camera

[modeltrucker]

I'm looking to buy a digatal camera to take pics of my builds. the two things it needs to be is easy to use and not to expensive. HELP

james in cleveland

[Greg Cullinan]

Me too! With close up pics being the priority.

[Aaronw]

I have a Canon Powershot S3IS I really like. Canon is now 2 generations past mine they did an S5 and I forget the latest version, they changed the name completely (I think it is the X10 or something). It is on the upper end in price for a point and shoot though, around $400 4 years ago.

If you really just want a general purpose camera you can also take photos of your models with, almost any digital camera will work these days. I think even the real cheap ones are around 3-4 mega pixels which is more than enough for posting pics on the computer.

The one feature you really want to look for is that it has a macro for taking close up shots. A manual setting is nice too, so you can adjust the light balance and shutter. If you take the pics at a high resolution setting then you can use a photo editing program to zoom in to the photo to show off detail even closer. Most of the pics you see of a dashboard or other small detail is usually done in a photo editor, not by getting 2" from the model.

I like Canon but pretty much all the name brands (Canon, Olympus, Nikon, Sony etc) should be pretty good.

[Pete J.]

Here is a quick brake down of things to look for in no particular order -

1. Measurable White balance. You shoot models under a variety of light conditions. Having a camera that can measure and set the white balance is important to getting accurate colors. You set a sheet of white paper down and let the camera measure it and that becomes the standard for that shoot.

2. Telephoto lens. Getting really close to a piece causes distortion around the edges and can have an problems with the focus. I shoot a lot of my models from several feet away and then zoom in. The image is much less distorted and looks more like a real car.

3. Ability to shoot long exposures - AKA adjustable aperture - The longer the exposure the greater the depth of field - Depth of field refers to how much of a photo is in focus from front to back. Short depth of field will mean the front of the model is in focus but the back is blurry.

4. Good quality optics- The lenses make all the difference in the world. I am still shooting with an old 2 mega pixel camera and because it has excellent optics, my photos are as good if not better than some of the new 8 mp cameras. The image must be sharp and clear or a billion mega pixels will be worthless. Top quality optics are either from a known supplier(Carl Zeiss) or a camera maker known for their optics(Nikon, Cannon, Minolta, Olympus) Better to spend money on optics than pixels.

5. Tripod mountable - Just makes life easier especially if you are shooting long exposures

6. Remote shutter release - See #5 Same issue

7. Macro focus - It is important to define what the manufacture means by macros focus - It is a nebulous term that implies focus close up. In some cases the builder is referring to feet and in other cases fractions of an inch. It doesn't mean the same thing across the board. You need to fine out what the focal length is. My camera will focus down to 3/4" but I rarely use it. The shadow of the camera makes shooting anything that close a problem, but you get the idea.

8. The photographer - Cameras are a tool. A pocket knife in the hands of a skilled craftsman is a wondrous tool to behold. A Bridgeport mill in the hands of a beginner is a tragedy waiting to happen. Spend a little time, and it won't take much, to learn the basic tools of photography and all these things will make sense and you can get great photos from most cameras, but a high end SLR without basic knowledge will just frustrate the *#)) out of you.

Good luck

Edited October 26, 2009 by Pete J.

[beefheart22]

James, Greg, if you aren't into photography, no need to spend too much money. Go to Future Shop, buy something between $100-$200 that tickles your fancy. The trick is that it has to have a MACRO function. Usually indicated by an icon the shape of a flower. MACRO is a type of focus that lets you get in really close to your subject in crisp detail. Also make sure your camera can take clean crisp pictures in normal indoor lighting. Good idea as always to test drive it because some cameras require a PHD in rocket science to figure out or take grainy photos in indoor lighting.

Try a Nikon Coolpix. Slim and compact, easy to use and takes good pictures, even in indoor lighting. Even tells you if somebody blinked. A good quality easy-to-use camera.

[Harry P.]

I agree, if you're talking about a camera to simply shoot pix for posting online and general "snapshots", you don't need any sort of hi-buck "pro" camera.

Just about ANY digital camera these days will do fine for you. Make sure it has a Macro function (for close-ups). As long as you get one with at least 5 megapixels or so, you'll be fine. Heck, you don't even need that much, but these days the prices have come down a lot, so might as well get one with more megapixels than less. You should be able to find literally dozens of choices for around $100, maybe less if you catch a good sale. Try a google search for "digital camera reviews" or "digital camera prices"... a few hours spent researching online will set you in the right direction.

