Loadingā¦
2
Pro tip: I switched from a DSLR to a mirrorless camera for deep sky shots last year and it's a whole different game.
For years I used my old Canon 6D, a DSLR I got back in 2014. It was solid, but for faint nebulae like the North America Nebula, I felt like I was fighting noise even with 5 minute subs. The big change came when I borrowed a friend's Sony A7 III for a trip to a dark sky site in Utah. The live view for focusing was so much sharper, and the electronic shutter meant no mirror slap. I bought a used one 8 months ago. Now my workflow is faster and I feel like I'm pulling more detail with less total exposure time. But some folks say the older DSLR sensors have a certain 'character' or are just fine if you know how to process the data. What do you think, is the jump to mirrorless really worth the cash for astro, or is it mostly hype?
3 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In3 Comments
wyattbennett6mo ago
My buddy lent me his Z6 for a weekend at Joshua Tree and the difference in focusing alone sold me. It feels like every hobby now has this pressure to upgrade to the next big thing, but sometimes the new gear actually does fix a real headache. I kept my old DSLR for regular stuff, but for staring at the sky all night, the mirrorless just makes less work for me. If your old camera feels like a fight, the switch is worth it, but if you're getting what you want already, the hype can wait.
6
anna_hall7mo ago
Wait, did you say you used the electronic shutter for deep sky? That's usually for fast action to avoid shake... for long exposures, the first curtain electronic mode is better to stop static noise.
4
allen.victor7mo ago
Yeah, I totally get where you're coming from. I mean, I tried the full electronic shutter once for a nebula shot and the fixed pattern noise was awful, like a weird grid over everything. Switched to first curtain electronic and it just cleaned that right up. It's one of those things you don't know until you've messed it up yourself, honestly.
5