Buying A Digital Camera for Layout Photography

[Anonymous]

After all these years I'm finally ready to buy a digital camera. I plan to do a lot of indoors layout photography, so I'll want something that can be setup to allow good depth-of-field (with a little help from a pair of 3000-watt photo floods of course!).

Regular digicam buying guides suggest that a 3.2 megapixel camera will give me pretty decent-looking 8"x12" shots. But I think I'll need more features than that.

Will I need aperture-priority and shutter-priority capability? More than 3x optical zoom?

Thanx in advance...

[ndbprr]

I intend to hold out for 5.o megapixel and the equivalent of an SLR. My logic is I also want to use it for prototype photos and may want to blow up an area fairly large to examine details. Having had a videocamera that someone stole with a 20x telephoto lens and digital telephoto to 400x my current 10x telephoto isn't as good in that regard. I think the telephoto capabilities are equally important as the megapixel and the ability to override the auto features.

[mondotrains]

Hey Ken,
My wife finally convinced me a couple of years ago to buy a digital camera. Per "Consumer Reports" back then, Olympus made the best cameras so that's what we bought. It is 3.2 megapixels and I have taken many photos of local buildings, blown them up to 8" by 10" using the Kiosk at Wal-Mart, and used them for backdrops on my layout (our local Wal-Mart fortunately uses matte paper for the local printing rather than glossy). The clarity is great. Of course, prices have come way down since we bought ours for $600.00. You can get a 5 megapixel for less than that now. You may want to check "Consumer Reports" to see if they've done an update on digital cameras.
You may also want to determine whether it's worth spending the extra bucks for more than 3.2 megapixels.

Hope this helps.
Mondo

[Anonymous]

It really depends what you want to do with your pictures. I have bought a 1.3 megapixels a few years back and it gives out great pictures both on screen and printed. So 3.2 megapixels would be enough, you don't need much more, don't listen to the salesman, he only wants to make more money.

[orsonroy]

If you want to eventually publish any of your digital pictures, you'll need at least 5MP. At least, that's what magazine editors have been telling me recently.

[Fergmiester]

I finally bought a digital camera so I could snap cheap and dirty. What I've got is a Canon A300, 3.2megapixel 5.1 zoom pocket camera. I have taken several pictures so far but sad to say it's not my Nikon FM-2. It will do in a pinch but I am a die hard, no whistle, no bells kind of guy. That or I might have to read the manual. I started sending photos but one shot alone took up 1.7 megabites. Now that I'm tinkering with a web sight for photo storage I may have to rethink how many pixels I'll be shooting at.

[simon1966]

My wife just purchased a Pentax Optio camera with 5 Mega Pixel and 5x zoom. It also has a fantastic macro close up feature. She purchased it for about $400 for photographing close up detail for her needlework projects. She did a lot of consumer reports type research before selecting this camera. I have used it to take pictures at the GATS show a couple of weekends ago and it is really very good. I would reccomend this camera to anyone.

[Noah Hofrichter]

What is the Best F setting for a digital camera? I have one that came with my computer, and it's and 2 point something and it doesn't take very good close up pictures. I have heard F22 or so is about right, is this true?

Noah

[Fergmiester]

Hi Noah

The higher the number (f stop) the greater the depth of field, You will sacrifice shutter speed however, but a tripod will take care of this unless your talking moving shots.

[jfugate]

I bought a Canon EOS 10D body last year, and since I already had Canon EOS film camera, I was all set. The body was pricey, but it does 6.3 megapixel, and now that I've used it for a few months, the film camera is obsolete.

But I want it for publishing photos in print. If all you want it for is home use (8x10s) or web photos, 2-3 megapixel should be adequate, with 4 megapixel being ideal.

However, to get full control of the camera, higher end digital cameras are necessary. After the Canon EOS 10D came out, Canon released the EOS Digital for half the price, I've seen it for a low as about $700 for just the body. Of course if you don't have lenses, then it will be more.

An SLR style body gives you dream-come-true control over the image. You can set the ISO film speed, white balance, depth of field and everything else you can imagine. Back in my early days as a staff photographer for a college, I never would have imagined digital imaging would come this far!

