I watched this late so I might have missed it, but can you give the model tracker so I can look it up. Also would you suggest that or something else for some one looking to get into this on a budget. I'm also interested in suggestions on the micro fouur thirds lenses. I looked up some already from other peoples comments but would like to hear more if you don't mind. It's funny but I liked the micro four thirds images better. I'll have to watch the video a few more times to study the differences better. Thanks
With some good tracking and a well refined post processing workflow, there is no reason you can't produce stunning results with micro four thirds. My favourite budget lens would be the Sigma 16mm f/1.4, I could use this lens with wide open aperture in a pinch. I suspect it is because this lens is designed to project an APS-C image circle, which is obviously a decent amount more than micro four thirds. All the worst lens aberrations for astrophotography tend to live out in the corners, so I think this is effectively cropped out for the micro four thirds version. For the camera, have a look at any of the 20MP offerings. The Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mkii or Mkiii or if looking for more compact the E-M5 III. I do find the asking price for used Olympus cameras in my area is too high. The original Panasonic G9 uses the same 20MP sensor and can often be gotten quite cheap on the used market. Hope that helps!
@@AstroRoad I've looked up the tracking system you reviewed and I'm gonna save up for it. One more question. I'm very interested in the Nikon P900 and P1000 for the compact zoom. But I'm a total newb, so I don't know if those cameras even have a place for astrophotography. Can you comment on this? I'm trying to prioritize budgeting for several things and a clarification would help.
The Nomad is a great little unit. The best compact tracker on the market in my view. The P900 and P1000 are very popular for moon photography. I'd personally favour the P1000 for the BSI sensor (cleaner, higher efficiency signal) and has raw support, though the P900 is quite a bit more compact. Really depends on what you intend to use it for.
Awesome video. Thank you! I was wondering why you stopped down the Sony to f4? Doesn’t that only affect depth of field? Please set me straight if I am misunderstanding this. Anyway I would be interested to see what the Sony can do at f2.
Thanks for watching! Equivalence was the aim of this video, not outright performance. In that regard the full frame would win convincingly at these wider focal lengths. The F number is a representation of the ratio between the focal length and the diameter of the lens entrance pupil. For the M43 Olympus 17mm @ f2 this puts the entrance pupil at around 8.5mm, for the Full Frame Samyang 35mm @ f4 about 8.75mm. Both these lenses of course have the same field of view.
Really nice comparison Dominic. The Sony certainly shows a much better image in the end. I'd be interested to see the foreground exposures from the micro4/3 shot at a higher iso to see if they would clean up better when stacked as I don't think they are iso invariant. I particularly liked the various timelapses as well.
Thanks Richard, absolutely agree. The amount of clean detail you can pull out of the shadows of the Sony is pretty impressive for its age. GX85 is definitely not ISO invariant, even amongst M43 peers it does not rate well for low light performance. I definately want to try it again though, next time with the foreground taken during blue hour. The MW detail ended up being significantly better than what I was expecting, so just like you're saying, I think it would do quite a bit better given more light.
Another great vid Dom I didn't get much in the way of milky-way this season due to many clouded out nights my neck of woods. I think RUclips has played around with vids as this didn't even show on my feed even though I'm subscribed.
Thanks Dwyane. Certainly has been a odd sort of season. Saw you got some great aurora shots the other night 🌌. I've given up trying to figure out RUclips algorithms. Definitely seems to be a quantity and consistency kind of game.
I just moved from a Nikon D750 to Sony A7IV. I used the Nikon 20mm f1.8 and now Sony 20mm f.8 and there is such a difference, the Sony is so sharp. I have a tracker, just not had time to learn to use it yet.
That Nikon combo is no slouch, but that Sony f/1.8 is in my top 5 lenses of all time. Nothing matches it's combination of image quality, size, weight and cost. Would like to see how the new Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DN goes, no plans to swap out my Sony 20mm though. How is the Sony a7IV working out Lawrence? Impressive to have a 33MP sensor in their all rounder option now, right on the heels of their 1st gen high resolution models.
@@AstroRoad I had thought about switching to Sony but wasn't sure. Seeing your video a couple of years ago about the Sony 20mm confirmed it was the right thing to do. I love the A7IV. I also have the Sony 14mm f1.8 and the 200-600mm for Moon and wildlife.
