hi /p/ im a new guy who really wants to start with photography. im looked into alot of used cameras. I think from my research that maybe a siny a55 or a canon 550d might be good for this. Do you guys have any other recomendations?
thanks
fuck you look in the gear thread asshole
>>2876746
Pentax, now delete this.
>>2876911. pentax?
kill yourself my man
>>2876746
sony a6000
now delete this and kill yourself
>>2876919
Yes, Pentax K3ii or if you want to go FF K1.
Whatever you buy make sure it has an intervalometer first. This will probably eliminate entry level bodies but you'll thank yourself later.
The canon 550d is a decent all rounder to get you started. As your knowledge and abilities grow you'll get a better idea of which direction you want to go and what equipment suits those needs
Gear thread rrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
>>2876974
Nikon D5500 has an intervalometer, that's pretty entry level
>>2876974
>make sure it has an intervalometer first
or use magic lantern if it's a canon
>>2876746
Get a d810a and a D810, 810a for astro,810 for landscape. Enjoy the work
>>2876746
>landscape
Any modern m43, APS-C, or FF camera can produce excellent work here. Glass will be the critical part.
>landscape astro
While there is very good work out there with APS-C, FF is better here. The larger sensor simply gathers more light.
>tracking/stacking astro
Like landscape, anything will do. Sensor size is less important because you can overcome the light gathering ability of the sensor with more frames (longer exposure). Be prepared to spend cash on a decent tripod and tracker.
>i'm buying a dslr
Stick with Canon or Nikon. They have perfected the art of SLR design and each have large collections of *modern* lenses. (Meaning modern coatings, ultrasonic focusing motors, IS, weather sealing, etc.)
The ONLY caveat here is that if you are going to do a lot of astro the Pentax K-1 is tempting for both the price and the ability to compensate for Earth's rotation all by itself on shorter exposures.
>i'm buying mirrorless
I would probably recommend Sony.
Also...
>FUCKING GEAR THREAD
the best camera for star and landscape photography
Hey fuckers, he asked a reasonably hard to answer question.
Canon 7D: good weather seals
Older therefore cheaper, excellent lenses available
If you want to control the camera to the nth degree, you have "BackyardEOS" written by a very astute astrophotographer
>>2880564
>While there is very good work out there with APS-C, FF is better here. The larger sensor simply gathers more light.
Not quite. To get the most of of the pixels you have to match your image scale with your sensor. If you go too large, you lose detail, too big and you get more noise.
>>2881741
Ill try to explain this concept a bit:
The lens will only get so much detail, so you probably wont run into this. Accurate focus at infinity is so you NEED LiveView or a camera with the equivalent. If the image is not in focus, you are fucked because post processing wont help much
If you go to a telescope with a long focal length, this is important. Telescope optics are MUCH sharper than typical lenses. My 8" Maksutov can see details around 0.8 arcsec across. Jupiter rather than being a dim ball of mottled light is resolved into a gorgeous banded sphere and the moons have actual surface details visible
You are trying to focus details onto small regions of pixels, Too few and the details get lost, too many and you dont capture as much as you'd like
ProTip: Ive done astro with film cameras like the Contax 159MM, a 167 MT and an RTS III, a Nikon FM 2T a Hasselblad using various optics like an Zeiss 85 1.2, a Zeiss 200mm f2 and a Zeiss 350mm f/4 and my Nikkor 300 f/2. That last two lenses needs a telescope mount as I took photos of the Pleiades from a dark location, as well as Leo I (a faint dwarf galaxy 1/3 of a degree away from Regulus making it VERY hard to see or photograph
I now use a Canon 7D but hope to migrate to a FF once they get a decent one 4K video (why I want 10 gig video clips is beyond me)
>>2880587
They took no star photos with this camera
As for landscapes, they did take pictures of the Earth so you got me there.
>>2881741
>>2881744
The line you were replying to was for landscape astrophotography.
Which typically means WA lens and a max exp time set by trailing stars for the focal length you're using.
FF wins this every time because it can gather more light in that short time period. You can't stack 10 hours of shots, you've got maybe 30 seconds. You're fighting noise.
Again, good work can be done with APS-C. But FF has an advantage.
When you start talking about telescopes you're talking about something different, typically tracked, and FF no longer has a clear advantage.
>>2881746
>they did take pictures of the Earth
>hurr durr how can moon landing be real if mirrors aren't real?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh Photographer HO Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 200 dpi Vertical Resolution 200 dpi Image Created 2009:07:17 16:42:20 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 959 Image Height 1315
>>2882131
pic related
Ask and ye shall receive. Only the most widely reproduced frame from the entire US Space Program. Try reading some more.
>>2882130
Star trails are nice but they get old quickly. I do like aurora pics though
>>2876746
bentax k1
>>2882284
I've spent too much time on /pol/ and /x/ so my assumption was that I was dealing with a conspiratard.
My apologies sir.
