I am in the market for a digital camera. I was hoping there might be some of you that may offer me some suggestions based on my criteria: 1) I take photos in low light conditions, but do not like to use a flash (Subway stations mostly, do not want to blind the operators) 2) Looking at a 3 megapixel 3) Sufficient storage capcity on board 4) USB or faster interface with computer. 5) Zoom would be nice. 6) High quality output. 7) Quick rendering time for quick fire shooting. What do you think? ------------------ Subwaymark (Mark Kavanagh) Salem, OR Transit Photos website: http://www.trainweb.org/subwaymark
Go to an earlier forum and have a read of this http://www.trainboard.com/Forum15/HTML/000008.html ------------------ Regards Paul Cassar-# Member number 50 SPAD Investigator #1 ICQ 61198217 http://users.bigpond.net.au/railroad2000
I have a Nikon 950 so I would recommend the new 990. Excellent low light abilities through access to shutter and aperture controls, but remember you still have the same issues with any camera and a moving object at slow speeds (or low light). I suggest you look at www.steves-digicams.com and check out what's available and Paul's suggestion above. Gary. ------------------ Gary A. Rose The Unofficial TC&W page TrainBoard Moderator and Member No.377 N to the Nth degree!
AS there have been other forum topics on this you might check them out. I have a 1 megapixel camera and am very satisfied for what I do. I just completed researching a camera for work and recommended a 2 megepixel camera for them. However, you say... >>1) I take photos in low light conditions, but do not like to use a flash (Subway stations mostly, do not want to blind the operators) Most quality cameras should work for you. I have been very pleasantly surprised at the quality of low-light photos from my Olympia. >>3) Sufficient storage capcity on board The higher the quality, the greater the storage and the fewer pictures you will take for the storage. At 2 megapixel with higest res you can use 8 meg easily. That's 4 photos for a 32 meg flash card. 3 megapixel will be far worse. >>4) USB or faster interface with computer. Required. >>5) Zoom would be nice. Required. Digital zoom is very poor by comparison. Optical is needed. >>6) High quality output. You should be able to take the output in at least two non-propriatary ways like TIFF and JPG. Good luck. My camera cost me $300 U.S. before accessories like rechargeable batteries and recharger (a must), extra flash card and a USB flash card reader. Best $300.00 I ever spent. Roger Roger Hensley rhensley@anderson.cioe.com == http://madisonrails.railfan.net/ == == Railroads of Madison County (Indiana) ==
Thanks for your help, I hope to purchase a camera in December. I'll let you know how it goes! ------------------ Subwaymark (Mark Kavanagh) Salem, OR Transit Photos website: http://www.trainweb.org/subwaymark
There are a few options, depending on your budget. For the money-is-no-object professional, I'd reccomend a Nikon D1, but at $5000 you might be living in poverty for a while. (And that's without a lense too. Add another grand or two for a nice lense collection.) Now, if you, like the rest of the world, are on a budget, I'd second the comment for the Nikon CoolPix 990. The camera has 3 megapixel capability, 3X optical zoom, USB connectivity, and utilizes CompactFlash storage. Greatest camera for under a grand. http://www.nikonlinks.com/[url] --...mail.com[/email] ICQ #21630753 AIM - railohio
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by subwaymark: I am in the market for a digital camera. I was hoping there might be some of you that may offer me some suggestions based on my criteria: 1) I take photos in low light conditions, but do not like to use a flash (Subway stations mostly, do not want to blind the operators) 2) Looking at a 3 megapixel 3) Sufficient storage capcity on board 4) USB or faster interface with computer. 5) Zoom would be nice. 6) High quality output. 7) Quick rendering time for quick fire shooting. What do you think? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have a epson & like the photos most are taken without flash you can see some pictures at http://members.visi.net/~trains/ ------------------ Vincent
What's wrong with the Curtis 2MB digital camera on the HomeShoppingNet on sale right now for 49.95? It will take 20 high res. shots, or 80 low res. shots. and comes with all the cables and a CD? Will it take close up detail, closer than 4 feet? I wouldn't use it for anything but the trains, so I really don't care about all the fancy accessories. I don't understand all the settings anyway. There should be a cheap Brownie digital out there for people like me who are old and dumb but would like to take some close ups of a lot of engines etc only. ------------------ Watash
I have a Ricoh RDC4200 camera, 1.5mpixel but with the original 4mb memory. Some may argue that this is enough, I find it constricting in the amount of Superfine pic's I can take, supernormal is constricted to about 12. What I'll be doing when I have a chance is to increase the memory card to about 8mb. I get some nice shots with it.