Here's a place to start:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRICE1.HTM

[Joe Nunes]

Harry, I don't want to side-track this but I have a Canon PowerShot A95...what is the best setup to use for posting pictures of reasonable size and clarity? Quite frankly, one can have a nice camera and STILL not know what settings/how to post the pics correctly ! I hate it when I show the world how dumb I am at 59...

Joe

Edited October 26, 2009 by rhoadapple

[Harry P.]

Harry, I don't want to side-track this but I have a Canon PowerShot A95...what is the best setup to use for posting pictures of reasonable size and clarity? Quite frankly, one can have a nice camera and STILL not know what settings/how to post the pics correctly ! I hate it when I show the world how dumb I am at 59...

Joe

Generally, if you shoot at your camera's highest quality setting, the image will be too big for posting here. Different cameras have different settings, but in general if you shoot at the "normal" or "standard" setting you'll be fine... no need to shoot at the "high quality" setting (or whatever that setting is called on your camera).

[Gregg]

I agree with Pete's outline.

For me, the main thing to look for when it comes down to price is the ability to set Aperture Priority.

This would be on the top of the camera.

Look for P or Auto, then TV, AV, and M

If it has the AV, that is Aperture Priority.

Most digital cameras are not able to physically set aperture, it is done digitally.

The only true Aperture setting is with a SLR-type of camera.

And the new digital cameras of today only go up to an F-Stop of F/8, which works fine for posting and some print shots.

I always recommend shooting at the highest res.

You never know when your shots might be needed for print work

[Aaronw]

Harry, I don't want to side-track this but I have a Canon PowerShot A95...what is the best setup to use for posting pictures of reasonable size and clarity? Quite frankly, one can have a nice camera and STILL not know what settings/how to post the pics correctly ! I hate it when I show the world how dumb I am at 59...

Joe

You should have gotten a photo editing program with your camera, it seems like all come with some program. I leave the camera on the highest setting, you can always reduce the quality, but you can't go back in time and take the pic at a higher setting.

If you open the pic in your photo editor you should have the option of resizing the photo. Most monitors have a resolution of less than 100 dpi (I think 72 is standard). When you select image size it will usually show you the size in pixels (example 1600x1200) or inches, and show the resolution measured in dpi (example 300dpi). Just change the dpi to something like 72 or 100, and change the pixles to 800x600 and that will give you a good size for posting on a website. If you decide to make other alterations (crop, adjust color, lighting etc) do that before changing the image size.

[Aaronw]

You also might check your photo hosting site, I think some offer the option of reducing your photos to a set size.

[Joe Nunes]

Thanks to all who answered so quickly with your assistance. Thanks, James, for letting me post the question and I hope the answers help you too.

Joe

[VW Dave]

IMO the two most important things are the macro setting and a tripod; those two have greatly improved the quality of my photos.

My original digi was a Nikon CoolPix 3200(3.2mp), and I later upgraded to the CoolPix L6(6mp); both were inexpensive, are easy to use, and they came with software. The 3200 came with the 'Nikon View,' and the L6 came with 'Picture Project.' My mini tripod was about 7 bucks including postage from Ebay, and I got a full-size one(extends to nearly 4 feet) for about $16 from there as well.

I also sprang for one of those 24" white nylon 'photo cube' things, and it ran me about 30 beans shipped.

Edited October 27, 2009 by VW Dave

[Harry P.]

I agree with Dave, a tripod will make your model photography a lot easier. It's much better than relying on your own "steady hands"...

[Janne Herajärvi]

Ill got to say, take Nikon Coolpix L6. Its not expensieve, it is easy to use and it works after its covered with shampoo. Yes that funny thing happened in one trip, so my camera was in same pocket in my bag with shampoo bottle, well some reason that bottle started to flow shampoo in pocket and what a mess it was. But i just cleaned my camera, tested it and i realized it still works. Only trouble is in my camera that smell of Nivea after 2 years that accident :lol:

But take look to my topics, there is no bad pics. They would be even better if my hands would not shake when i take my pics

[Pete J.]

I agree. Shoot the best possible quality and then edit the photo to a managable size. This photo was taken about a foot way from the subject and then editied in photo shop. The orginal file was TIFF format which is very large. When I edited it, I first cropped it. The penny had a border about a 1/2" around all sides. I then reduced the size of the photo by 50% to keep it from being too huge. The keep the band width lower I then converted it to JPEG. This went from umpteen million MP down to a managable size without giving up quality. As I said, learning to use your tools is not hard and only takes a bit of basic understanding of the essentials of photography. A little knowledge and even a simple camera can go a long way. Good luck!

[Harry P.]

Just curious... what is that thing on the penny???

[RodBurNeR]

Just curious... what is that thing on the penny???

It's a fricken' laser!

[2002p51]

PeteJ's post is all you need to know about digital photography. Especially; "Better to spend money on optics than pixels.", and:"The photographer - Cameras are a tool."

Mega pixels are a marketing tool that camera makers have latched on to in order to take advantge of the typical consumer's belief that bigger is better in all things. As somebody else mentioned, 72 pixels per inch is the standard resolution of most computer screens. If you're posting photos on here or anywhere on the web, a higher resolution than 72 PPI is just wasted file size.

This photo is 72 PPI, and 500 x 278 pixels. Do the math and you see that it's only 139,000 pixels and that's waaay less than one mega pixel!

Most of you would probably be surprised to find out that this photo was shot with a 12 year old, 1.9 mega-pixel camera. It's a Nikon Cool-Pix 950! It has few manual controls, no manual focus, but it does have good glass and a macro setting. And yes, I have done publishable magazine quality photos with it!

One final point, and that's just to clarify something else that PeteJ said;

"Ability to shoot long exposures - AKA adjustable aperture - The longer the exposure the greater the depth of field"

Technically Pete, it's the small aperture that creates greater depth of field, not the long exposure. The long exposure is a necessary by-product of the small aperture.

Depth of field is controlled in two ways; aperture and/or lens focal length.

Small aperture = large DOF

Large aperture = shallow DOF

Long focal length = shallow DOF

Short focal length = large DOF

For all of my model photography (like the '40 Ford above) I use a 105 mm lens, set on f16 or higher. I shoot at 1/60 shutter speed because I have the luxury of studio style strobe lights.

Here's the set-up I use:

If you have to shoot with less light than that or outdoors, you can adjust exposure times to suit. And yes, a good sturdy tri-pod is a must.

Sorry if I went on too long. I love photography almost as much as I love cars!

[RodBurNeR]

Drew, is that fitting on a plastic 1/25 model? If so , that is amazing detail! I like this thread, I always have room to learn.

[2002p51]

Drew, is that fitting on a plastic 1/25 model? If so , that is amazing detail! I like this thread, I always have room to learn.

No, that's on this real '40 Ford.

But it's less than an inch long.

[RodBurNeR]

ok I was gonna flip! that would be some serious detail on 1/25. thanks

[Harold]

I feel that megapixels in a camera are like horsepower in a race car- the more the merrier. A few years back I had a 4meg Canon Powershot that was OK, and even though it had a manual feature it still left something to be desired. Without filters for polarization, outside shots were always iffy as to whether or not I'd get a good shot or a light- blasted mess. Today, even the low-end point and shoots have double the resolution of my old Powershot, and they can be had for very reasonable prices. Canon now has a point and shoot that has more megs (14) than my Rebel xsi (12.2) and, like my Rebel, shoots in RAW format. This means that when you open a RAW image for editing, you're working with the actual information from the camera before it gets compressed into JPEG format, which means mucho better pics.All come with some form of editing software to adjust everything in post, but if you can swing the price, Photoshop CS4 is a great tool.

[Greg Cullinan]

Thanks for all the great info. I'm thinking I have a good camera just don't know what I'm doing.

[Harry P.]

Number one: you need a good lens. That goes without saying. My Cybershot has a Zeiss lens... a good lens.

But the more magapixel capability, the higher quality and larger an image your camera can record when shooting at the high-quality setting. If you're shooting photos that will be reproduced in print at a fairly large size, you need that megapixel "horsepower" to record an image of sufficient size and quality.

Example: In Photoshop, an 8x10 image @300 dpi (standard print resolution) contains 7,200,000 pixels! That's a lot of pixels!

But for shooting pix to post online (per the original question), it's all overkill. Even the cheapest digital camera will do the job in that case.

But given the fact that megapixel capability keeps increasing while digital camera prices keep decreasing, it makes sense to get the biggest MP capability camera your budget will allow. You might not always need that extra "horsepower" but it's nice to have it if you do need it sometimes. These days cameras in the 8-10 MP range (plenty good enough for hi-quality shots) can be had for less than $200... in some cases a lot less.