Really gald to hear my video was able to assist 🙂👍. I have the 14mm GM now too, absolutely amazing performance for the FOV. That 200-600 is a lovely lens too, I ended up getting the Sigma 100-400mm DN as it was the most compact telephoto at the time. Not a patch on that GM though. Anyway, next videos (likely in the new year now) will be on polar alignment and how to make it less of a barrier to tracked photography. Hopefully might be a help for you there too.
My personal opinion: Full Frame is better for landscape astrophotography, astro-vlogging, live view prime focus monitoring. M4/3 is better for long focal shots, prime focus astrophotography (in most cases), daytime vlogging... The best astrophotography cameras I see are models with Full Frame sensor and high resolution like Sony A7RV, when the shooter can choose between super35 crop mode or full frame mode without loosing quality.
Definitely agree Jorge. If you get serious about landscape astro, full frame is going to give you a better base to work from. Point of this video was really to demonstrate that ditching your crop sensor camera for full frame doesn't have to be your first move. Getting a tracker (and learning how to use it) is almost certainly going to be the best bang for buck first option. Interesting you pick up on the versatility of the high megapixel full frame cameras. I totally agree.
@@AstroRoad I want to go for Sony a6400. With this camera I will make prime focus astrophotography with Evostar 72ED at 24MP with 1.5X crop factor... My current camera is the a7III and I use it with every technique, the APS C will be the secondary body. Sony already has the A7RV but I prefer two cheaper bodies because I want to spend in optics more than cameras
Thanks for watching. Actually, I think you'll find in terms of total light (photons) collected from the scene it is not, which is the equivalence I am talking about here. I should have been clearer about that, the brain does tend to fog up in regard to detail on these late nights. With the F-ratio just being the relationship between the lens focal length and the entrance pupil diameter, and the larger the entrance pupil resulting in more total photons being captured from a scene for a given exposure time, then we can use those parameters to compare these two different lens formats. The 35mm full frame lens with an f/1.8 ratio will have a 19.44mm diameter entrance pupil. 35 / 1.8 = 19.44. For the M43 lens to have the same field of view will have a focal length of 17.5, which at f/1.8 it will have an entrance pupil diameter of 9.72mm. However, open that aperture up so the f-ratio is f/0.9 and that entrance pupil diameter is now 17.5 / 0.9 = 19.44mm. This is all assuming a uniform exposure time of course. This is why a star tracker is so great at levelling the playing field in astrophotography. Your camera's exposure time is no longer restricted by the combination of lens focal length and rotation of the earth. With a star tracker your exposure time is now only limited by your ability to get an accurate polar alignment and the accuracy of your tracker's internals.
It is my understanding that similar apertures regardless of sensor size give the same exposure. Therefore a 9mm f1.7 m4/3 will give you the same exposure as a 18mm f1.7 ff at the same shutter speed. What will change is the dof between the two images. Its exposure is the determining factor for photography not light gathering so saying you have get a 0.9 to match a 1.8 is wrong, again to my understanding.
Really need to redo this to make it clear I'm talking signal equivalence 🤔 Per unit area you are correct. F/1.7 on M43 will (with all other factors/variables being the same) give you the same exposure (that being light captured per unit area) as full frame. What we are really talking about here is light density, not the total amount of light that is captured. For the above example where both cameras are shooting at f/1.7, the FF camera will gather 4 times more light giving it a far greater signal to noise ratio. With Astro, SNR is what it is all about. F/1.7 is just the focal ratio, i.e the focal length divided by the lenses aperture (physical lens opening that allows light in). As with my other comment, 18mm divided by 1.7 gives you a physical lens opening (i.e aperture) of around 10.6mm, where 9mm of the M43 divided by 1.7 gives you about 5.3mm. So while the lens aperture and sensor surface areas are proportional (FF sensor 4x as big, FF lens gathers 4x as much light) resulting in the same exposure, the signal to noise ratio is not. The FF will have much more to work with here. To obtain the same SNR, the M43 camera must have the same aperture (physical lens opening) as the FF camera, hence f/0.85 in this example. In real terms it rarely impacts any genre of photography outside of astro where every photon counts. Would be worth having a read of Roger Clark's (PHD in planetary science) website at Clarkvision.com as he has loads of great (albeit some quite complex) articles there on the topic.