Welcome to Trainboard Saint. You not only have an excellent camera but you are a good photographer too. I sure like how you get close to your models and how realistic they appear. Will be expecting to hear more from you as time goes by. ------------------ Robin member #35 Maberly and Tayside
Welcome Vincent (belatedly - sorry!) and Jezza. Vincent, I checked your shots when I look through your site when I added it to the links page. Lots of nice images taken with the Ricoh. The close-up shots are great. Jezza, we'd like to see your photos. If you have a homepage, please post the URL here. If you have problems doing either, just post a message here and you will get help readily. Gary. ------------------ Gary A. Rose The Unofficial TC&W page TrainBoard Moderator and Member No.377 N to the Nth degree!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by watash: What's wrong with the Curtis 2MB digital camera on the HomeShoppingNet on sale right now for 49.95... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Watash, did you get the camera? The CD would be for the proprietry software to allow you to download and see the images, assuming you don't have the capability to do so. Gary. ------------------ Gary A. Rose The Unofficial TC&W page TrainBoard Moderator and Member No.377 N to the Nth degree!
If I understand how a digital camera works, The image color controls each pixel agross the "scan" or "view frame". That means there is no difference in a close up shot, than a long shot, so long as the image is recorded at high resolution (12800 pixels) to begin with. When it is cropped during the printing process, and saved as a .JPEG file, that photo will be sharp in focus for a close up shot, even though the camera was 6 feet away. That same shot then could be PERCIEVED as just as sharply in focus when saved in full frame,(as seen from the full view at 6 feet.) Both files from the one digital "photo". But if the file is saved at say 600 pixels across, then the close up will be blurred, and at 200 it would show individual spots of ink, so the best 'size' for close up detail shots of our engines is 600 pixels across! Right? Can someone explain? ------------------ Watash #982
I don't undersand any of that When I finally get my digital camera, what are the best settings for photographing models, for putting on the internet? Is there any need to go for high pixel numbers (megapixel) ? ------------------ Alan Curtis. Moderator. Member #12 The perfect combination - BNSF and N Scale! www.alancurtismodels.com Andersley Western Railroad Alan's American Gallery
Alan - That's one of the greatest things about having a digital camera .. you can take the shot and view it immediately for content, lighting and resolution. If you don't like what you see .. just delete the image and take it again with a new setting until you are satisfied with the results! I have a very old Casio /QV-10A. I have had it about 7 or 8 years now. It has two settings: for indoor / outdoor and another for 'normal' and closeup. It is adequate but I would like to get something more up to date to have more capacity for storage and options for capturing images. Watach ... Dang if I can answer your poser! ------------------ Bill (#16) "Get Goosed on the Yreka Western"
Alan Curtis sez...>>> When I finally get my digital camera, what are the best settings for photographing models, for putting on the internet? Is there any need to go for high pixel numbers (megapixel) ? <<< Oh, boy. I hate questions like this because you will get as many answers as there are people with digital cameras. IMHO - No, if you mean 2 or 3 megapixel cameras. Yes, if you mean 1 megapixel cameras. The higher the pixel count, the bigger the picture. If you want web shots, you should reduce the size to get a lower byte size for rapid loading. I generally use 550 to 640 wide for my largest web photo size in a JPG format. My camera produces a larger photo size and then I resample it. Now, for printing, you want the higher resolution and if you were wanting to print 8x10 photos with clarity, you really need to go to at least a 2 megapixel camera with an output of JPG or TIFF. TIFF will produce your best quality. This is not at all necessary for the web. Also, IMO, you should avoid any camera that will not save in both of those formats. With my Olympus D360L, I can print a 4x6 that looks like a photo and it produces outstanding shots for the web. As to Watash's statement/question, it would refer to digital zoom which my camera does quite well. I can do model photography for the first time and get it to look good. The camera that I just bought for work has zoom optics as well as digital zoom and it will take knock-down-drag-out close ups! It's a 2 megapixel Olympus. I bought a couple of 32 meg smart cards with it to handle the higest resoulution when we use it for mewspaper work. Didn't answer Watash's question because I didn't really understand it either. Roger
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alan: When I finally get my digital camera, what are the best settings for photographing models, for putting on the internet? Is there any need to go for high pixel numbers (megapixel) ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Alan, I only shoot high resolution photos. I then use one of my photo editing software packages to reduce the size, crop, edit, etc. ( I would compare this to the old "film" adage of using the lowest film speed possible). That way, if I shoot a picture that is 500k, it is easier for me to reduce it to 80k for posting on Internet or e-mailing; however, if you take a low res shot and try to "enlarge it", you will not be happy with the results. Chessie ------------------ Harold Hodnett Fan of NS, CSX, and their predecessors! Coming soon: The North Carolina Railfan Web Site http://www.trainweb.org/ncrail/
Reading between the "pixels", I think you guys have answered my questions. When I am really not conversant with the camera, or the lingo about it, it is hard to put into words. I think I will need a not so expensive camera that has an indoor and close-up capability, that will take a 32 bit smart card, and a reader to get the photo into somewhere on the computer, so it can be massaged down to 500/600 wide pixels for posting, and still print it out at umpty quadrillionand two pixels for 8x10 photos. Simple! Thanks (I can't afford it either) Ha. I'll just build my railroad and look at your photos. Thanks anyway guys. ------------------ Watash #982
