Chooseing a Digital Camera for Railfanning. Megapixels.

[Anonymous]

Ok. I need you Railfans help. I want to get myself a good Digital Camera. The problem is,the Megapixels. What would be the best in Megapixel wise? 1MP? 2MP? 3MP? And so on. I was thinking of a 5MP. Help! Is there a web site out there that can
give me an idea? Thanks,Allan.

[CopCarSS]

It depends what you want to do. If you're planning on just posting on the web, a 2MP would be fine. If you want to print pictures, you'll have to decide how big you want to go.

The upper limits of my D60 is about 20x30 with the very best Canon lenses in front of it. 5MP could probably do a decent 16x20, assuming the optics were up to it.

There's more to sensors than MP, though. Ultimately, the resolution is tied to your MP count, but overall image quality depends on pixel pitch, microlenses, the camera's (or computer program's if you shoot RAW) ability to process your picture cleanly, the lens in front of the camera, etc. etc.

I would suggest heading over to DPReview (www.dpreview.com) and checking out some of their reviews. Phil does an excellent job of reviewing the camera's features, image quality, comparisons versus other cameras of the same class, etc. If that's not enough, the forums over there are simply full of excellent photographers from all over the world that can add their wisdom...

Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Buy the best camera you can afford.

Many of us use a DSLR but you can
obtain good images with a Point and Shoot
camera if you understand its limitations.

This site is a great resource for learning
about digital cameras:

http://www.dpreview.com/

Dave
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=920

[Anonymous]

Thank you so much.

[Anonymous]

If you decide to buy a DSLR, this
site offers owner reviews of DSLR
bodies and lenses:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/

Dave

[Anonymous]

I just put a Digital 6MP on Layaway. I hope to use it next month,I can't wait eather. This whole new Digital thing is all new to me. Thank you all. Allan.

[Poppa_Zit]

Best advice is stay away from pro cameras and don't get anything too complicated. Any high-end extras would be a waste of your money.

[railfanespee4449]

I have a Kodak Easyshare C643, and it is great except for the well-known problem of lower-end digital cameras- look at the slanted lines. Does anyone have any tips about getting rid of that problem? Would using "Landscape" help?

[railfanespee4449]

After I uploaded it, it looks a lot better! COOL

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by railfanespee4449

I have a Kodak Easyshare C643, and it is great except for the well-known problem of lower-end digital cameras- look at the slanted lines. Does anyone have any tips about getting rid of that problem? Would using "Landscape" help?

What slanted lines? Maybe the focus could be a little better, but otherwise it looks technically OK to me.

[David_Telesha]

Take a look at what 6mp will get ya:

http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=6008

All of page 1 except the station building pic in b&w is with a 6mp Pentax Optio 60. 6mp are great, the more the better -- after this, I wouldn't bother with anything less (this is my first digital camera).

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by David_Telesha

Take a look at what 6mp will get ya:

http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=6008

All of page 1 except the station building pic in b&w is with a 6mp Pentax Optio 60. 6mp are great, the more the better -- after this, I wouldn't bother with anything less (this is my first digital camera).

Wow.

[tree68]

As dsktc said - buy all you can afford. If you have experience with a film 35mm SLR, go with one. My 8MP Canon Digital Rebel hasn't disappointed me yet, unless it was because I could have used a feature I don't have down yet.

As has also been said, most of the point and shoots are fine. Something to watch is optical zoom vs digital zoom. The more optical zoom you get, the better off you are.

All the other points about technical characteristics are valid as well. Also consider availability of lenses, should you go with a digital SLR.

One thing about lotsa megapixels is that you can crop a picture and still have a reasonably sharp shot. My Rebel gives me a 3456x2304 image - I can crop out an 800x600 image to show detail (full screen if that's where you have your screen set) and not lose a pixel of resolution.

[Anonymous]

Thanks everyone.

[spbed]

I have a 5MP 12X zoom. If you are going to make pix from the card then the more MP the better. [:D]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSFrailfan

Ok. I need you Railfans help. I want to get myself a good Digital Camera. The problem is,the Megapixels. What would be the best in Megapixel wise? 1MP? 2MP? 3MP? And so on. I was thinking of a 5MP. Help! Is there a web site out there that can
give me an idea? Thanks,Allan.

