As I begin my search for a good all-purpose digital camera to purchase, I expect that I will want to use the camera to take photos of my layout, possibly for publication. Traditionally, the secret to good model photography has been depth of field, which is accomplished with plenty of light, a small aperture and long exposures. Since I won’t be able to afford a digital SLR, I am hoping that one of the mass-market, point-and-shoot digitals will give me good depth of field. I see that most models claim to have a closeup or macro feature, but will these features give me what I am looking for?
Has anyone on the forum had any success taking good photos of their layout/models using a particular make/model of digital camera? Or, can someone give me a better idea of what features or specifications I should look for to find a camera that will give me good depth of field on my model photos?
There are so many cameras out there, in many price ranges and there isn’t really a “one size fits all” one to recommend. You should look for a camera that has manual controls of the aperture and shutter speed. Anything beyond this is “gravy”. The small digitals with the small lenses aren’t as good as those with the larger better quality lenses. Many firms such as Kodak, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, etc. offer “ZLR” cameras - Zoom Lens Reflex". Almost all offfer macro focusing, but this isn’t the be-all, end-all as when using this extreme focusing you will usually have a very small scene with very little depth of field. Using the zoom lens at its widest position and using the smallest aperture will generally work the best for model railroad scenes.
Check out my website on digital model railroad photography for more info:
I personally have a Canon Rebel XT DSLR and use it for most of my model photograpy. I also have a Kodak P850 ZLR which is really good too. A friend has one too and has been able to get some great model shots with his. I believe this 5.1MP camera has been discontinued and replaced with a similar one with more MP. What I like about the camera for general use is its f:2.8 12X zoom, which gives a 35mm equivalent from 36 to 432mm. And it also has an image stabilizer to help steady your long (and all) shots. Great movie mode too! Other firms have models that are quite similar, but I’m familiar with this one and its capabilities.
I’ve just bought a Canon A620 7.1mp digital camera and am wanting to learn how to use it, so I’m sure I’ll be checking out your website. Thanks for the link.
As you can see from early attempts, getting things in focus is more of a problem than I thought
I use a Canon Powershot S3 IS. It does a nice job on close ups and also has a 12X zoom for getting the prototype shots without having to go on RR property. I paid about $400 for mine last summer. Prices have probably dropped by now.
Just a few of very many points regarding the choice of a digital camera if more than basic layout “snapshots” are desired.
As Railphotog points out, manual control over aperture and exposure are absolutely essential. In my opinion, the Macro feature on most cameras is all but worthless when it comes to shooting a full scene close up and only serves to bring out how minimal their depth-of-field is at such settings. Focal-ratio (f/) settings beyond f/22 are all but required for really good shots of model scenes, especially if you want say a locomotive in the extreme foreground with a scene beyond to be reasonably sharp, like the one below.
Most of my model shots are done at f/38, which provides considerable depth-of-field. By example, the image below has the foreground tracks about 4" from the lens while the tunnel face is about three feet away. The image is acceptibly sharp over that entire range. Most common or inexpensive digitals can’t even approach that.
Likewise, if you are truly looking for a camera with potential for producing publishable images, forget anything cheap. If you are talking about such images appearing in a magazine, as far as I know most currently require images in the 8mp range and up, which no camera under about $500 today will supply.
Also consider placement of the lens on the camera. Many cheaper digitals have the lens mounted in a high or odd location on the camera. While this usually doesn’t matter for general photography, it introduces problems in obtaining an eye-level view from a 1:87 figure’s viewpoint.
I own a Pentax *istDL, which I bought mainly because it accepted all my specialized film camera lenses. It is a excellent camera but there are certainly others just as good out there in the same moderate price range. Here’s a final shot
Macro and deep perceived depth of field tend to be mutually exclusive, as the laws of physics dictate that as you increase the magnification ratio, the perceived depth of field decreases dramatically. Even at small apertures, you’ll typically only get a few inches.
In this sense, though, digital cameras with their tiny sensors work to your advantage, as they tend to increase depth of field.
Let’s say you have a scene of a certain size that you want to capture. For our purposes, let’s say that the scene has a size of 48mm by 72mm, or four times the size of a frame of 35mm film. To capture this with a 35mm camera, you have to rack the lens out to 1/2 life size, where you’ll get very, very little DOF. With a tiny-sensored digital camera, you might only need 1:10 magnifcation to fill the frame, or possibly even less. 1:10 will have much more depth of field than 1:2, regardless, for the most part, of the aperture used.
