Digital vs Old School Camera for Model Railroad Photography

[Anonymous]

I have not bought a digital camera because I have a pretty good regular camera at home .... Canon EOS 10s SLR. I do not conconsider myself a "photographer," I just take photos of the kids and stuff. I'm now at the point where I would like to take some photos of the engines and stuff on my little layout.

I understand how easy it is to manipulate the photos, etc with a digital camera. But what about photo quality? If I take my 35mm film to a photo finisher and get my photos on computer disk, how will those photos compare to photos from a good quality digital camera?

Instead of buying a new digital camera, I'd rather use the money to buy an additional lens for my Canon ..... a telephoto, maybe a macro, etc

Thanks alot
Ken

[jfugate]

Depends on what you want to do with the photos.

If all you want to do is take snapshots, then 2-4 megapixels is fine, and you don't need to spend any more than a couple hundred dollars on a camera.

If you want to post photos on the web, again, 2-4 megapixels is fine.

If you want to take photos for publication in print media, you'll need at least 5 megapixels and the more megapixels the better. You'll need at least 8 megapixels if any of the photos are to be full page and sharp.

The biggest problem with non-SLR digital cameras is lack of control of the image. For really close up shots, fast action shots, and so on, you really need the control an SLR gives you, with the multiple lenses, shutter and aperature control.

Only the digital SLRs give you fast shutter response when you press the shutter. Non-SLR digital cameras typically have a delay of half a second to 2 seconds when you press the shutter -- which makes the cameras next to worthless for any action shots.

And all but the most expensive digital SLRs are NOT full 35mm frame, but instead are 2/3rd's frame, making your standard 50 mm lense into more like a 75mm lense. You have to get really crazy low-end lenses, like 18mm (27mm equivalent) to get decent wide angle images with these cameras.

Full frame digital SLRs cost a fortune right now ($5,000 and up), and result in *huge* images, something on the order of 14 megapixels or so. But it is also true that these cameras are getting to the point that their resolution is BETTER than 35mm film.

Having said all this, going with an SLR digital camera offers many useful advantages. Doing light color balance with a digital camera is a dream come true. For the cost of about a dozen rolls of film, you can get a 1GB memory card that will hold 400 images at maximum resolution.

My typical approach is to take a round of photos, then when I get a moment I will scroll through them on the camera and delete the "dogs", keeping only the good images. This way I can take lots and lots of photos and I come home with a camera loaded with nearly all "keepers" and no junk photos.

With the number of photos I take, I figure in a couple of years I will have paid for the camera in the saved film and processing costs.

For my money, the Canon Digital Rebel XT, at 8 megapixels, is a wonderful camera and I have no further need of film. I take photos for print publication, and I am fully satisfied with this camera. I owned a Canon Rebel film camera previously, and all my attachments and lenses work with the new Rebel Digital just fine.

[hminky]

I have a Fujifilm Finepix S602. It is a 3.2 meg camera. I have found it satisfactory. I have used it for publication, California Grass in the March 2005 RMC. I would never had an article published without digital. I would never had my website for articles without digital. It is great.



Just a thought
Harold

[JohnT14808]

I would also like to give a point or two....

Joe has been doing digital photos for some time and his experience shows. He takes great photos, as we have all seen. Remember that as this discussion progresses.

That being said..... His purposes may and probably are different from yours. The photos he takes go to clients/editors/magazines that will accept digital photo format.
He posts on electronic formats like web sites and forums and really makes use of computer technology in his photo presentation.

I would be willing to bet that if the requirement was a "printed" photo ( not a digital image) then Joe might have stayed with a regular 35 mm camera. Some say that
the digitals of today are producing photos very, very close to actual photographs. But
in order to get an 8x10 sent to Grandma in the mail ( she isn't computer literate and does not own a computer and hasn't the foggiest what email is......) you or someone must PRINT your digital photo. That means there is a cost, either in a photo printer and its supplies, or taking your photo to Kinko's or Pip printing or to one of those photo print kiosks in the Mall to get a print out.