[Anonymous]

I was thinking I could probably buy a 5.0MP point-n-shoot camera with 3x optical zoom to fit my needs, but now I'm getting a bit concerned - the online specs for the digicams I've looked at don't say anything about apertures that can be set as high as f22. Does this mean that, even with powerful photo floodlights, I still need a SLR camera to take decent (read: high depth-of-field) pictures of my layout?
-ken

[MudHen_462]

I sold my fim camera several months ago, and purchased a Canon 10D 6.3mega
pixel SLR. It is the greatest thing since sliced bread ! It has a more economically
priced "cousin" (the Canon Digital Rebel) and it has almost all of the features the
10D has. Digital technology is moving so rapidly that just about as soon as you buy
something... it's obsolete, so by purchasing a more "top end" camera, you will be
more likely to have a camera that will meet your needs well into the future. If you
can handle the SLR price tag, you will have very few limitations on any future photo
project you might want to undertake.... the ability to interchange lenses, and larger
digital file size is the key. 'Hope this has helped.... Iron Goat

[CP5415]

When buying a digital camera, if affordable, I would buy as high a megapixel as you can.
I have a HP 2.1 megapixel camera & to be effective, I have to have good light or the picture needs a lot of touch up on the computer.
In other words, unless the shot is planned, the pictures will come out dark.
For now, I'm going to stick to my Minolta 35mm or use my JVC digital camcorder.
The video I get with that far exceeds my digital camera even in poor light.

Gordon

[Anonymous]

Well it looks like I'll not be buying a digital camera anytime soon after all. I spend about $200 a year for film developing, so I figured a $400 camera would pay for itself in a few years; not so with a $1500 SLR.

[Wdlgln005]

Prices for "film" for digital cameras keep coming down. Sandisk is coming out with a line of digital film. They also make a neat photo viewer that plugs into your VCR or TV set, so you can see your shots on the road (back in the room) & make a kool slide show.
I like the Compact flash kind so that you can have extra spare chips in your shirt pocket & not worry about losing it. Don't forget to also check out the office supply stores for them.
Since you are a pro, you will probably wait until your mfr comes out with it's digital SLR so that you can use most of the same lenses. That will help keep some of the cost down. Please be aware that the CCD chip is smaller than a 35mm frame, so the same lens will give a different image.

[CNJ831]

A great deal depends on precisely what sort of layout photography you want to do. Even so, aperture-priority control is a must, as is the ability close down the system to f/22.

That said, most mid-range digital cameras will perform quite well for general layout photography i.e. images shot from 18" or more from the subject. If you desire to do ultra-close-up work, down to say 6" from the subject to obtain prototype scale image size, I've yet to see any digital camera at any price, Marco settings or not, do nearly as good a job as an old fashion film camera with the appropriate lens. The digitals simply do not seem to provide the desired great depth-of-field like the 6"-36"+ DOF I get with my standard film SLR employing lenses used especially for model photographs I've had published in MR over the years. Enormous depth-of-field is what creates the reality factor in most truly good model photographs.

CNJ831

[CP5415]

Photo paper is one thing I don't have to worry about. My Canon printer's ink cartridges come in a three pack & in the three pack comes 5 pieces of 4X6 photo paper.
It's kind of cool cause I can write the cartridges off as a business expense.

Gordon

[Anonymous]

Since most of the photos I shoot are documentation of scratchbuilding projects, I could probably get by with a 5MP point-n-shoot for 99%. My main complaint with the Nikon is that I have to get the film developed outside the home. With a digital, I can take 2 or 3 shots and immediately upload them to my web site - I wouldn't have to wait to use up all the exposures (minimum 12) on a roll of film. I'll haul out my Nikon for those occassional head-on [model] train photos.

And besides...my layout isn't even fully built yet! <lol>

[Anonymous]

As has been stated, the higher the megapixel (MP), the better the quality of the images. And also noted is the ability to get great depth of field, something that most point and shoot digital cameras cannot do. A friend who has a 2.2MP Kodak digital is looking at the new one with 4.0 MP, with many great features. But in checking it out I see that the lens will only close down to f:8, which will not give much of a depth of field.

