Re: [APML]: Good Camera Body For Beginner?

[Andy Wallace <andywallace@home.com>]

The Astro-Photography Mailing List
------------------------------------

John--Nikon is clearly better-it should be for 4 times the price(F-3).
It appears to me it is just one more tradeoff such as which scope,
mount,etc.-more money usually gets you more quality(not always). Andy

John Petrush wrote:
> 
> The Astro-Photography Mailing List
> ------------------------------------
> 
> As a very dedicated Olympus user, I must support Wil's point here.  The
> Olympus system is an outstanding photographic system, but it is 20+ year old
> technology.  Repair parts are getting harder and harder to come by; Oly
> America no longer repairs any models except the 3's and 4's in current
> production.  Furthermore, except for a couple of new lens designs, most
> noteably the 35-80 f/2.8 zoom and the high-speed teles, their lens designs,
> materials and manufacturing methods are decades behind the other major
> makers.  More than a few advances have been  made in the last 20 years <g>.
> Were I starting from scratch today, 20/20 hindsight would have me carefully
> looking at either Canon or Nikon.
> 
> That said, the OM-1 is a good astro camera - very good.  It's not a "wrong"
> answer, there are just a few "better" answers available.
> 
> John P
> 
> Wil Milan <wmilan@airdigital.com> opined:
> 
> >Two cent's worth: The most popular 35mm cameras for
> >astrophotography are the Olympus OM1 and various Nikons. Some of
> >the older mechanical Canons can also work: the F-1 is a
> >first-rate astrocamera, the FTb is not as capable but can work
> >OK. If you have one of those Olympus or Canon cameras, or have
> >lenses for one, then go with one of those.
> >
> >If you don't already have any of those, then go with one of the
> >several suitable Nikon SLRs. The Nikon F2 is a first-rate astro
> >camera and can be found for reasonable prices; the F3 is more
> >expensive but also makes a great all-around camera (it has
> >autoexposure and other modern features the F2 does not). There's
> >a whole raft of other Nikons that will work (FM, FM2, the various
> >Nikkormats, the superb but very expensive F4, and a few more),
> >but in terms of value and capability for all-around
> >astrophotography (including compatibility with the most capable
> >line of lenses for astrophotography) the F2 is probably the best
> >deal going.
> >