Kinda troublesome to me.....and I have yet to see a photo printer print a decent copy of a photograph VERY TIME. If the color isn't 'bleeding' somewhere, there is a small white line running through the picture. The photos that you get back from the color lab most likely are clear, sharp pictures EVERY SINGLE TIME. ( .....unless you didn't take a good shot in the first place, then even a digital camera won't save your subject...)

So, it boils down to.....Do you take a LOT of pictures and submit them to someone hoping to get paid for them? Do you hire out as a photograher? Do you use your photographs in web sites, etc.? If not, you may do as I do and have a cheap digital camera for the shots you want to display online, and keep your standard 35mm for
the really critical stuff that can be sent to anyone. Buy a tripod to steady your hand so your closeup shots of the diorama on the layout come out real nice. Use a flash with the proper direct or indirect light. Get some macro lenses for the closeups. Those lenses will really help, even if you go digital.

And remember, if you have to have a digital picture of a standard photo, you can always scan the printed photo at Kinko's. Just my two cents worth.

[ben10ben]

If you currently use a film SLR, you probably will be disapointed with anything but a digital SLR. A digital SLR will set you back usually $600-1000. Since you already have a very good digital camera, my opinion is that your money would be better spent on an additional lens or two for layout photography(perhaps a macro lens) and a good scanner. For viewing on a computer screen, a 4x6 print scanned at 600 dpi will look just as good as one from most digital cameras, and you still have the advantages offered by your current SLR.

The current top-of-the line professional grade digital cameras still have about 10 more megapixels to go before they reach the equivalent resolution of 35mm, much less medium format(120) or large format(4x5).

Here's a print taken with my Canon A-1 and scanned at 600 d.p.i.

[selector]

Assuming that your eye CANNOT distinguish between two apparently identical photos, one digital and the other film, the digital will cost about twice as much to produce in the way of cash outlay. Now say that you have the digital camera, and want to know which is easier for getting shots onto a web host for posting here, on this forum. Digital wins, giggling. Your film shots have to be processed at a lab (yours or theirs), scanned, and placed in digital format medium, such as on a CD-ROM. Then you have to bring it home, submit it to the host, and post it here. With digital, you start at bringing the camera home and submitting the image to the web host. Cash over convenience, given two seemingly identical images obtained through two identically bodied and lensed cameras, but one is digital.

[nfmisso]

Ken;

My HP slide/negative scanner produce 6M pixel images from 35mm slides or negatives.

Given you have an EOS already, I would strongly suggest that you investigate a Rebel XT digital body. That way you can continue to utilize all of the EOS lenses and other accessories you already have.

[Wdlgln005]

Since you already have a Canon camera, I'd suggest you check out the new Canon Rebel XT. For $1000, it has 8mp. Your lenses should work fine. Only you can compare features from your EO(S to the Canon digital offerings.

THe advantage is storing the pictures on a compact flash card. Many new DVD players include a card reader, so you can display your pictures on a TV or computer screen. THen you can improve them or display them any way you wish. With each generation, the pictures keep getting better & better. Quality depends on how you use them.

A good place to look is the photo gallery on the Weather Underground website.

http://www.wunderground.com
Click on Wunder Photos to view the gallery.
Thousands of photos have been psted, in a wide variey ty of subjects. Most of them show what kind of equipment was used. Many of the photos are amazing.
You can search their site for trains photos!

[dinwitty]

hows this for a digital closeup shot?

This is one of Creative's cameras that plug into a PC USB port.

it was about 50 bucks. Of course you need the PC, its not standalone.
I studied the various cameras and that one had a focusable lense, and I can get reaaaly close.

I shot 8mm long time ago, it was pretty easy with a Bell and Howell to shoot and it had a single frame feature and you could do animation easy.
Doing animation now is not as easy except you need to find the right software to do it easy.

But digital gives you an instant feedback to judge your shot and after you hit the shutter, the image is ready to go, no waiting for development.

Would I return to film?

Nope.

[chateauricher]

Many places that process film can also put the photos onto a CD for a small fee. This eliminates the need for you to have a scanner at home.

