I finally have a digital camera. After shopping around quite a bit, I decided on the Olympus C-5050Z. It's a 5 megapixel fully manual/fully auto camera. I've only had it for the weekend, and I've already taken like 120 pictures. Here are pictures of my old engine (UP), and the new one I got for Christmas (SP) which I detailed and painted last night. I did a better job on the SP than I did on the UP, but I've got quite aways to go before I get some really sharp looking details. I'm not so sure I'll ever get there though, 'cause detailing rolling stock is not my favorite part of the hobby, but it's fun. (both engines are Athearn models) Both of these shots do not represent the full range of depth-of-field this camera is capable of. I intentionally set the background out of focus (and made it dark) because I do not have any scenery or buildings completed yet. I also have yet to add the small loco numbers to the SP. Just thought I'd share some excitement from the digital side of picture taking. My film camera will now be in the closet collecting dust! Talk to you guys later- Dave [the engines are HO scale] [ 30. December 2002, 16:46: Message edited by: daveheinzel333 ]
I bought my Olympus 3 years ago so it's a 1 Mega model, it was good then but I can't believe how good your camera is. The colors are so vibrant, the depth of focus is excellent, and the details it captured are fantastic! (even after you resized the photo for web posting!)
Dave, how does the Olympus D370L camera ($175.00) compare to your camera? As I understand from the write-ups, you can hold more photos before having to change cards, is about all, and you have more lens options. I think you fill the little PC card, take it out of the camera body and insert it into a special floppy and insert that into your "A" drive to download the photos into the computer. He suggests if we want to take a bunch of photos at one sitting, we get a handfull of the little cards, instead of buying such a high priced camera. I like that, I have plenty of time. My son says the D370L would take closeup photos of my engines like the ones you have posted here, and would do portraits of Jan and I, but not be so hot on distance landscapes. The only use we have for a digital at all, is for train inventory and eBay items my wife sells occasionally. Any comments or suggestions? (Son doesn't really know much more than I have told you here.) I know zip! [ 30. December 2002, 22:43: Message edited by: watash ]
Megapixel size it was matters in digital cameras. Digital photos are not a film, but a myriad of tiny colored dots in the shape of a block. All will take decent pics at regular focus and at a regular size (say, 5 X 7), however, a camera with 5.0 megapixels has five times more resolution than a 1.0, therefore rendering brighter, clearer, and more crisp photos. This is especially noticeable when printing the pics at a larger size. Lesser cams will give you a grainier resolution the larger you print. Even though the digital cams are getting better and cheaper, they still can't take the place of regular film cams. Yet. There is a new format on the horizon that will not only allow far greater resolution, but will allow a layering of the pixels over each other. This will greatly enhance the vibrancy of color, contrast, as well as allowing far more subleties in shading, making the digital camera photo equal to its standard film. This format is already in it's final stages, and companies are racing to get theirs out, hoping to set the industry standards. Count on a very expensive price until the format standardizes across the industry, and then we'll see the prices fall. My bet is that Sony will be the standards setter.
It all depends on what you need it for though. I only ever use my didgital camera for posting pictures on the internet so a 1MP camara would be fine for that. Another thing to consider is the anti-aliasing that the camera has. There arn't any specs on this but some cameras are better than others. Some will produce a fairly straight looking diagonal line while other cameras will produce a line that looks stair stepped even at the same resolution.
Nice camera and pics Dave. It is so much easier now to take those close up pics. Nothing like a digital camera. U got yourself one of the best for the price
Those pix show off the new camera very well, as well as your skills in using it. Great combination. It is easy to get carried away with a new digital camera. I went through a similar experience last June. But, to be able to do that with minimal expense, I find to be liberating. [ 31. December 2002, 16:15: Message edited by: Peirce ]
That is obviously a very good camera. I'm both glad and disappointed. I'm glad that digital camera technology is improving so rapidly, but sad because I bought the best Sony Cyber-Shot two years ago and its best output doesn't compare with what you posted.