[kevikens]

I would like to recommend a specific camera. Until recently I resisted digital technology because the cameras could not do what my Eos 5 or N90s film cameras could. I particularly hated the lag time between pressing the shutter and capturing the image. Well that changed for me last year when I purchased a Nikon D50 for about $600. Since I had an abundance of Nikkor AF lenses it was an easy choice. I was surprised at how quickly I learned how to use it. The controls were very similar to the N series film cameras and within minutes I was up and running. For several weeks I took my film cameras with me as backup and never touched them. I subsequently bought another D50 and the slightly better D70s. I use digital exclusively now and since I use top notch lenses like the 35-70 2.8D my images are better than anything I was getting on film. So, I recommend the d50 as the most cost efficent SLR digital out there, especially if you have Nikkor lenses. By the way I tried some of the point and shoot digitals first. For me they were totally inadequate in performance and not an improvement over film cameras. Whatever digital you get make it an SLR. One last suggestion. Go to a store where they also have the Canon Rebel digital or the Olympus E volt or the Pentax or Minolta Konica SLR's and try them out for feel and comfort with features. For me it was Nikon but if I had more Canon EF lenses than Nikkor I might have gone with the Rebel

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I agree it is better to get a digital SLR than a fixed lens digital camera. A 6 megapixel digital SLR should be good for most railfan photography including submitting photos to magazines. Some of the more important considerations are image quality, or the ability to shoot raw images, fine, normal, andl basic jpeg pus raw +jpeg,and the lack of "noise" or graininess in the picture at higher equivalent sensitivities, or ISO's of up to 800; while there may be very few occasions where you would have to use a higher sensitivity it's a good idea to be able to use a higher sensitivity and get a clear picture.

[RRKen]

Get a good used Nikon FM-2 with Nikkor glass. Hardly go wrong, and will make any digital under $500 look sad by comparison.

[M636C]

One thing that the Digital SLRs do better than point and shoot models (even the very top level, like the Fuji 9500) is response time. Digital SLRs are a little slower after button press than a film camera, and they can get delayed by focus problems (zooming out on a receding subject will throw a Canon EOS every time).

But if you want to take good photos of fast moving trains, a DSLR is the only way to go.

M636C

[Anonymous]

The Camera I am gona get is a Sony. The ISO is like 1000. Would that be ok?

[kevikens]

BNSF: I am not sure you are picking up what is being said here or I am not at all familiar with Sony cameras. If you plan on taking pictures of fast moving trains your camera needs to be able to focus quickly and above all not have a lag time between pressing the shutter and forming the image. Also not said previously is the ability to take multiple pictures in quick sequence. The SLR's have buffers enabling you to take some ten or so pictures right after each other. Make sure your Sony can do these things or you are going to wind up missing pictures. Perhaps you can borrow some digitals for an actual film shoot and see what I mean. The ability to shoot at ISO 1000 is NOT the feature you are most likely going to be using and the SLR's usually go up to ISO 1600 anyway. As for the suggestion of the NIKON FM2 that is one of my film cameras and with the attached MD12 I used it for many a picture. Believe me I know the feel of those beloved Nikons and their superb Nikkor lenses and I hesitated to make the switch but I am afraid that these cameras are going to go the way of 8 tracks, Beta tapes and 8mm movies and in time will not be supported by a chemical film technology. I am just so glad I never went the way of Leica, putting big bucks in what now appears to be a questionable investment.

[wctransfer]

Hey, a 5 MP does good work too. Only thing i'd change about mine is the zoom. Get plenty of optical zoom, it helps.

http://wctransfer.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=409859
http://wctransfer.rrpicturearchives.net/showpicture.aspx?id=408416
http://wctransfer.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=385292

Mine is an Olympus FE-110, about 300 bucks.

Alec

[oltmannd]

I won't disagree with anything anyone else has posted, but do want to add that the best camera is one you will use.

If you buy a DSLR and it sits in the closet because it's too big and bulky to carry around the bag with all your lenses, then it is a poor choice.

If you buy a "point and shoot" and just don't bother using it because you are disappointed with the picture quality or lack of flexibility, then it is a poor choice.

I have a Kodak DX7590. It has a 10X optical zoom and enough exposure and control flexibility to get the shots I'm looking for. It rides around in my brief case, so I always have it handy. The picture quality isn't what you'd get with a DSLR - mostly due to sensor noise and that it only stores pictures as jpgs - but I am more than willing to trade off those for the smaller size.

[spbed]

He could check out my web site to see what type quality you get with a 12X 5MP point & shoot camera[:D]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

I won't disagree with anything anyone else has posted, but do want to add that the best camera is one you will use.

If you buy a DSLR and it sits in the closet because it's too big and bulky to carry around the bag with all your lenses, then it is a poor choice.

If you buy a "point and shoot" and just don't bother using it because you are disappointed with the picture quality or lack of flexibility, then it is a poor choice.

