Best Camera type for photographing layouts

[Rob.]

What do people feel is the best Camera model / type for photographing your layout, especially for longer / wider distance shots?

 

Close up shots work fine on the mobile phone (Samsung) but further distance shots are poor.

 

Any tips / views are welcomed!

 

Rob.

[NIK]

Hi,

 

A digital SLR with a selection of lenses (plus a tripod).

 

An SLR so you can get an optimum view of what is in focus, a selection of lenses to get optimal optical quality for the distance you want to shoot from and a tripod for maximum stability during long distance shots and or low shutter speeds. The SLR will also allow you smaller apertures which is key if you want 12ft to the inch style depth of field.

 

I don't think anybody does an SLR small enough to sit on a baseboard and photograph an N gauge train let alone a Z gauge one so no one camera type can do everything.

 

 

Take care.

 

Nick

 

 

[Ouroborus]

You'll get 100 different answers to this and even if a consensus was ever to be reached on the best camera, the variance between users is vast.

 

In short, it depends what you want to photograph.  Close ups benefit from a big aperture.  Full front to back photographs benefit from a small aperture, unless you want to focus stack.  

 

I find mobile phones work well - you can get them low on the layout.  SLRs, being somewhat bigger don't sit quite so low down, so the 'angle of view' can look a bit odd (I like my pictures to look as if they are taken trackside rather than 4m in the air).

 

It's all practice.  Have a go with your phone to see what works well and what doesn't and what you want to photograph

[Oldddudders]

Two opposing techniques, both of which work really, really well in the hands of their respective talented practitioners - Andy Y uses a small compact camera, with a smaller sensor offering good depth of field, while Tony Wright uses a full-frame DSLR and harnesses the depth-of-field offered by specialist - but not necessarily very expensive - lenses enabling very small apertures. If you can spot a disparity between their output I can't. I'm afraid technique is everything - no, I haven't acquired it either! 

[Guest Half-full]

6 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Two opposing techniques, both of which work really, really well in the hands of their respective talented practitioners - Andy Y uses a small compact camera, with a smaller sensor offering good depth of field, while Tony Wright uses a full-frame DSLR and harnesses the depth-of-field offered by specialist - but not necessarily very expensive - lenses enabling very small apertures. If you can spot a disparity between their output I can't. I'm afraid technique is everything - no, I haven't acquired it either! 

Never a truer word said.

 

You could have the best of equipment, or the most expensive, but that means nothing if you don't know how to use the camera.

 

I attended a photography course a few years ago, we were set various tasks in capturing images as part of our course.  At the end of the course, the person with the most consistent images had nothing more than a basic point and shot digital camera.

 

Knowing what you want to photograph, in what context, from what angle, in whichever lighting is more important than the actual equipment.

[Ouroborus]

1 hour ago, Half-full said:

 

Knowing what you want to photograph, in what context, from what angle, in whichever lighting is more important than the actual equipment.

 

Certainly true, but once you know your 'thing' having the best glass that you can afford makes a huge difference.

[TravisM]

This question reminds me of a forum I attended as a lad in the mid 70’s, interested in photography and just started working at a camera shop in Bristol.

 

As part of the forum/lecture the person giving it asked those with cameras to come and take a picture of a rose.  Several people took up the challenge and when they were finished, the lecturer returned with a old shoe box with his finger over a pinprick hole at one end.

 

He put the box on the table, timed the length of the exposure, covered the hole and in a black bag to retrieve the film (those who used to do their own developing and printing in the past will know what I mean).  Everyone’s exposed film was developed at the same time as his and all printed at the same time.

 

We were asked to pick the best picture and unbelievably, I would say 3/4 picked his.   The lesson I learned was even with a inexpensive camera, you can get results, it’s experience you need.  In this digital age, take as many as possible, in different locations and don’t be afraid to show them to friends or post them on here to get both criticism (positive hopefully) and encouragement 

Edited April 14, 2020 by jools1959
Typo

[The Great Bear]

For something that combines the flexibility of a DSLR with size toward that of a compact camera, there are mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. Originally these were a system called micro 4/3 (m4/3) developed by Olympus and Panasonic but the other big camera manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Sony) are introducing their own version of this - this is the future and DSLRs are likely to slowly fade away to a residual base. (The cameras have less parts, no complex things like the flip up mirror,  so more profitable for the manufacturers so they are pushing them.)