Ben - While your take on the subject is not incorrect, the approach you’ve taken to explain it is a bit indirect and might be misleading to the average reader here. The critical elements governing depth-of-field are always the lens’ focal-length and aperture. The circumstance that a digital camera’s recording medium is much smaller than that of a film camera’s is more happenstance than anything else. I expect that, as the technology improves, affordable chips will soon grow to the approximate size of a 35mm film frame (allowing for much better resolution - the chief reason that film still provides better images than digital cameras that sell for under $1,000) and the circumstantial DOF advantage of digital cameras will disappear.
Currently, most digital cameras with true variable focal-length lenses list two ranges for their lenses: the actual and that equivalent to conventional 35mm SLR lenses. One will note that the actuals are much smaller figures than the equivalent. Thus, by virtue of their shorter focal-lengths, they give rise to the greater DOF with the digitals.
Incidentally, regardless of whether one employs film or digital for imaging, the ultimate DOF approach in model photography (other than employing outrageously expensives studio cameras) is to have an extremely short focal-length WA lens coupled to a 2x or 3x teleconverter auxillary lens. With proper matching of the lenses, this results in an optical system of great DOF, in fact approaching that of a pin-hole lens, yet avoids the aberations/distortions normally associated with extreme WA lens systems - a clever trick I learned long ago. An example of this is given below (the “kids” are 4 inches from the lens, the real bridge is 1,000 feet beyond).
CNJ,
Perhaps I was a bit indirect in explaining things.
Depth of field is a very, very complicated issue, and it’s hard to explain it properly to someone with no knowledge of photography.
Basically, under all circumstances, there is exactly one plane that’s perfectly in focus in a photograph. This plane is normally parallel to the film plane, although certain cameras have the capacity to change the focal plane. Sharpness falls of in fron of and behind this focal plane.
Up to a point, though, certain elements in the scene can be regarded as being “acceptably sharp.” Those points which are acceptable sharp fall within what is known as the circle of confusion.
The size of the circle of confusion is determined by the physical size of the aperture, magnification ratio of the lens, and intended reproduction ratio of the negative as compared to the final print.
The definition for what constitutes acceptably sharp is a bit fuzzy(no pun intended). This often varies from person to person.
For that reason, depth of field scales on lenses are generally an unreliably way of predicting depth of field. It does help to know, though, that on 35mm lens, they are generally calculated assuming a final print size of 8x10.
You also make the statement that aperture and focal length determine depth of field. While this is true, it’s more accurate to say that aperture and magnification determine depth of field. Magnification is determined by both focal length and film-to-subject distance. For a given magnification and aperture size between any two lenses, depth of field will be the same.
It would appear, Ben, that we are largely divided over terminology/nomenclature, rather than function. [:D] My background is in optical instruments, yours perhaps specifically in photography.
Be that as it may, I do think that lay persons will better understand the principles involved from the viewpoint of focal-length and f-ratio. Addressing your last sentence in that sense, it should be understood by the reader that progressively reducing the clear aperture of one of those pair of identical lenses will result in a drastic increase depth-of-field (and without regard for the imaging medium involved folks, i.e. digital vs. film). And if taken to the extreme, an infinitely small aperture, regardless of any other factors, will result in an infinite DOF at the focal-plane.
I personally use a Sony N1 and the new N2 gives even more mega-pixels and also double the light sensitivity. It’s adjustable in almost eery aspect almost like a SLR and a big lens…
I think what you want to prevent are those ‘pocket’ or ultra slim ones which doesn’t let in as much light and rely on ‘digital correction’ or processors to enhence picture for low-light or close up shots. And for long distance shots, the small lens also distort the horizon meaning the horison becomes sort of round…
Terminology is the devil [:)]. I tend sometimes to get too caught up on it, although I try not to as it really doesn’t make a huge difference in the end. Just for example, many folks use “depth of field” and “depth of focus” interchangeably. They are related yet completely different ideas. Depth of field refers to things in front of the lens, and depth of focus refers to what goes on behind the lens. Most folks would know what you meant if you used either one.
You are correct that most of my knowledge of optics, a subject, which, incidentally interests me academically, comes from photography and cameras.