I have a Kodak DX7590. It has a 10X optical zoom and enough exposure and control flexibility to get the shots I'm looking for. It rides around in my brief case, so I always have it handy. The picture quality isn't what you'd get with a DSLR - mostly due to sensor noise and that it only stores pictures as jpgs - but I am more than willing to trade off those for the smaller size.

[Anonymous]

I have had very good luck with the Panasonic DMZ-FZ5 that I bough back in Feb. It's 5 MP with a 12X optical zoom. I has fully automatic "simple mode" and can be set to a variety of modes all the way to full manual as a person learns more about setting shutter speeds etc. It took me about an evening of playing around with it to learn the controls and now I can get a lot of action shots that I would have never gotten before. There are 3 burst modes on the camera and in the right conditions it will shoot almost 3 frames per second. That helps a lot with moving targets. There is even a new and improved version out for 2006. The best part was that it cost me less than a either of the otheres I was considering (Fuji finepix and Kodak) It comes in either silver or black.
I got some real good pics of UP 844 with this camera. I would highly recommend it or at least urge you to read the reviews

Here is the link to CNET'sreview.
http://reviews.cnet.com/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ5S_silver/4505-6501_7-31346140-2.html?tag=nav

[Anonymous]

Well, you are never going to use ISO 1000 for
railfanning. Are you sure you didn't mean ISO 100?

Dave

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSFrailfan

The Camera I am gona get is a Sony. The ISO is like 1000. Would that be ok?

[tree68]

I wouldn't be surprised by an ISO of 1000. I'd rather have that than an ISO 100 - Bright sunshine or flash for everything.

[Anonymous]

You are mistaken, sir.

Most digital cameras produce a great
deal of electronic noise at ISO 400 and
above. The Canon DSLRs, 20D, 5D and
pro series, are an exception.

Here is a photo taken at the Carnegie
Museum in Pittsburgh at ISO 800:

http://www.pbase.com/dsktc/image/56377888

If you attempted this with a camera that
generates a lot of noise at ISO 800, the
image would be crap.

Dave

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

I wouldn't be surprised by an ISO of 1000. I'd rather have that than an ISO 100 - Bright sunshine or flash for everything.

[Poppa_Zit]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dsktc

You are mistaken, sir.

Most digital cameras produce a great
deal of electronic noise at ISO 400 and
above. The Canon DSLRs, 20D, 5D and
pro series, are an exception.

Here is a photo taken at the Carnegie
Museum in Pittsburgh at ISO 800:

http://www.pbase.com/dsktc/image/56377888

If you attempted this with a camera that
generates a lot of noise at ISO 800, the
image would be crap.

Dave

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

I wouldn't be surprised by an ISO of 1000. I'd rather have that than an ISO 100 - Bright sunshine or flash for everything.

Agreed. I make pictures with a Nikon D1X and its not very grainy at ISO 800 -- certainly not unacceptable. Plus, with a good, industrial-strength photo editing program you can really improve on quality if you know how to use it.

If I need more latitude, I use faster lenses or go fully retro and shoot Fujicolor Press film in either a F4s or F5. It's been so long I bought film, does Kodak still make 35mm in 1600 ISO?

[Poppa_Zit]

You are getting so good information in this thread.

For anyone who is serious about their photography, here's a few more thoughts good enough to repeat about maximizing the photos your camera can take --

Lesson No. 1

Some tips on getting the best out of your camera. I'd say a person aspiring to be a decent photographer needs to make several thousand pictures under various lighting conditions before thinking about getting serious. You need to learn how to think clearly and learn how to avoid "photographer's panic" (the fear of missing a one-chance-only photo of a visiting steam locomotive) when making pictures of quickly-moving objects (like trains) that will soon be out of view. Go down to the local park and practice by shooting the action at some kids' baseball or soccer games, or automobiles in a 40 mph zone.

Right now, you are an aspiring serious hobbyist. There's much more to photography than pointing a camera at a subject and pressing a button. Most of today's digital cameras work well, but they're only as good as the person handling them. Learning to use a camera with pro capabilities and manual mode will go a long way toward improving your results, although it is not necessary to blow your budget. But do learn how to operate ALL features on whatever camera you buy. Then practice, practice, practice. You'll also have to practice hand-holding in low light conditions for times your tripod isn't handy.

You will take much better action photos with a higher-end camera with a hair-trigger shutter release instead of the delayed shutter trip (to eliminate movement at shutter drop) you find in cheap point-and-shoot cameras designed to take pictures of kids' birthday parties. You also need to have quality lenses. Even the best camera in the world is only as good as the glass you attach to the front. Buy a camera with a good automatic focus system. Then there are things like remote cables, tripods and filters to consider -- like polarizing filters to cut glare. It can get pretty expensive.