@@AstroRoad Thanks for your comprehensive reply. Totally understand ff as greater sensor area and will capture greater detail because of reduced noise, I question would any mythical M4/3 lens match that, I would think not. I think the greatest improvement in M4/3 astro photography has been the new ai noise reducing software.
Some would say FF has reduced noise, I would say FF has increased signal 😉. FF, generally speaking, is a better starting point for landscape astrophotography than M43. It really comes down to lens aperture, size of projected image circle and inherent lens aberrations. The shorter the focal length, the harder it is to bring all these together. Longer focal lengths is a different matter, however this is more the domain of telescopes though than general use interchangeable lenses. The Panasonic 12mm f/1.4 is about the best wide angle M43 native lens I'm aware off. Given that is a 24mm equivalent FOV on FF, FF has many wider and well performing lenses available. That all said, once you put star tracking and mosaics into the mix, there is no reason M43 can't produce decent results (as hopefully demonstrated in the video). If you have bought into the M43 system, I would be going this route before swapping out systems to FF.
It is soooo much the lens, and as shown acquisition technique, and as you say post processing. My GX85 isn't going to be replacing my a7s series cameras as my primary nightscape video / time-lapse rig, but shown here results are determined by a lot more than sensor size.
At a quick glace I'd say the M43 is a nicer looking image of the two. Then on closer inspection the FF has more going on in it. Im not sure its better though.
Thanks for watching Adam. I was quite impressed with the detail I was able to pull out of the sky with the GX85. The foreground however was a different story as even after stacking there was very little detail and significant magenta cast in comparison to the a7R on which I was able to recover detail with accurate colour far more readily. Colour seemed to be a lot more consistent in the sky as well on the Sony Biggest take away for me for the night was that M43 is completely doable with the right approach. Taking foreground shots during blue hour and then using a tracker for the sky shots will yeild some fantastic results, albeit with a little extra work than you would have with a full frame.
@AstroRoad I am at a crossroad and this video has been helpful but I'm still conflicted. I currently shoot with a Nikon D810 with some good primes and zoom. I also shoot with a PEN-F and I love that camera. I've got good glass for it. I'm considering investing in the OM-1 and going all in on the MFT. OR invest in a Nikon 14-24mm f2.8G and an Olympus 7-14mm f2.8 and keeping both systems. I'd use the Nikon for astrolandscape and sunset/sunrise shooting and the Olympus PEN-F for literally everything else. Even "low light". The IBIS is just amazing.
I'm really not sure which way to go. Drop $1600 on two lenses or $2000 on a new camera and still need the 7-14mm eventually.....it's just money. First World problems.... great video thought. Nicely done. It's a ton of work and I appreciate you.
The D810 has the same sensor as the a7R, so I can certainly vouch for it being a capable camera. Lenses are the issue. Personally I wouldn't go for a zoom, I'd rather get some fast primes for your MFT. If you were to stay with the Nikon, I think the Sigma 28mm & 40mm are excellent choices. Super bright f/1.4 lenses with great star shape and minimal aberrations across the frame. No MFT lenses will ever be able to touch these in raw performance as a matter of physics. The OM-1 is an outstanding camera though, and the only stacked BSI sensor in the entire hybrid MFT lineup. I had good success with the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 on my GH5 which might be worth a look. If you haven't already, have a look at "The Narrowband Channel". Mainly covers DSO, but uses a lot of Olympus gear there for Astro.
My pleasure. If you have an Olympus already (typically better for noise control in long exposure than Lumix), I'd definitely be getting a star tracker on your list. Regardless of camera system, tracking is the only way of increasing your signal to noise ratio at acquisition without star trailing.
I watched this late so I might have missed it, but can you give the model tracker so I can look it up. Also would you suggest that or something else for some one looking to get into this on a budget. I'm also interested in suggestions on the micro fouur thirds lenses. I looked up some already from other peoples comments but would like to hear more if you don't mind. It's funny but I liked the micro four thirds images better. I'll have to watch the video a few more times to study the differences better.