You are correct that the capture medium doesn’t make a difference as far as depth of field. The size of the capture medium does, though. 110 has more depth of field than 35mm, which has more depth of field than medium format which has more DOF than 4x5 which has more DOF than 8x10. For a scene which requires a 50mm lens in 35mm, you need an 80mm lens in medium format, a 150mm lens in 4x5, and a 300mm lens in 8x10.
Buy a camera that has manual control and set it to the smallest aperture. (Usually f8.0 on a small digital) A close-up setting is useful, but you can always crop in close after as well.
You can get good results but you will need to turn off the flash and use a long exposure. Use a delayed shutter setting so that there is no camera shake from pressing the shutter.
Jon, I have to respectfully disagree that you don’t have a problem with depth of field, especially with the shot below. I think it is outstanding! To me it looks much more real with the shallow depth of field. If I were looking at a prototype steam engine, my eyes would be focused on the engine and the background would be blurred. With that said…
The lack of depth of field works great when you have a single dominant subject in a scene. The blurred background makes your eye go to the main subject and rather than distract from the subject the background acts more as a frame. This forces your eye to focus on the main subject. Once I see the main subject in the shot below (steam loco), I then notice the blurred background. In a subliminal way, since the background is blurred, it peaks my curiosity to wonder what lies around the corner or on the other side of town. To me this is what makes your photo so interesting.
The problem I have with a lot of model railroad photography is that often times, there is too much going on and too much of it is in focus. Your eye just kind of bounces around the photo and there does not seem to be one single subject. There is an exception to this, where you are trying to show an overall view of a layout and the layout itself is the subject then by all means stop down (use a small aperture, larger number) to get the depth of field that you want.
It all boils down to what you are trying to communicate with your photography - a portrait or landscape. Just as in traditional real world photography a wedding photographer does not try to get everything in focus when shooting individual people or a detail like the wedding rings. However, a landscape photographer wants the lake in the forground along with the snow capped mountains in the background to be sharp.
Sorry I jumped in here but I could not resist, I make my living from photography…
“The blurred background makes your eye go to the main subject and rather than distract from the subject the background acts more as a frame.”
In all my technical blubbering, I never failed to say that, although I do very strongly feel that way.
I love the look of shallow depth of field in a photograph. That’s part of the reason why my most used lenses all have apertures of f2 or faster, and why I have been known to buy lenses that supposedly offer improvements in bokeh(the “creaminess” of the out of focus areas in a photograph-a property of the lens). I have an old Canon FL mount 55mm 1.2 that I absolutely love for its great bokeh, even though it’s a stop-down metering only lens that’s not so easy to use on cameras like my A-1 and T90.
Shallow depth of field can be very effective in many types of photographs, and I agree that the posted shot is a good example.
The camra I use is a Canon PowerShot A540, I think it’s a great camra. It was settings for Indoor, flash on with red eye reduckion, or just flash, or no flash. It does take great up-close shots of models, so close in some cases you can tell from any mistakes made in painting or filling. Take this one shot,
Its still being painted, but you can tell the areas that need more color.
This one, the coal rail car with a person in front.
While we are starting to stray rather far afield of the original poster’s question, just let me point out something with regard to the idea of having mainly just the “subject” in sharp focus.
While I full appreciate and understand the usage of this technique in portraiture (the great photo of President Lincoln’s face, for instance) and advertising, where it has considerable value in focusing the viewer’s attention on a face or some feature in the image, it gives a surrealistic or ethereal aspect to the image…not one conveying reality. Portraying either ptrototype or modeled railroad scenes is generally done with a documentary or landscape approach. To me, at least, nothing looks worse than to see the smokebox of a loco in sharp focus, while only to find that by the time the eye reaches the cab that the image has gone very soft. Probably just as bad is to have a layout scene where the foreground AND background are very obviously out-of-focus with only the train in-focus. This absolutely screams “Model!”.
Considering that the camera-to-subject distance in most prototype photos is more than 50 feet (often 100’ or more), it would actually be difficult to get much in the way of softness into the background of such an image with any normal camera. And, contrary to what an earlier poster had to say, at such distances the human eye sees everything from that distance onward as universally in-focus. So, softness in such an image would be abnormal, artificial and contrary to what is actually encountered in the real world.
I’d have to say that down through the years 95% of the serious model photographers (guys who repeatedly get published in Tackside Photos, for instance) are making their best attempts at creating images that can pass for reality. That is the ultimate challenge to be met in the field model railroad photography.