With digital, you absolutely need to have a decent editing program, which requires another set of skills that need to be perfected. Part of the equation is also having an "artist's eye" -- knowing the lighting conditions, angles, lens qualities and seeing a photo in your mind before you trip the shutter. You'll need to know how to properly crop a photo, which makes a huge difference. Once you acquire the skills, you'll find yourself taking action photos and framing them while doing so.

Once you learn your craft, you eliminate most of the guesswork. Today’s photogs are lucky. When I was learning, there was the additional expense of film, processing and printing. There also was a time delay before I could see my results. Today, you can take a laptop with you and experiment to your heart's content, seeing your results in minutes. The only cost is for batteries, unless you have rechargables.

Take pictures to make YOURSELF happy. That is an attainable goal. Measuring yourself based on what some distant, hidden "raters" think on some website is a huge mistake many people make, and it kills their enthusiasm. I'm a professional photographer, and after looking at some of the pictures on railpictures.net, I have no clue as to what they're looking for because their selections lack consistency, in my opinion.

I see a lot of pictures being posted on these forums (especially layouts), and think it is very kind of our fellow posters who respond to them with nice comments. But truthfully, most of the photos are of dubious quality -- the first and foremost being poorly lighted and/or poorly exposed, the second a lack of understanding depth of field. And some of the video clips here were taken by guys who panned their camera like they were spraying a fire hose.

Just keep at it. You'll get there, it just takes time and effort. If taking great pictures was easy, everyone would be doing it. I remember the first time I sold a photo to a national publication, many years ago. I was totally exhilarated, as if I had just won the lottery. It wasn't easy getting there. But certainly worth the hard work.

Be sure to check out the "Trackside with Erik and Mike" archives and followup comments on Trains.com, a great resource. ("E&M" is the long-running, extremely clever scam to get out of the house or office to take railroad pictures. "Gosh, it's part of my job, honey." [:D])

Lesson No. 2

There are two basic forms of photography (for the purpose of this discussion).

Posed and news.

Posed shots allow for the careful manipulation of lighting, subjects and objects. I've had a train crew waiting for orders on a siding ask me to hold off taking my photo until they could clean the bug goo off the cab windows and wipe down the hood of the locomotive. Posed shots happen during well-planned photo run-bys.

News shots are grab-and-go. They capture instantaneous, once-in-a-lifetime moments like when Milwaukee Road FEF 261 comes boiling through town at speed, main rods flashing and at full smoke. You either get the shot, or you don't. In advance, you preplan an ideal location for your pictures. But you can't stop the action to get yourself and your equipment set up. It's almost apoplectic, and some guys just can't handle the pressure of making sure they get the "perfect" shot in situations like that, especially if they're getting paid to make those pictures. So they opt instead for something like a studio job taking portraits, where they have complete control over all important elements (except for misbehaving kids) and there is no rush.

Posed shots are taken -- when the option is available -- from the side with the most optimum light and light angle. It would be nice when taking pictures of moving trains to always have "honey light" -- the warm, soft light cast by the sun just above the horizon, but that's impossible. But by carefully choosing our shooting location, we can keep undesirable objects out of our photos, and learn to use whatever light is available. If the only location available for an important shot will back-light the subject, then choose a bright, overcast day with no shadows to get the best lighting on the side of the subject facing you.

Will we have clear, blue skies and sharp shadows? Watch the weather forecast and if you can, shoot on sunny days with high pressure and low humidity to avoid haze, but avoid the harsh overhead sun if possible. But we can't always do that, especially since we usually can't manipulate the time of day we're available and/or train schedules.

Except, of course, for the late, great O. Winston Link. In his Quixotic quest to record for us EKG strips of the final heartbeats of mainline steam in the U.S., Link had to blend the important elements of both posed and news photography. He shot nearly everything at night, in almost total darkness using huge homemade banks of flash bulbs he set up at the optimum angles in carefully chosen locations. Why? Because under those conditions, he had absolute -- absolute -- control over his lighting and set. And it shows in his work. But still, the Norfolk & Western had to keep those steam trains running on schedule, so Link still had to have perfect "news" timing on his shutter drop because in that respect, he was also taking news photographs.

And he chose well his medium. He had enough light to shoot in color, but my guess is he felt his photographs in black and white would be more dramatic and less busy, encouraging our eye to immediately focus right where he wanted. His photos had a wonderful, gritty texture so palpable you could almost smell the oil and steam. The guy was half-genius, half-magician, and he set the bar high for all of us who aspire to follow.

And there endeth the lesson. Good luck.