Olympus unveils the OM-D E-M10 Mark II micro four thirds camera with 5-axis stabilization

[yRaz]

Actually, I did read parts of them, but I don't have hours to spend going into details, and I'm just being an a$$ because perhaps there is some useful stuff there in mine that you might just say thank you for. But, WTF, eh? If you're entitled to being an a$$, then I must be, too.

A thread on a camera is turned into an astrophotography discussion. Really, the astro groups would have been a better place for this discussion.

If you weren't going to read everyone's posts why even bother joining the discussion? I read your posts and frankly I didn't find much of it useful as it didn't apply to me. You'd have known that if you read my posts before writing. They are still here so you're free to go back and read what I wrote previously.

And this was far from an astrophotography discussion. We covered topics from lens mounting brackets, availability of lenses by manufacture to DSLR vs MILC. If anyone was steering it in the direction of astrophotography, it was you. I wanted a mirrorless camera that can take good pictures whether I'm at a family gathering or at a star party. Honestly, what is so hard about that for you to understand? Then you try to cover up your incompetence as "just being an ***" and justify it by saying I was being an ***.

If you can't contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way(IE, reading posts in said discussion and replying accordingly) then please leave it. I will not be replying to you again, although you can count on me reading all the posts in a thread including this one.

 

[wiyosaya]

My apologies if you feel I did not contribute to the discussion. Up to the point where I mentioned the web camera, I think I was pretty spot on.

So, before you buy that camera, I'll suggest that for astrophotography, what will matter most in terms of noise is the noise floor of the sensor because you will hit that with astrophotography much more quickly than you will hit it in normal, every day photographic applications. So much more can be done with the web cam because it was a parts bin object than can be done with a serious camera of any sort unless it is specifically designed for astrophotography. One way to lower that noise floor is to cool that sensor. You can do that much easier with a camera that you can tinker with than an expensive camera that you want to use for other applications.

Also, many d-cameras have an infrared filter in them that may limit their value as astro cameras. Canon released a 60Da that lacked this filter a few years ago, and that is also another reason your web cam may be a better option because it lacks this filter or if it has the filter, you can much more easily remove it without having to worry about destroying your camera - especially since the web camera was a parts bin item. My 7D has the infrared filter, and I would not consider manually removing it even though it is out of warranty.

So, what am I saying? That it may be better to just get yourself a decent camera for every day use such as this one in the article and stick with your web camera for astrophoto use. If you choose to, there are many ways that you can produce decent astrophotos these days even with inexpensive cameras like your web cam. If you think your web cam is crap for astrophotography or you need something better, I suggest that you ask yourself why it is crap and come up with some decent answers first before you toss it back in the parts bin.

As I see it, the two applications, terrestrial vs astro, are vastly different mainly because of noise floor issues, and just because a camera is a decent terrestrial camera, like the one in this article may be, does not necessarily mean that it will also be the best you can do for astrophotography even on a budget.

In my opinion, technique is going to be the main driver in being successful with astrophotography, camera somewhat secondary. Even though I bought a 7D which could arguably be a good astro camera, if I were to get back into astro, I would consider getting an SBIG or another, very inexpensive option that I could tinker with, or has the ability to cool the sensor, etc., all the things necessary to get the best possible results in the astro realm.

Unless you have an autoguider and some sort of program controlling your camera while it is on your scope, you will spend significant amounts of time out there, and, speaking from experience, it is rather disappointing to spend a night at the scope and come out with mediocre results.

After all this, believe it or not, I am not trying to discourage you, rather I am trying to encourage you to turn your whim into wonder that you are happy with.

 

[captaincranky]

So, can we sing "Kumbaya" now?

(While we're checking to find out if the adapter I linked is the correct one for the camera in question).

And while it isn't directly germane to the astorphotography issue, infrared conversion was brought up, so here is a place to learn about infrared photography, or have a camera converted for it: http://www.lifepixel.com/camera-considerations The results can be stunning, especially in pictorial work.