[jfugate]

Din:

Nice shot ... now how about a shot down the track with that 50 dollar camera? Like this:


(click to enlarge)

This is a quick test shot I took when I first got the Digital Rebel XT just to test its depth-of-field capabilities. As you can see, it's pretty good for the basic lense that comes with the camera.

I'd be interested in what your $50 digital can do. My guess is it may focus close for macro shots like you show, which is nice, but you won't get the depth of field where things are in focus front to back like I show above. And for realistic model shots, you need more than macro closeup focus capability -- you need DEPTH OF FIELD too.

[underworld]

Since you already have the EOS 10s you might consider the Digital Rebel....very much the same as the 10s except it's digital. All of your EOS lenses can be used with this camera. At 6.3 megapixels it will probably have high enough resolution for your applications. I own one of these myself....along with several EOS film cameras.

underworld

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[underworld]

Almost forgot....additional lens or lenses for your film camera might be best. The more lenses that you have, the more versatility and capability you have.

underworld

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[Anonymous]

One subject not brought up in this discussion that as a photo buff I find very cool about digital color photography is the control that the amatuer has in printing.

In the old days I did a lot of landscape fine art quality Black and white prints. Did a lot of large prints and was able to print things exactly how I wanted them. The set up was easy to use and not too expensive. Trying to do the same thing with color prints at that time was beyond my reach. Having to print in total darkenss and color analyze as well as temperature control all the chemicals put color printing in the realm of the dedicated (and rich) photo buff or mainly the professional. When I had commercial color prints made they never approached the printing quality or control that I had with B+W unless I wanted to pay for custom prints ($$$$).

Where I am going is that with digital we armchair guys get to print and color correct to our hearts content without breaking the bank...I think this is very cool and opens up another realm of photography.

BTW: a friend who works at Pixar told me they figured that one frame of 35MM movie film has approx. 15 megs of info in it. I think we are closer, but not quite there yet.

[cspmo]

I swore off Cannon,& Minolta products because when they went to Auto focus they change there lensmount, so you had to buy all new lenses. Nikon didn't I'm still **** about that.
Since you have a EOS I'll go for a digital Canon digital.

[tutaenui]

As I see it digital has 2 BIG pluses over conventional film camera, i.e. the digital has much greater depth of field, and will correct the colour balance for most lighting souces.

[1shado1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dinwitty



hows this for a digital closeup shot?

This is one of Creative's cameras that plug into a PC USB port.

it was about 50 bucks. Of course you need the PC, its not standalone.
I studied the various cameras and that one had a focusable lense, and I can get reaaaly close.

I shot 8mm long time ago, it was pretty easy with a Bell and Howell to shoot and it had a single frame feature and you could do animation easy.
Doing animation now is not as easy except you need to find the right software to do it easy.

But digital gives you an instant feedback to judge your shot and after you hit the shutter, the image is ready to go, no waiting for development.

Would I return to film?

Nope.

Nice pic. But I think with all the money you saved buying an inexpensive digital camera, you should at the very least splurge and get those number boards decalled.[:D]

Jeff

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tutaenui

As I see it digital has 2 BIG pluses over conventional film camera, i.e. the digital has much greater depth of field, and will correct the colour balance for most lighting souces.

The first part of this statement is not true, unless you are considering only the standard lens that comes with a particular camera. Employing the proper lenses with an inexpensive film camera will beat a typical medium-priced (even some high-end) camera with non-interchangable lenses every time when it comes to depth-of-field. I have a cheap Pentax body and lens combination that I've employed for years in model photography that provides a dead sharp DOF at minimum setting of 4-inches out to better than 3 or 4 feet - fully the equal of the nice example Joe F. has shown above to illustrate what a high-end digital camera will do.

CNJ831

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Kenny2005
If I take my 35mm film to a photo finisher and get my photos on computer disk, how will those photos compare to photos from a good quality digital camera?

I've never done this, are you talking about print film or slides? I imagine you would need to take your film to a specialty processing location to have high quality scan from the negatives or slides. I've read on photo groups that Kodak used to offer high quality digital images from negatives, but now their offerings are much lower in quality and file sizes. Again I've never had this done myself so I don't really know.