I had two point and shoot digital cameras, both by HP, the first one was 1.3MP, the second 3.3MP, but neither would allow the lens to close down for depth of field. Two weeks ago I broke down (and now am broke!) and bought a Canon Digital Rebel SLR camera. This 6.3MP camera will allow the lens to stop down to f:22 for almost limitless depth of field. I've been using Canon cameras for decades, and my other five autofocus lenses will work with this new one. Love it!

My only "problem" was that my older Canon 430EZ fla***hat works fine with my EOS film cameras (Elan IIe & Elan 7e) will not work at all with the Digital Rebel. So I had to buy a 420EX flash for the camera.

Love the digitals, and haven't made much use of my film cameras for a while.

Try it, you'll like it!

Bob Boudreau
Canada

[Anonymous]

Hi Bob,

A related question - is it possible to use the pinhole camera technique with a digital - either point-and-shoot or digital back? (Interesting also from the point of view of combining one of the oldest ways of capturing an image with one of the newest ways... [;)].)

Thanks.

Andrew

[nfmisso]

QUOTE: Originally posted by masonjar

...is it possible to use the pinhole camera technique with a digital....

It depends, if the light sensor is through the lense, and you can take the camera apart enough to get the pinhole were it needs to be in the lense system; it should work great.

[Anonymous]

Many THANKS, all of you who responded to my original question. Based on your feedback, I have decided to wait a few more years until I can afford a digital SLR without having to borrow money. My Nikon FA still works fine and allows me to get any type of photo I want, just not as convenient as a digital. I still need to pay for my kids' education [sigh] ...

[Anonymous]

You can always ask the developing shop to put the photos on CD for you - sort of a "delayed-digital" camera...

Andrew

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by masonjar

Hi Bob,

A related question - is it possible to use the pinhole camera technique with a digital - either point-and-shoot or digital back? (Interesting also from the point of view of combining one of the oldest ways of capturing an image with one of the newest ways... [;)].)

I tried my old Vivitar 28mm preset manual lens that has a pinhole aperture that I added, and it works fine with the Digital Rebel. I have an adapter that allows it ot be mounted on Canon EOS bodies.

The only thing lost is the wide angle effect, as the digital has a cropping factor of 1.6. Therefore the 28mm lens gives the view of a 45mm lens. With the ISO left at 100, shutter speeds with the pinhole lens were in the 3-5 second range when using two 600 watt and one 500 watt lights. This is comparable to the exposure I got with film in the past.

I imagine one of the pinhole equipped body caps as made by A.J. Fricko would work on the digital, but they are priced way out of my range of interest. The last time I looked they were around $189.95. I had one for my Canon FD cameras, and it worked OK.

I never did try a pinhole aperture on my point and shoot digitals, although I did think about it. I don't think adding a pinhole to the front of the lens would be as effective as adding it to the back. And the point and shoots would not be able to handle the required long shutter speeds.

Having said all of this, the 18-55mm lens that came with the Digital Rebel seems to work pretty good stopped down to f:22. At the 18mm wide end, it gives the equivalent view of a 28.8mm film lens. I took some photos recently but haven't posted them anywhere yet. It is my intent to re-do most of the images on my website that were taken with my old 1.3MP camera.

Bob Boudreau
Canada

[Anonymous]

Ken,

I've been an amature photographer many years. After owning several film type cameras I went digital 5 years ago. For home use I would recommend you stay within your budget and buy a good 3-4 mp camera. Most digitals nowadays will allow you to set the the f stop and/or shutter speed manually if you so desire.

It's nice to brag now and again and if you buy a camera with more pixels resolution than thy friend, then you are one up on him. But in reallity for e-mail you want to keep the photos small (400x300 or less) so that the filesize isn't to large. For displaying on a computer screen you want to keep the images to screen size (600x450 or 800X600). MOST digitals in your price range ($400-$500) will take pics at up to 2,048 x 1,536.