 

I use an Olympus OM-D E-M10 (Mk 2 in my case) which handles like an SLR and can change lens but with the kit "pancake" lens it really is pretty small and I can perch in most places on/around the layout and can remote control via using wifi through an app on my phone. Nikon last year introduced the Z50 which is pretty small sized I believe, I don't know if it can do things like remote control.

 

Mind you, I agree with Olddudders - the gear is only part of it, getting the best out of it is the trick and I for one are still learning.

[DCB]

It is very difficult to get a convincing photo of a model if you want it to appear to be of the real thing.  I believe in the old days the magazine publishers would create photographic sets to show off the models they wished to feature,.  That way they could get a large professional camera up close and get a great shot purporting to be a train on a layout.   Printed in greyscale it looked pretty much like a black and white pic of a real train.  Now things have moved on  but its still a battle to get a camera in low enough to get a realistic angle. You may well get a better angle with a small mobile phone than with a large expensive camera.  As a general ball park pics used to be taken by a person standing down around rail level so maybe 5ft 6" above rail level or 22mm in OO.  My little Nikon L33 has its lens centre line about 25mm above the base so its a bit too large for the job,   Ideally something very small which can be operated remotely would be ideal, I normally ise the timer on my camera to avoid camera shake.  Often I can't actually see what I'm photographing and some of the best shots of models are from angles you can't actually see without a mirror!    If you are prepared to put up with helicopter shots or faking by just assembling part of the layout and then cropping out the foreground then a big expensive multi lens pro set up is the way to go, but otherwise your mobile phone may well be the optimum, especially if you can operate it remotely by wifi from a tablet or laptop.

[ColinK]

Just have a look at Waverley West on RMweb - he has some stunning photos of his layout.

[Quarryscapes]

If you're going to be working without flash and indoors you want something with a small sensor but massive aperture to maximise the light, something like a Panasonic LX9. Small sensor = masses of depth of field, which you just cannot get with a DSLR when photographing models unless you use tilt/shift lenses or focus stacking, which requires time and effort. 

 

Basically you want the in between zone - enthusiast compacts. The ones that are still small and portable without interchangeable lenses, but are of high quality and full of control. 

 

If you simply must have interchangeable lenses, then something like the Nikon J series of compact system camera or Micro 4/3rds kit would be best as they have the smallest sensors, though they are still considerably larger than compact camera sensors with the reciprocal drop in depth of field available. 

 

Of course you might want to go for paper thin DOF, in which case the opposite of everything I just said applies....

 

[JeffP]

Quite a few modern cameras do 4k video. Mine, a Lumix TZ90 will, when prompted, shoot a short burst of the 4k, then use it to produce a focus stacked shot...apparently. This alleviates the depth of field problems inherent with larger apertures.

Being as I have no layout, no completed models and now being a full-time carer, no time to produce either, I have nothing to try it out on, but Panasonic swaer it works...

[gordon s]

19 hours ago, Quarryscapes said:

If you're going to be working without flash and indoors you want something with a small sensor but massive aperture to maximise the light, something like a Panasonic LX9. Small sensor = masses of depth of field, which you just cannot get with a DSLR when photographing models unless you use tilt/shift lenses or focus stacking, which requires time and effort. 

 

Surprised to read that as I'd always thought to go for the biggest sensor you can get within the confines of the camera. Surely a larger sensor gives you more detail and depth of field comes from the smallest aperture?

 

I'm not disputing what you are saying as my knowledge is limited, it's just it goes against what I'd thought previously.

 

Off to read more about it....

[AY Mod]

26 minutes ago, JeffP said:

a Lumix TZ90 will, when prompted, shoot a short burst of the 4k, then use it to produce a focus stacked shot...apparently.

 

The handicap with that approach (found after testing it out) is that the max exposure length is 1/25th sec (due to it compiling it as a video file) which compromises the ISO aspect of the exposure/aperture/ISO golden triangle leading to noisy files.

 

Getting back to Rob's question the problem with mobiles is that there is little in the way of manual control. To get the best out of the subject you need to be able to get a respectable aperture, lowest ISO setting possible and to mount the camera so the exposure length is irrelevant. beyond that it's a case of getting into additional software and tools for focus bracketing and stacking to get to the ultimate end goal of a good shot with a controllable amount of depth of field.

 

Forget anyone telling you need all the gear; the most important thing is to be able to control a camera completely manually - most of the work I do is on a 10-year old high-end compact which can be bought for around £120, the Canon G12. None of its successors will do exactly what it can do. I've got through 5 of them now and if one breaks today I'd immediately replace it with another. It's like my right hand.