 

[wiyosaya]

So, can we sing "Kumbaya" now?

(While we're checking to find out if the adapter I linked is the correct one for the camera in question).

And while it isn't directly germane to the astorphotography issue, infrared conversion was brought up, so here is a place to learn about infrared photography, or have a camera converted for it: http://www.lifepixel.com/camera-considerations The results can be stunning, especially in pictorial work.

Not directly germane for astrophotography? I guess that I have to remember to be explicit with reasons why I recommend certain things in the future even if it is not what members want to hear... I was once at a point similar to where yRaz is

From this page - http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/CAMERAS.HTM (though it appears dated since it mentions the Canon 20Da - another much older model made specifically for astrophotography that lacks the IR filter - it is still relevant)

Astrophotography of Red Hydrogen-Emission Nebulae

For serious long-exposure deep-sky astrophotography, most of the latest generation of low-noise DSLR cameras are excellent for objects such as star clusters, blue reflection nebulae, and galaxies. The problem with stock cameras is that they almost all have a low-pass, long-wavelength filter that makes them poor at recording hydrogen-alpha light in red emission nebulae.

Luckily, for those astrophotographers who love emission nebulae, there are two solutions to this problem. One is the Canon 20Da which is specifically designed for astrophotography right out of the box. It has a modified filter that passes 69 percent of the hydrogen-alpha wavelength making it very good for emission nebula. It also offers a live focusing mode with 5x and 10x magnification. The Canon 20Da is also good for normal daytime photography.

The other solution is to replace the manufacturer's long-wavelength filter in a stock camera. Several third party vendors offer this service, such as Hap Griffin, Gary Honis, and Andy Ellis in the UK. Other companies such as Maxmax and LifePixel also offer modified cameras for daytime infrared work, but with filters that should also work for astrophotography.

Note that it may be a bit harder to modify a Nikon with a replacement filter because the glass is a different thickness than the original and makes viewfinder and autofocusing inaccurate. Canon DSLR cameras are also much better supported in software and after market accessories such as in-camera filters. These are other reasons why I primarily recommend Canon cameras for astrophotography.

Just in case you are wondering what Ha nebula look like - http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=hydrogen+alpha+emission+nebula&FORM=AWIR

Unless you are dead set on using the same camera for every day use as well as astrophoto use, another option might be to find a decent used dslr on e-bay for use on your telescope. That could be another source of a camera that you can tinker with.

 

[captaincranky]

Not directly germane for astrophotography? I guess that I have to remember to be explicit with reasons why I recommend certain things in the future even if it is not what members want to hear... I was once at a point similar to where yRaz is
.

Alternatively, this could be interpreted as you being, "bound and determined to start an argument, no matter how trivial the basis.for it is".

The website I linked you to: http://www.lifepixel.com/camera-considerations will certainly modify a camera for you with respect to removing the IR filter. But, that's about 1% of the site's content in relation to infrared photography as a whole. Do let me know if I've gotten the syntax and descriptors correct and to your satisfaction this time around..

Now, something which neither one of you has bothered to do, is check to see if the camera adapter vendor I linked, indeed has the correct adapter for the Olympus camera, which is the subject of the article, AND the topic of this thread.

Contrary to what you might like to believe, the thread ISN'T about hydrogen nebula, or your rabid pursuit of astrophotography in general.

Speaking for myself, I have more than enough activities to fill up a day without astrophotography, even should someone decide to lengthen a day to 48 hours, (or more)
To me, astrophotography seems like a nighttime alternative to watching grass grow during the day.

So, I'm fully able "to Bing" or, "Google" sky images, which were more than likely accomplished on far better equipment than I personally am able to afford, or money I am willing to spend to that end.

FWIW I always kept somewhere in the back of my mind that old axiom, "never give advice. wise men don't need it, and fools won't heed it". Which really works as a mantra, to throttle one's own disappointment, when that damned horse called 'other internet forum members' simply refuses to "drink your KoolAid".