Take a look at the detail in the reflection of the eyeball in this photo (scroll down and right to center the eye). This photo was taken with a 2.1 mp camera, at 1600 x 1200 resolution, focal lenght of 6". http://images.fotopic.net/?id=3813661&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1 I got 1st place at an amature photo contest for this pic.

Pixels vs quality prints. 2-3 mp camera = 5x7 prints, 3-4 mp = 8x10, 4-5 mp = 11x14 and 6 mp or more will give you great wall posters.

I too have been looking at camera reviews for the past 3 weeks. While I was on vacation some [censored] decided he needed my Olympus more than I. It wasn't so much the camera that I was upset about, it was the 179 photos with my grandson, that cannot be replaced, that got to me.

IMHO you cannot beat the lens quality of a Canon! If you want quality photos stay with Canon or Olympus. After being a long time supporter of Olympus I've decided, after reading reviews, to buy a Canon this time. I have decided on the Canon Powershot S1 IS ( http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/s1is/index.html ) My reasoning, well, I don't need to do prints larger than 8x10, the f 2.8 lens is very good for low light shots, the 10x optical zoom is impressive (BTW, a digital zoom reduces the quality of your pic), shutter speed of up to 1/2000th of a second (the faster the shutter speed the better the "freeze" motion will be), and the focal length is 5.8" (this is how close you can get the camera to the subject and still focus). The down side, it doesn't support an external flash. No, I'm not a Canon salesperson nor affiliated with Canon in any way - just hooked on Canon's optics quality and their newly released (only started shipping last week) camera. The Powershot S1 IS mfr suggested retail is $599.95, the street price is $499.95. From "PhotoTakers" forum I've been told that B&H is the best on-line store to buy from. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ I have not purchased from B&H but it has the best reviews.

Along with the purchase of the camera you'll need a bag or some way to store it so that it doesn't get full of dust, get rechargeable batteries and charger - digital cameras eat alkaline batteries very fast!, and a tripod for those long exposure, higher f stop, shots.

In summary: Don't get all tied up on the Mega Pixel hype - unless you are a professional photographer, you'll be happy with a 3-4 mp camera. For zooming in on long distance shots, take into consideration the optical zoom X value (not the combined optical/digital value). Consider the availablility of after market lens filters, if you shoot under artifical lighting you'll need a filter to correct the color (for instance, fluorescent lights produce a "green light").

No matter what you buy, enjoy it!!

[Anonymous]

I'm waiting to look at the new Nikon D70. I have a Sony DSC-S75 3.3 mega pixel camera that does great. The Zeiss lens is worth the money. The memory sticks work with everything else we use. The slr body would give better and more control. Price is to be around $1000 body only which is not bad. Nikon quality at close to a Canon price.

RMax

[cwclark]

I have a really nice Olympus Camedia 700-C...it takes really good pictures with a 10x zoom lens...I've done a lot of pictures of trains on my vacations but haven't done any model scenes yet...the feature i like is the disc that comes with it so that i can change the size of the pictures and the tones and brightness and things like that...i'll let you know when i take pictures of the layout...

[Anonymous]

I use a Concord 3.1 Megapixel Model Q3042 AF It will take pictures in Macro mode (about a foot away) and of course do the usual tourist stuff. With the 64 meg memory card I can handle 6 minutes of video or 300 + pictures.

No more film and I can use this computer to handle the pictures. Still am working on web hosting for them so I can share them with you all.

[Anonymous]

Bob - Thanks for the info.

Andrew

[Anonymous]

I've posted some digital images I took in the past few days on web pages:
http://www.geocities.com/fundynorthern/Diorama.html

These were taken with my new Canon Digital Rebel on a diorama I made last year, based on a Fine Scale Miniatures kit.

For faster downloading these images have been reduced from 3072 pixels wide to 700 pixels, size from 1MB+ to around 50 kb, so the original quality is lessened. They will help illustrate the benefits of being able to close a lens down to f:22, which many point and shoot digitals won't do.

Cheers,

Bob Boudreau
Canada