 

[spamcan61]

Personally I use my mobile (Samsung S5)  90% of the time, I can control  shutter speed, ISO, white balance etc. but not aperture; so for ultimate control I'd echo the Canon G12 suggestion, particularly as it has a 'tilts all ways' display, which would be very handy for layout photography.

[AY Mod]

23 minutes ago, gordon s said:

Surprised to read that as I'd always thought to go for the biggest sensor you can get within the confines of the camera. Surely a larger sensor gives you more detail and depth of field comes from the smallest aperture?

 

I'm not disputing what you are saying as my knowledge is limited, it's just it goes against what I'd thought previously.

 

Simplistically a compact camera has a much wider field of view which can be focussed on a smaller surface-area sensor* due to lens physics, F8 on a compact can often equal F64 on a physically larger DSLR and lens in terms of depth-of-field. Amateur photographers seeking the narrowest depth of field for portrait work for example are guided away from compacts and towards SLRs - the opposite of what we would like to achieve.

 

*As long as it's not so small that pixellation is evident on enlargements to whatever size required.

 

My requirements are a bit more niche than most people but I'm happy when people are satisfied when they've got to a result they can be critically content with.

[AY Mod]

1 minute ago, spamcan61 said:

has a 'tilts all ways' display, which would be very handy for layout photography.

 

A most useful feature that got chucked out with the bathwater on subsequent models.

[Quarryscapes]

14 minutes ago, gordon s said:

 

Surprised to read that as I'd always thought to go for the biggest sensor you can get within the confines of the camera. Surely a larger sensor gives you more detail and depth of field comes from the smallest aperture?

 

I'm not disputing what you are saying as my knowledge is limited, it's just it goes against what I'd thought previously.

 

Off to read more about it....

 

Put simply A larger sensor gives shallower depth of field for the same composition/angle of view. I'm putting that in bold because strictly speaking, an aperture value gives the same depth of field no matter what the sensor size, but because you need to change the distance to the subject to keep the image framing/composition the same, the depth of field in practical terms is different. If you  I hope that makes sense. Everything in photography is trading one variable off against another and finding a balance. 

[Quarryscapes]

Andy beat me to it! There are other benefits not just depth of field - such a small lens as in compact cameras can be used at much slower shutter speeds before getting camera shake, so you can keep the ISO level down. 

 

As an example I just shot a ruler with my Panasonic LX5 and with my Fuji X-T2. The panasonic was at ISO800 and f2 and a shutter speed of 1/30. Perfectly hand-holdable and decent enough image quality, DOF was about 6cm. On my X-T2 with Zeiss macro lens with it's max aperture of 2.8 that translates into 1/15 exposure, which means a tripod is necessary, and at f2.8 depth of field dropped to less than 2cm. 

Edited April 16, 2020 by Quarryscapes

[Quarryscapes]

Might be easier to show with photos.... One Dapol O gauge 7 plank open, 106.3mm long over headstocks...

 

First up ... Panasonic LX5 f2.7, ISO 400 1/80. @10.7mm Focal Length

 

 

Second up.... Fujifilm X-T2 with Zeiss 50mm Macro lens f2.8 ISO 400 1/100. This is my work camera, an APS-C format (half full frame) Mirrorless system. 

 

 

There is a slight difference in focal lengths, the Panasonic doesn't give you numbers as you zoom just an unmarked slider bar between wide and tele, I had to guesstimate where 50mm equivalent was... but the obvious difference is the depth of field. 

[JeffP]

Andy, what does the G12 do that the others can't?

[AY Mod]

17 minutes ago, JeffP said:

Andy, what does the G12 do that the others can't?

 

Others may be able to do some of the following (which are relevant to my usage) but not found one other that does all of it.

• Full manual control of all functions.
• Full adjustment of white balance.
• Hinged and rotating viewing screen.
• Focus down to 1cm at widest angle.
• Small form with centre of lens 26mm above base
• Capacity to handle additional scripts* on memory cards (in this case CHDK) to expand functionality and settings.

It's rubbish for video and manual focusing without disturbing camera position hence the relevance of *.

 

[Phil Parker]

Can I just say that the G12 is a complete load of rubbish. Don't waste your money bidding for good examples on eBay please... ;-)

[AY Mod]

1 minute ago, Phil Parker said:

Don't waste your money bidding for good examples on eBay please... ;-)

 

How's the broken G12 mountain going then?