I eased into digital photography after using film cameras for about 35 years. I've had great success with film cameras in color prints and slides as well as black and white that I did in my own darkroom. (I just donated all of my darkroom stuff this week to a local camera club, as I hadn't used it for 10 or more years).

My entry into digital was with a small point and shoot 1.3MP camera, bought just our of curiosity. I had a great time with it and was surprised with the results that I could achieve. I moved on to another point and shoot with 3.3MP, and continued to have lots of fun with it. I found I was using my film cameras (Canon EOS Elan IIe & Elan 7e) less and less. A year ago I moved up to a Canon Digital Rebel with 6MP, and I'm not looking back.

I really enjoy using the digitals because of the almost instant feedback, I can see if the photos I just took are what I wanted. I recall when shooting photos with slide film for submissions to magazines that I would leave the photographed scene set up until I could get the slides developed the next day, to ensure I got the photos that I wanted. Some times I had to re-shoot the scene; no more with digital. Keeping in mind the Ektachrome 64T slide film cost me around $14.00 for a 36 exposure roll, and another $11.00 for one hour developing. This can add up!

Plus I can shoot almost as many shots as I want, just keeping the best ones. I think nothing of taking 50-75 photos at one session of the birds at our backyard feeders then picking the best. With print film I would probably have shot 5 or 6 photos.

The only real thing I miss with the film cameras is the wide angle ability. Since the sensor on my Digital Rebel is only 60% the size of a 35mm film frame, my stable of 6 Canon lenses only see the center 60% of the field. I've used the 18-55mm zoom that came with the Rebel, as it equals the view of a 28-85mm lens on a film camera. It is an inexpensive lens and I'm fairly satisfied with it, but wish I could use my Canon 28mm lens and get the same angle of view with it.

In the example in this thread about scanning a color print to make a digital images illustrates one of the failings of print film - most processors seem to make prints with too much contrast. Most eveyrthing in the photo is either light or dark, with no mid tones. Digital has quite a latitude for exposure, and it is easy to adjust the contrast to make such a photo much better.

Even when it comes to making color prints, digital seems to be working better for me. While I can and do make borderless high quality glossy prints and enlargements with my printer, local shops have great deals. We can get 4 by 6" prints for 25 cents from digital, while prints from color negatives are 67 cents. 8 by 10" enlargements are only $3.00. Can't beat that! Keep in mind these are prices here in Canada, which are alway higher than those in the U.S.

I had my first digital images printed in an article, in the March "Model Railroading" magazine, and they all were great. I've submitted another article to RMC again with all digital images.

So my final suggestion would be to try a Digital Rebel XT. I'm sure once you try it you will not regret it! [:D]

Bob Boudreau

[MisterBeasley]

If you are mostly a film-camera person, and you're generally happy with the results but you want to occasionally do some digital processing, consider getting a scanner. These things have gotten dirt cheap. I've got a Canon CanoScan 3000F, which cost me about $50 with some sales and rebates. It's plug-and-play into the USB port of your computer, and comes with some limited image-editing software. Scan quality is excellent, and this one even came with an attachment for scanning 35-mm slides. I was pleasantly surprised at the picture quality from those, too.

We got a Sony Cybershot digital camera about a year ago. It is terrific for snapshots, and I've gotten some superb action shots at swim-and-dive meets using the "burst mode" capability. Unfortunately, most of the layout pics I've taken have been disappointing. I miss the depth-of-field control and lens selection. The built-in flash is too intense for close-ups, and too weak for long shots. Like I said, though, it's really designed for snapshot photography, and for that it is extremely well-designed.

Once I've got enough scenery to make shooting a roll of film worthwhile, I'm going to get out my Watergate-era Canon FTB and have a ball.

[dinwitty]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 1shado1

QUOTE: Originally posted by dinwitty



hows this for a digital closeup shot?

This is one of Creative's cameras that plug into a PC USB port.

it was about 50 bucks. Of course you need the PC, its not standalone.
I studied the various cameras and that one had a focusable lense, and I can get reaaaly close.