OK, you digital camera users, would this camera be ok for taking pictures of models, etc. for putting on the internet? I probably would not use it for prints. Fuji Finepix 1300. 1.31 million pixels. 8cm macro. Focus auto 70cm-infinity. Lens 5.8mm f4.5/f11 (36mm equiv). Would this make a decent entry-level digital camera, as it is very simple to use, and the review also says that the white balance can be adjusted for different kinds of lighting, such as flourescent, etc. I hope it will be ok for taking pics of my layout, and new models for inclusion on my website. It is also at a price I can afford Your comments would be appreciated. ------------------ Alan Curtis. Moderator. Member #12 The perfect combination - BNSF and N Scale! www.alancurtismodels.com Andersley Western Railroad Alan's American Gallery
Apologies for the slackness of late - I should have got onto this sooner. A case of too much to do, too little time to do it. Ok, now that I have time to sit down, read, and digest all the questions and comments I'll add my 2 cents worth to the fray. I guess I will work from the bottom up! Alan - I figure the image size will be in the sub 1024x768 range, but that's fine for web use. For what you say you will use it for, I think you will find it satisfactory. The Fuji sounds like a digital version of a point and shoot with an added macro function. Eight centimeters is fine for macro as you would be pushing to get light into a subject at any point less than 5cms. I had the opportunity to 'test drive' a Nikon 950 and that was the reason I bought mine - it did as I wanted. If you can, hit the camera store and do a couple of test shots on a model or 2. Try before you buy. Also, consider the points made earlier by Roger in answer to Mark's initial post. Downloading the images is an important consideration. The serial port that was used by many cameras in the past, and may still be used in the lower end of the market, is deathly slow. USB is great if available but a card reader may be required if you don't want to wait for the download. Stick with a CompactFlash type 1 or 2 (CFI/CFII) or SmartMedia compatible camera and IMHO avoid propriety memory like Sony uses - it's expensive and they are the only ones making it. Since you are looking at the Fuji, it probably takes the CFI type cards. Harold brought up an interesting point regarding image size. I too shoot at full resolution (1600x1200) and crop or reduce to suit. That way I have always a full sized photo for later use stored on the HD or burnt to CD. This is an important point if you wish to submit an article for publication and you have digital images. If it is small to start with, then it's not preferable to increase the image size as it is to reduce a larger image. Reducing the image removed 'unwanted' information where increasing adds information by averaging the surrounding pixels making for a slightly blurry image. Roger's comments on resolution hold true. The bigger, the better (in this case ). The downside is camera cost presently. As a general note, the printing issue is important if this is what you plan on doing. The higher the resolution, the bigger the picture can be reproduced without having to increase the image size and introducing blurring. Taking the photo in fine mode JPG (low compression) or uncompressed TIF will give the best results as Roger pointed out. As an example, the Nikon will do a 1600x1200 photo in fine (around 6:1 compression) mode that will print out a 10"x8" image that is photo-realistic. An uncompressed image will do better. So a camera with multiple formats is desirable in my opinion also. (Roger - do you get any heavy pixelation using the digital zoom? The Nikon seems to crop the image and increase the result when using the digital zoom. It makes the pixels appear "bigger" by adding similar coloured pixels, rather than averaging the pixel colours to take it out to the image size. It's not good at 2.5x digital!) Now for Watash's poser... Taking a photo of a subject close up will give a different result than taking the photo further back and then cropping it to the same subject size as the close up. If the end image size is no larger physically than the long shot's subject, then there is little difference in the printed image. But if you are planning a larger print, then the print quality of the close up will be better than that of the cropped and resampled long shot due to the resampling adding information to the image, generally by averaging the colour between pixels. This adds a blur to the end image. As you have given and example using 600 pixels as your width, I will use the VGA size of 640x480 pixels as my example. Taking the long shot at 640x480 will give you a subject that will be a small proportion of the total image. In order to create an image from the long shot that will be the same as the 640x480 close up, you will need to proportionally crop the long shot then resample the result until it is 640x480. Say the cropped long shot is 400x300. To increase the image to the same as the untouched 640x480 close up, you need to resample the image by 160%. The graphic software will need to add the information to make up for the missing pixels, so 60% of the image is fictional information. Here the long shot is blurred by comparison to the close up and generally have less detail. If looking at either image at a lower resolution, it will appear to be blocky due to the information being removed and the colour variation being harser between pixels as there are less pixels in the total image. So in the end, there is no 'best' size for a photo. There are preferable sizes, if your wish, for website use - Roger uses 550-640 wide images and I use anything from 320 to 900 wide depending on the use. The image size in this case relates to the target audience and the equipment they use. Many still use 800x600 SVGA settings for their monitors regardless of the monitor size. This means Roger's photos will all appear on the screen, but my larger ones will require a little cross scrolling. Higher resolutions don't have this problem unless the image is larger than I have mentioned above. Phew! Gary. ------------------ Gary A. Rose The Unofficial TC&W page TrainBoard Moderator and Member No.377 N to the Nth degree!