Wow, much discussion about digital cameras, and it seems like there's the old 'film vs. digital' battle going on. Here's my feelings about it. I love film- and I also love computers. For years I would shoot 35mm slides or regular negatives and scan them onto my computer using a $1000 negative scanner we have at work. The quality was good, but by the time it gets onto the computer (and it does take a lot of time), it's a 2nd generation photo- a copy. And because of that, some quality is lost. This process also introduces dust specs into the image, and while they CAN be removed, it is very tedious. But my main reasons for going digital are these- instant feedback and unlimited film. Here's how a photo shoot would work with a film camera- I set it up, do the meter reading, check the camera settings, take the picture, bracket a few shots in case the settings weren't perfect, then set up some more shots. You get 24 (or maybe 36) pics on a roll of film, and you have to wait (for slides) up to a week or so for your results. With digital cameras, the instant feedback will let you know if the picture came out RIGHT AWAY. You can zoom in on the LCD monitor to check the details and make sure it was focused, and you can shoot all the pictures you want to. You ARE limited to the size of your memory card, but you can shoot 50 pictures of a single set-up, keep the best 5, and you're ready to shoot another scene. Anyway, I could go on and on (oops I already did!). With a 5megapixel camera, a 8x10 printout in all of my tests beats out my 35mm camera in every aspect, even resolution. And since I mention printers- a new $100 Epson photo printer will give you photos that look EXACTLY like prints. The small ink jet dots are not visible to your eye at all, if you print on good paper at the highest settings. Here's a little scene I did last night with a new backdrop I printed out at work (I am in graphic design). Watash- the Olympus camera you have is great! My friend has a camera almost exactly like that one, and that's what changed my mind about digital cameras. But once I decided to throw down some $$$, I started realizing that my new digital camera would be ALMOST good enough to let me not carry around my film camera anymore, so I went with the more expensive, fully-manual camera I have so that I could forget all about my 35mm film camera. As far as depth of field, I believe this is directly tied to the physical size of the CCD chip behind the lens. A 5mp camera would more likely have a larger chip than a 1mp camera, and therefore better DOF. A $100 camera WILL work, but with a more expensive camera you get things like manual controls, a swivel LCD screen (which prevents me from having to squat to see the composition), USB connection so I can plug the camera right into the computer without having to remove the memory card, white balance control, optional lens attachments, a hot shoe for a professional flash, and so on. And Hank don’t you worry- my camera, like yours, will be a dinosaur in a year. But even though there’s newer cameras, we can still take the same good pictures we always could [ 31. December 2002, 15:29: Message edited by: daveheinzel333 ]
Thanks for showing your shooting set-up. Like you I was a reluctant convert to digital photography, only doing so last June. What pushed me over the line were two articles, one from Kodak and one from Fuji, both of which detailed the reason it is no longer safe to travel through airports with film. I have referred to these articles before, so I won't go into detail here. I still have my film camera and will use it, but the digital has become my main camera.
Dave, can the Olympus, or any other digital interchange lenses? I have a telescope that would work much better with a digital camera ... wouldn't waste a roll of film trying to bracket a moonlight exposure.
Hank- Many digital cameras let you attach different lenses and filters. Cheap cameras usually don't though. I'm not sure of the thread size on mine, but I'm sure one day soon I'll look into that and get some lenses. I tried to attach a wide-angle lens I have for my camcorder, and it almost worked. The problem is that camcorder lenses are usually not high-definition, and when you take a high quality picture using a cheap lens, it really shows. That telescope idea sounds pretty neat- I'd be interested to know if it will work. My dad is an astronomer and I'm sure he would have a better answer, 'cause I know he's done quite a bit of telescope photography. I'm guessing that you have tried using a 35mm camera if any, which would have a lens larger than most digital cameras. Unless you spend over a grand, you'll probably have a digital camera with a lens about the size of a silver dollar. There might be some mechanism that would let you attach your telescope to a smaller hole though. Good luck! Dave
Dave, my telescope has a Pentax screw-mount (46mm?) adapter. So far, I haven't found anything that converts from the Pentax to a 52mm standard filter thread of the camera. Maybe your Father knows? If I can find an adapter, I would have the equivalent of an 11,000mm telephoto lens with 0.8 arc-seconds of resolution. Does the TB have any Members who are Precision Machinists????
Well hank, I'm a beginner machinest. Bought myslef a lathe for christmas. Maybe once I've aquired the nessisary skill I'll try and make your adapter.
Paul, thanks for your reply. I have e-mailed you directly because I don't think this is an appropriate subject for a railroading forum.
Not unless you live in a high rise appartment and want to take photos of trains within a 25 mile radius.
I usually use a Nikon 995 for it's close up capability. It's a 3 mp camera that you can also get a lot of accessories for. KFNRR Railroad Atlas SF Dash 8-BW Charlie KFNRR Railroad
Charlie, Welcome to the TrainBoard, we're glad to have you on board! Secondly, that's one heckuva close up photo, excellent resolution and clarity! Thirdly, that's one fine layout that you have designed and are building. I assume it's 0-Scale due to the inside third rail pickup.
Check out the close up of that!!!! I wish my digital would take close ups like that! Sure would be nice.. Being I got alot that people would like to see and or see more of! But thats a sweet shot Charlie! I take that the red an silver Santa Fe is a Mikes Train House loco???? Sure is sharp looking! And if not I'd almost swear its brass!