I shot 8mm long time ago, it was pretty easy with a Bell and Howell to shoot and it had a single frame feature and you could do animation easy.
Doing animation now is not as easy except you need to find the right software to do it easy.

But digital gives you an instant feedback to judge your shot and after you hit the shutter, the image is ready to go, no waiting for development.

Would I return to film?

Nope.

Nice pic. But I think with all the money you saved buying an inexpensive digital camera, you should at the very least splurge and get those number boards decalled.[:D]

Jeff

haha

I just bought the CNW shells off ebay and I quickly threw it onto another
F7 with a cab interior and snapped this shot right off, I barely got the shells in the door when I did the quick flip and did the shot.

I have a NKP 765 Rivarossi with working classification lights and numberboards and mars light with headlight as well, I'm the expert guy who likes to make his engines light up correctly. I plan to take pics of all my equipment sometime.



This is just a working image, showing off a module and equipment
Its my handlaid South Shore module NKP interchange.
I don't have much of a layout for now, but working on that.
In the planning stages and this module fits into the scheme.

[Anonymous]

I am not a professional at all. I like to take pictures. Most of which will not pass muster.

I started off with a 110 film camera.. one of those really cheap pocket cameras. Seems like 24 exposures was not enough and watching father take sniper shots with his 35 mm pentax with beautiful pictures kinda taught me get a better camera.

I used a 35 mm Pentax film camera and still have it. But the trouble of acquiring film, taking the pictures... not knowing if they come out... taking the film to the lab at walmart (Previously kodak in the little yellow buildings) waiting a while getting the images and paying for them. Bleah.

I will always use the Pentax 35mm as a sort of keeping in touch with the old film ways.

With that said. I wanted to shoot model trains. At first pictures then videos.

I had a small digital camera where I was lucky to take 3 shots and the lens was too small to be worth anything. I found a walmart Digital concord 3 megapixal with a memory stick, I bought a 64 meg SD memory card to hold 300 pics at 800x600 same as what I have on the computer. So far so good.

It's field of depth was not great, but the macro is pretty good. Good enough that I can "Lift" a photo print by taking a shot of that and using it on the net.

I took a short 5 minute video of what ever like model trains etc.. no sound. My father said he liked the video but there was nothing going on.. perhaps it's time for a video camera.

My spouse gave me a Sony DV camera TRV 460 model upgraded with a large battery, huge memory stick and Tape. I already had Roxio 7 software on my computer and once I equippted it with firewire to communicate with the camcorder I can "Pull" video off and edit it. Frame by frame until I find a shot worthy of a picture.

Off to trainshows I went with the camcorder. Shot everything, went home put it all on the disk and relaxed in the chair and really watched the videos.

The computer, software and disk capacity required for good performance is not cheap.

It is worth it when I take a batch of pictures of a item to sell on ebay... flip thru the stack of digital photos on the computer until I find one worthy of posting on ebay.

Sometimes the entire stack of pictures are deleted because of bad light and I retake a batch of images until I have one or two that is "Keepers"

A Canon Rebel Digital Camera is in my future. That one I think is going to be pretty good. But for right now, I spent enough money on camera, camcorder and computer related needs that enables me to handle the images right here at home.

It is NOT cheap.

I guess using rechargeable batteries, no film, no lab fees etc etc etc etc.... the savings will eventually be significant.

Once in a while I would take the old pentax out, load some film and go hunting. Other wise I would lose my film understanding.

If you checked my photobucket in the sig, you will understand that some images are less quality than others. That is because I used both Digital camera and a camcorder to get these images. The Roxio 7 software enables me to "Fiddle" with the material until I find that one frame worthy of posting.

Now the videos? They were once in digital memory stick. The resolution was pretty bad. Washing in and out..I used DV digital Hi 8 tape and put that on the computer and discovered very quickly I will need a 160-200+ Gigabyte hard drive to hold one hour of video.

Keep in mind I am just a newbie but I think it is not cheap.. but.. the amount of "shooting" I have done this year compared to the film days has really accelerated into the thousands of images and hours of video.

Much more fruitful than just a handful of photo prints where you paid for the film and again to have it processed not knowing how it will come out.

