Digital vs Old School Camera for Model Railroad Photography

[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.

[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

[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.

[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