Ad Astra Observatory

Art Morton wrote:
> Jimbo,
>
>
> SBIG:
>
> You comment about getting an SBIG is prophetic.

The problem really is that it’s a *self-fulfilling* prophecy. There’s no reason that DSLRs can’t be better supported and that SBIGs have to remain so expensive, except that all the software vendors keep supporting SBIG and nobody goes and beats up Canon and Nikon for not making their software support better.

Still, Canon seems like it’s a couple of years ahead of Nikon — I hear rumors that the most recent Canon DSLRs don’t need a “bulb” cable to achieve long exposures, for instance. That’s a definite nod to the
astronomy community, because who else would need to shoot an exposure longer than 30s?

So I grant that the Nikon drivers are crap and that’s why Doug’s software has problems with it. However, there’s absolutely no reason for Doug’s software to *crash* over it; that’s what try {} blocks are for. He’s simply drunk the SBIG kool-aid and believes that “those DSLR riff-raff will step up to a ‘real’ camera if we beat them up enough”.

I think he’s wrong. I think SBIG is wrong, too. Everyone is loving the STL-6303 and 11000. They have the same CCDs in them that DSLRs have been carrying for years. The 6303 is the exact same chip as the D70. So
what’s the difference?

Drivers written by SBIG are better than the ones written by Nikon and Canon.
Third-party software support.

I don’t want to have to climb the SBIG ladder. ST-7s are $500 now because of the DSIs. ST-6, ST-9, ST-5, ST-2000 are all dying. The ST-8, ST-10, and STL stuff is what’s news. And I just can’t find it in me to

buy any of that stuff.

I don’t know. Maybe shooting narrowband would change my life. In fact, I’m pretty sure it would.

It shouldn’t have to be that only the best (ie most $$) gear gets all the support. A Ferrari and a Ford can still get an oil change at JiffyLube.

J