Film, old technology but a goodie. Digital! YAY!

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Kenny2005

II understand how easy it is to manipulate the photos, etc with a digital camera. But what about photo quality? If I take my 35mm film to a photo finisher and get my photos on computer disk, how will those photos compare to photos from a good quality digital camera?

It depends totaly on the quality of the scanner that particular photo finisher uses. Ask them what the resoution would be. Or even just take a set in to be digitized and see if you like the results. It doesn't really matter what the statistics say, what matters is what you need, like, and want.

[chateauricher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

Joe,

I know I asked you about your lighting system before; but my memory fails me (I swear, Alzheimer's is contagious -- I work in a nursing home for the elderly).

How far apart do you space the lights?

Thanks.

[Anonymous]

I have a 10MP digital camera that I picked up on ebay for about $150. Thats right, 10MP for $150!!! The pictures are incredible, better than film in my opinion. However, I have to compress the pics before I post them so the pics I post here on the forum arent near the quality I see on my PC. Oh well...

[jfugate]

Timothy:

The lights are 15 watt and 25 watt lights spaced 2 feet apart. The lighting in the above photo is all available light, and as you can see, things are lit pretty well even with such low wattage bulbs. Using the low wattage incandescent bulbs lets me dim the lights and since the watts are so low, the heat buildup in the room is not a problem.

Joe:

10 MP? Wow, what's the camera brand and model?

[Anonymous]

The biggest difference between cameras boils down to personal preference and purpose. Film cameras use film which has a greater spectrum color wise than digital, which has a finite set of colors. The new digital cameras look VERY good, but are still not film by comparison. That being said, I just sold my Canon A-1 and AE-1 and purchased a new digital SLR. I purchased the Nikon D-70. I was wanting the flexibility of an slr, and the convenience of a digital. Most of my pictures are selling things on ebay, or email, or whatever. I am generally using a computer somewhere. The convenience of decent photos, the ease of memory cards... without the hassle of loading film, time for development, and the development cost, I think I made a wise choice. As far as the D-70, it's great and super easy to use.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JPM335

I have a 10MP digital camera that I picked up on ebay for about $150. Thats right, 10MP for $150!!! The pictures are incredible, better than film in my opinion. However, I have to compress the pics before I post them so the pics I post here on the forum arent near the quality I see on my PC. Oh well...

What kind of camera is it? I've seen ads in Popular Science for small Bell & Howell digital cameras claiming to have 10MP. If you read the fine print it says something like "10MP is interpolated", which means the camera's sensor is a lot smaller than 10MP and fills in extra pixels to achieve the so-called 10MP. It's all smoke and mirrors.

Any camera with real 10MP would be in the multi-thousand dollar professional range SLR from Canon or Nikon or other high end firms.

As long as you are having fun with it, I guess that's what counts. But you should check into the camera to see exactly what MP it is actually offering.

Bob Boudreau

[trainboyH16-44]

I personally prefer a fully manual camera, but that's because I have had bad experiences with automatic cameras. I was once at the Spiral tunnels trying to take a picture of CPRs steam engine, 2816, and I thought it went well, but when I got the pictures back, I found out that instead of the train, it focussed on a small tree slightly to the left of center. I went back to my K-1000, and have been quite satisfied with it.
Matthew

[RMax1]

I've got a little of all of it. Currently i use a film scanner, flatbed scanner, multiple film slr's(Nikon, Olympus), digital Sony point and shoot. I'm going to get a digital slr in the near future for computer work. This camera will most likely be a Nikon D70s. I think it all depends on what you are wanting to produce. If you are wanting to produce hard copy prints film is still the best way to go. Computer and web work digital is by far easier. Both my scanners are nice and do a good job but still do not compare to either the film or digital original quality. Printing in digital is a hassle. I've got inkjets,color lasers and photo printers none of them really give you a real photograph. They do however give excellent quick shot with very little hassles. I needed 2 shots of my pool equipment last night. Bam and they are on the refridgerator if I need them in less than 5 minutes. If you taking pictures just to take picture either one will do otherwise consider the end products.

RMax1