Thanks
With some good tracking and a well refined post processing workflow, there is no reason you can't produce stunning results with micro four thirds. My favourite budget lens would be the Sigma 16mm f/1.4, I could use this lens with wide open aperture in a pinch. I suspect it is because this lens is designed to project an APS-C image circle, which is obviously a decent amount more than micro four thirds. All the worst lens aberrations for astrophotography tend to live out in the corners, so I think this is effectively cropped out for the micro four thirds version.
For the camera, have a look at any of the 20MP offerings. The Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mkii or Mkiii or if looking for more compact the E-M5 III. I do find the asking price for used Olympus cameras in my area is too high. The original Panasonic G9 uses the same 20MP sensor and can often be gotten quite cheap on the used market.
Hope that helps!
@@AstroRoad I've looked up the tracking system you reviewed and I'm gonna save up for it.
One more question. I'm very interested in the Nikon P900 and P1000 for the compact zoom. But I'm a total newb, so I don't know if those cameras even have a place for astrophotography. Can you comment on this? I'm trying to prioritize budgeting for several things and a clarification would help.
The Nomad is a great little unit. The best compact tracker on the market in my view.
The P900 and P1000 are very popular for moon photography. I'd personally favour the P1000 for the BSI sensor (cleaner, higher efficiency signal) and has raw support, though the P900 is quite a bit more compact. Really depends on what you intend to use it for.
Awesome video. Thank you! I was wondering why you stopped down the Sony to f4? Doesn’t that only affect depth of field? Please set me straight if I am misunderstanding this. Anyway I would be interested to see what the Sony can do at f2.
Thanks for watching! Equivalence was the aim of this video, not outright performance. In that regard the full frame would win convincingly at these wider focal lengths. The F number is a representation of the ratio between the focal length and the diameter of the lens entrance pupil. For the M43 Olympus 17mm @ f2 this puts the entrance pupil at around 8.5mm, for the Full Frame Samyang 35mm @ f4 about 8.75mm. Both these lenses of course have the same field of view.
Really nice comparison Dominic. The Sony certainly shows a much better image in the end. I'd be interested to see the foreground exposures from the micro4/3 shot at a higher iso to see if they would clean up better when stacked as I don't think they are iso invariant. I particularly liked the various timelapses as well.
Thanks Richard, absolutely agree. The amount of clean detail you can pull out of the shadows of the Sony is pretty impressive for its age. GX85 is definitely not ISO invariant, even amongst M43 peers it does not rate well for low light performance. I definately want to try it again though, next time with the foreground taken during blue hour. The MW detail ended up being significantly better than what I was expecting, so just like you're saying, I think it would do quite a bit better given more light.
Another great vid Dom
I didn't get much in the way of milky-way this season due to many clouded out nights my neck of woods.
I think RUclips has played around with vids as this didn't even show on my feed even though I'm subscribed.
Thanks Dwyane. Certainly has been a odd sort of season. Saw you got some great aurora shots the other night 🌌.
I've given up trying to figure out RUclips algorithms. Definitely seems to be a quantity and consistency kind of game.
Subscribed! Thanks!
Thanks so much 😊!
I just moved from a Nikon D750 to Sony A7IV. I used the Nikon 20mm f1.8 and now Sony 20mm f.8 and there is such a difference, the Sony is so sharp.
I have a tracker, just not had time to learn to use it yet.
That Nikon combo is no slouch, but that Sony f/1.8 is in my top 5 lenses of all time. Nothing matches it's combination of image quality, size, weight and cost. Would like to see how the new Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DN goes, no plans to swap out my Sony 20mm though.
How is the Sony a7IV working out Lawrence? Impressive to have a 33MP sensor in their all rounder option now, right on the heels of their 1st gen high resolution models.
@@AstroRoad I had thought about switching to Sony but wasn't sure. Seeing your video a couple of years ago about the Sony 20mm confirmed it was the right thing to do. I love the A7IV. I also have the Sony 14mm f1.8 and the 200-600mm for Moon and wildlife.
