (with occasional data points from the Canon 5D). Please consider the following remarks before proceeding.
Keep in mind that the page is translated by a machine from French into English. There are obviously some substantive issues with translation.
The author (authors?) conclude that the 350 is a better performer for astroimaging than the Xti. Is that true? Well, maybe. And maybe it all depends. I'm the proverbial "man from Missouri" -- so to speak. I'll run my own set of tests over the next few months using my Griffin modified 350 and my unmodified Xti on actual objects. Obviously, the Xti cannot compete with a modified 350 on objects such as M8 and M20. Accordingly I will chose objects for the tests that negate the advantage of a camera with the standard IR filter removed and replacement with a Baader UV/IR block filter. Information on this modification can be found at: http://www.hapg.org/camera%20mods.htm
An issue of some concern to me is the validity of comparative testing based on a single camera of each type. So-called single subject designs can be valid. The 10-minute ISO exposures from last month (see May posts) suggest that despite Canon's quality control and uniformity of production techniques there appears to be variance in performance from chip to chip.
Enough said. Here are the links:
Tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/y8ws6t
Full URL: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astrosurf.org%2Fbuil%2F400d%2F400d.htm&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools
Max
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment