camera

[Harold]

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.

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.

Most cameras have the option of changing the resolution, for example going from a 1600x 1200 image to 800 x 600. You may start out using your camera for models, but there's always picnics, sporting events and crimes in progress you'll want to photograph, so the extra resolution is a good thing to have. But to start, get yourself a tripod. Barring that, use the timer on your camera, rest it on a flat surface and take the pic. My one photog professor told me that humans have an annoying tendency to move (breathing, etc.), and anything over 1/8 of a second exposure time is a sure- fire way to induce camera shake.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Harold

[2002p51]

Most cameras have the option of changing the resolution, for example going from a 1600x 1200 image to 800 x 600.

Be careful not to confuse dimensions in pixels with resolution.

Going from 1600 x 1200 to 800 x 600 is changing the size of the image but not the resolution.

Resolution is always expressed in "Pixels per Inch" or just PPI.

[Harry P.]

The question of resolution vs. image size can be very confusing.

Actually, digital cameras all shoot at the same resolution: 72 dpi (dots per inch) or ppi (pixels per inch). PPI and DPI are two different ways of saying the same thing. 72 dpi (or ppi) is the resolution that a computer monitor outputs its image. The standard resolution of the internet and computer images is 72 dpi.

What 72 dpi (or ppi) means is that every square inch of the image is made up of 72 individual tiny dots of color across that inch, and 72 individual dots of color top to bottom... or 5,184 pixels in every square inch of image. Therefore, a photo taken at the "standard" or "normal" setting, let's say 600x800 pixels, at 72 dpi (the camera's resolution) would contain 600x800 pixels, or 480,000 pixels. One "megapixel" is 1,000,000 (one million) pixels... so an image that's 600x800 pixels in size would contain slightly less than .5 megapixels. Again, if we consider the camera's resolution of 72 dpi, an image sized at 600x800 pixels would be approx. 8"x11".

What makes a digital photo either "standard" or "high resolution" is actually not a factor of resolution. Remember, the camera can only shoot at one resolution: 72 dpi. What makes the image "high resolution" is the physical size. For example, your camera may have a maximum quality setting that produces an image that's 2400x3200 pixels... at a resolution of 72 dpi that image is approx. 33" x 44"! The resolution is still 72 dpi, but the actual physical size of the image is much larger. At a physical size of 2400x3200 pixels, the image would contain (again, at a resolution of 72 dpi) 7,680,000 pixels; slightly more than 7.5 megapixels. So obviously a 5 megapixel camera could not produce an image at this size, you'd need at least an 8 megapixel camera to do it.

What makes this larger image "high quality" is not the resolution (72 dpi) but the physical size. A larger image (3200x2400 pixels or approx. 33"x44"), when reduced in size to print to a standard size of 8x10 or 8.5x11 paper would appear much sharper than a smaller image (600x800 pixels) printed to that same size.

And then there's the whole issue of screen resolution (72 dpi) vs. print or reproduction resolution (300 dpi).

It can get very confusing! But in terms of posting photos on line, an image sized 800x600 pixels or so (the "standard" or "normal" setting on many digital cameras) is all you need. And in fact, if the image is much larger than that, the forum software automatically downsizes it anyway, and your photo will have a black bar across the top that says "click here" to see the image in full size. So really, for posting images here, anything bigger than 600x800 is unnecessary.

[Gregg]

My head hurts!!!!

Actually, we print at like 1200 dpi or something for the press plates.

Too many numbers and math

I need my vicodin...

[Pete J.]

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

Harry - That would be the window latch for the sliding window in the door of the Tamiya Porsche 935 - 1:12 scale. It is 9 pieces of photo etched, soldered togeather with silver solder. The parts are from the SMS superdetail set.

[Pete J.]

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!

Drew - Absolutely correct - It has been a while since I had to speak to DOF - Less light(passing through the lens due to smaller opening) = longer exposure = greater DOF. I know how I do it, I just don't always know the exact termenology as to why. By the way - we do miss you at the SMCC meetings! Any chance you might be joining us some time for a meeting?

Edited October 28, 2009 by Pete J.

[2002p51]

Drew - Absolutely correct - It has been a while since I had to speak to DOF - Less light(passing through the lens due to smaller opening) = longer exposure = greater DOF. I know how I do it, I just don't always know the exact termenology as to why. By the way - we do miss you at the SMCC meetings! Any chance you might be joining us some time for a meeting?

Absolutely, just send me the plane ticket and pay for the hotel stay and I'm there!

Only kidding. Skip keeps me in the loop with the newsletter so it's just like I'm there with you guys!