Really gald to hear my video was able to assist 🙂👍. I have the 14mm GM now too, absolutely amazing performance for the FOV. That 200-600 is a lovely lens too, I ended up getting the Sigma 100-400mm DN as it was the most compact telephoto at the time. Not a patch on that GM though.
Anyway, next videos (likely in the new year now) will be on polar alignment and how to make it less of a barrier to tracked photography. Hopefully might be a help for you there too.
@@AstroRoad I look forward to it.
My personal opinion: Full Frame is better for landscape astrophotography, astro-vlogging, live view prime focus monitoring.
M4/3 is better for long focal shots, prime focus astrophotography (in most cases), daytime vlogging...
The best astrophotography cameras I see are models with Full Frame sensor and high resolution like Sony A7RV, when the shooter can choose between super35 crop mode or full frame mode without loosing quality.
Definitely agree Jorge. If you get serious about landscape astro, full frame is going to give you a better base to work from. Point of this video was really to demonstrate that ditching your crop sensor camera for full frame doesn't have to be your first move. Getting a tracker (and learning how to use it) is almost certainly going to be the best bang for buck first option.
Interesting you pick up on the versatility of the high megapixel full frame cameras. I totally agree.
@@AstroRoad I want to go for Sony a6400. With this camera I will make prime focus astrophotography with Evostar 72ED at 24MP with 1.5X crop factor... My current camera is the a7III and I use it with every technique, the APS C will be the secondary body.
Sony already has the A7RV but I prefer two cheaper bodies because I want to spend in optics more than cameras
Likewise. With exception of the a7s III, all my cameras are first or second gen a7 R or S series.
@@AstroRoad Sony makes fantastic cameras and sensors!
amazing
Thanks. Glad you got something out of it 🙂👍.
35 f1.8 on full frame is equivalent 17.5mm f1.8 NOT 0.9! 😅
Thanks for watching. Actually, I think you'll find in terms of total light (photons) collected from the scene it is not, which is the equivalence I am talking about here. I should have been clearer about that, the brain does tend to fog up in regard to detail on these late nights. With the F-ratio just being the relationship between the lens focal length and the entrance pupil diameter, and the larger the entrance pupil resulting in more total photons being captured from a scene for a given exposure time, then we can use those parameters to compare these two different lens formats. The 35mm full frame lens with an f/1.8 ratio will have a 19.44mm diameter entrance pupil. 35 / 1.8 = 19.44. For the M43 lens to have the same field of view will have a focal length of 17.5, which at f/1.8 it will have an entrance pupil diameter of 9.72mm. However, open that aperture up so the f-ratio is f/0.9 and that entrance pupil diameter is now 17.5 / 0.9 = 19.44mm.
This is all assuming a uniform exposure time of course. This is why a star tracker is so great at levelling the playing field in astrophotography. Your camera's exposure time is no longer restricted by the combination of lens focal length and rotation of the earth. With a star tracker your exposure time is now only limited by your ability to get an accurate polar alignment and the accuracy of your tracker's internals.
It is my understanding that similar apertures regardless of sensor size give the same exposure. Therefore a 9mm f1.7 m4/3 will give you the same exposure as a 18mm f1.7 ff at the same shutter speed. What will change is the dof between the two images. Its exposure is the determining factor for photography not light gathering so saying you have get a 0.9 to match a 1.8 is wrong, again to my understanding.
Really need to redo this to make it clear I'm talking signal equivalence 🤔
Per unit area you are correct. F/1.7 on M43 will (with all other factors/variables being the same) give you the same exposure (that being light captured per unit area) as full frame. What we are really talking about here is light density, not the total amount of light that is captured. For the above example where both cameras are shooting at f/1.7, the FF camera will gather 4 times more light giving it a far greater signal to noise ratio. With Astro, SNR is what it is all about.
F/1.7 is just the focal ratio, i.e the focal length divided by the lenses aperture (physical lens opening that allows light in). As with my other comment, 18mm divided by 1.7 gives you a physical lens opening (i.e aperture) of around 10.6mm, where 9mm of the M43 divided by 1.7 gives you about 5.3mm.
So while the lens aperture and sensor surface areas are proportional (FF sensor 4x as big, FF lens gathers 4x as much light) resulting in the same exposure, the signal to noise ratio is not. The FF will have much more to work with here. To obtain the same SNR, the M43 camera must have the same aperture (physical lens opening) as the FF camera, hence f/0.85 in this example.
In real terms it rarely impacts any genre of photography outside of astro where every photon counts. Would be worth having a read of Roger Clark's (PHD in planetary science) website at Clarkvision.com as he has loads of great (albeit some quite complex) articles there on the topic.
@@AstroRoad Thanks for your comprehensive reply. Totally understand ff as greater sensor area and will capture greater detail because of reduced noise, I question would any mythical M4/3 lens match that, I would think not. I think the greatest improvement in M4/3 astro photography has been the new ai noise reducing software.
Some would say FF has reduced noise, I would say FF has increased signal 😉. FF, generally speaking, is a better starting point for landscape astrophotography than M43. It really comes down to lens aperture, size of projected image circle and inherent lens aberrations. The shorter the focal length, the harder it is to bring all these together. Longer focal lengths is a different matter, however this is more the domain of telescopes though than general use interchangeable lenses.
The Panasonic 12mm f/1.4 is about the best wide angle M43 native lens I'm aware off. Given that is a 24mm equivalent FOV on FF, FF has many wider and well performing lenses available.
That all said, once you put star tracking and mosaics into the mix, there is no reason M43 can't produce decent results (as hopefully demonstrated in the video). If you have bought into the M43 system, I would be going this route before swapping out systems to FF.
Sensor doesn’t matter for nightscaping
It’s lens and iso control and post processing
It is soooo much the lens, and as shown acquisition technique, and as you say post processing. My GX85 isn't going to be replacing my a7s series cameras as my primary nightscape video / time-lapse rig, but shown here results are determined by a lot more than sensor size.
At a quick glace I'd say the M43 is a nicer looking image of the two. Then on closer inspection the FF has more going on in it. Im not sure its better though.
Thanks for watching Adam. I was quite impressed with the detail I was able to pull out of the sky with the GX85. The foreground however was a different story as even after stacking there was very little detail and significant magenta cast in comparison to the a7R on which I was able to recover detail with accurate colour far more readily. Colour seemed to be a lot more consistent in the sky as well on the Sony
Biggest take away for me for the night was that M43 is completely doable with the right approach. Taking foreground shots during blue hour and then using a tracker for the sky shots will yeild some fantastic results, albeit with a little extra work than you would have with a full frame.
@AstroRoad I am at a crossroad and this video has been helpful but I'm still conflicted. I currently shoot with a Nikon D810 with some good primes and zoom. I also shoot with a PEN-F and I love that camera. I've got good glass for it. I'm considering investing in the OM-1 and going all in on the MFT. OR invest in a Nikon 14-24mm f2.8G and an Olympus 7-14mm f2.8 and keeping both systems. I'd use the Nikon for astrolandscape and sunset/sunrise shooting and the Olympus PEN-F for literally everything else. Even "low light". The IBIS is just amazing.
I'm really not sure which way to go. Drop $1600 on two lenses or $2000 on a new camera and still need the 7-14mm eventually.....it's just money. First World problems.... great video thought. Nicely done. It's a ton of work and I appreciate you.
The D810 has the same sensor as the a7R, so I can certainly vouch for it being a capable camera. Lenses are the issue. Personally I wouldn't go for a zoom, I'd rather get some fast primes for your MFT. If you were to stay with the Nikon, I think the Sigma 28mm & 40mm are excellent choices. Super bright f/1.4 lenses with great star shape and minimal aberrations across the frame. No MFT lenses will ever be able to touch these in raw performance as a matter of physics.
The OM-1 is an outstanding camera though, and the only stacked BSI sensor in the entire hybrid MFT lineup. I had good success with the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 on my GH5 which might be worth a look. If you haven't already, have a look at "The Narrowband Channel". Mainly covers DSO, but uses a lot of Olympus gear there for Astro.
My pleasure. If you have an Olympus already (typically better for noise control in long exposure than Lumix), I'd definitely be getting a star tracker on your list. Regardless of camera system, tracking is the only way of increasing your signal to noise ratio at acquisition without star trailing.