Which compact digital camera to photograph railway models?

[BritBloke]

Okay, so I know a digital camera doesn't take photographs, but, any suggestions about which compact digital camera is best for achieving a realistic point of view and depth of field?

 

Or does such a compact camera actually exist?

 

I have a DSLR. I'm just looking for something which doesn't require a lot of set up.

 

ty

[ColinK]

My compact camera broke some time ago and I didn't replace it. Much to my suprise, I've found that both my ipad and iphone (old 4s model) take acceptable photos of layouts, even in poor light.

[g0ibi]

A quick trip to Curry's should do the trick?

Plenty to choose from depending on what you want to spend?

 

Cheers

Ron

[ParkeNd]

The answer could be none. Even a starter level DSLR will easily outperform a compact camera. Unless buying a very expensive compact with a full frame or APS-C sensor the tiny sensor in a compact will let it down as will the temptation to use its inbuilt underpowered flash. Avoid bridge cameras for the same reason.

 

IMHO look at a starter level DSLR with its kit lens from Nikon or Canon.

[gordon s]

I would have always said the Canon G12 and you can see typical pics in Great Northern's Peterborough North.  That has now been replaced by the G16, so probably worth a look.

[Gwiwer]

Depth of field was mentioned specifically.

 

In that case avoid the Nikon Coolpix range which don't have manual over-ride and only allow automatic settings.  I have an L120 which is one of the better pocket cameras in its price range but cannot be set to an aperture or shutter priority and therefore no useful depth of field is available.

 

People take pictures but require a device to do so.  If the device isn't capable by reason of its specification then the greatest photographer in the world isn't going to be able to get an O Winston Link shot out of it.

[Culmhead]

Hi,

 

I use a Panasonic TMZ10, it is quite old now, but the new version has a greater zoom, more pixels and can also save in RAW (amongst other things).  I also have DX and FX DSLR Nikons, but because of the physical size of the sensors ( the smaller the sensor the greater the Depth of Field (DoF) - in general), I tend to use the Panasonic for model railway photography. 

 

When you compare the results (other than DoF), the DX and FX have a far greater tonal range and far less noise - but at the cost of DoF !

 

Cheers,

 

Aidan

[AnEntropyBubble]

Using a cell phone camera that has a movable focus area and focus stacking your pictures is an other option. Photoshop is the one I use to stack the pictures but there are other software packages out there.  Admittedly, it can be a tad tricky to pull off, but the small form factor of the phone allows you to get shots a bigger camera simply can't get because the lens is so small.

 

Here is a focus stacked HO model taken with a Blackberry:

 

 

Andrew

[ParkeNd]

That is very good for a phone pic and a good demonstration of stacking. But viewed at full size it is also very noisy and oversharpened.

 

Depth of field is dependent only on viewpoint and aperture. The illusion compacts give of greater depth of field is just because you are further away when you take the photo. Just to prove that bigger cameras can do it without the noisy images here is a photo taken a couple of days ago of N gauge trains - Nikon D700 full frame DSLR with an 18-35 Nikon zoom at 22mm and f22 on a tripod. The difference is light - a Nikon SB-910 flash bounced off the ceiling and walls.

 

[Culmhead]

Hi all,

 

Excellent photos, gents.

 

There is going to be more noise and a lower level on a physically smaller sensor as the pixels are smaller and more tightly packed for any given size of Megapixels.  However, the software that each manufacturer uses to process the data will also have some effect as will the quality of the lens.

 

As regards Depth of Field, for any given aperture the Depth of Field is inversely proportional to physical sensor size, that's why it is very difficult to blur the background with say camera phone. Another factor is the focal length used  - the wider the lens e.g. 35mm (focal length) on a full frame camera the greater the Depth of Field than using a 200mm (focal length) on the same camera.

 

If it helps - if you substitute physical sensor size for film format (e.g. 16mm, 35mm,120mm etc) the same is true.

 

The attached photo was taken on the TMZ10 at Pendon, it is very noisy due to the very high ISO used and the small sensor size, however, the Depth of Field is quite good, especially as it was taken at the camera's maximum aperture of f 3.8 and a shutter speed of 1/40th.  I only use it to highlight the apparent Depth of Field and not certainly not an example good photography!!

 

In the end we all use what we are comfortable with, to get the results we desire

 

Cheers,

 

Aidan

 

 

 

[Jeff Smith]

Lately I have been using my Windows Nokia Lumia phone - it seems better and far more convenient than my Canon compact camera.

 

[MikeOxon]

As has been pointed out above, all things being equal, a DSLR will out-perform a compact any day.  All things are not equal, however, and I often choose a compact (or phone camera) in preference to a DSLR, for layout photos.

 

1. a compact is 'compact' and will fit into spaces where a DSLR won't go - great for 'lineside' type pics.  You can even stand a compact on the track, sometimes, so that there is no need for additional support.

 

2. a compact provides much more depth of field, because of its small lens and sensor. This can be really useful when trying to take 'realistic' views of a layout, with both foreground and background in focus.

 

It is useful to have a camera that can mount an external flashgun. For this, I often use a 'bridge' camera (in my case, a Panasonic Lumix FZ200). I 'bounce' the flash off the (white) ceiling above my layout to get even lighting and take advantage of the small sensor for good overall sharpness.

 

Mike

[Neil]

I use a Canon power shot which cost all of fifty quid from Argos. I've sod all idea of the technical spec, but it takes decent enough photos, is simple to use and reproduces a truer colour than it's predecessor (an Olympus which I lost in Bruges).

 

 

 

[vitalspark]

Interesting post and the answers are not always obvious.

 

On our model of Alloa we have taken over the years loads of images some with top end dslrs usually Nikon DS3/D700/D90..alsona few with Sony compacts..and lately quite a few with the i phone 5s!

 

The phone images have been published alongside the top end stuff by publications like Hornby Mag and MRJ as they can capture areas of the layout that the bigger cameras can't look at..literally.

 

If some thought goes into it the phone images can be very rewarding..a few examples of each are attached.

 

 

Jumbo passing the shed taken with D3S f34 @2.5secs.

 

A2 at platform taken D90 f25 @ 2.5secs.

 

Great shot showing depth of field that a compact or phone could never match...the bus on the bridge in top left corner is 25 feet away the overall length over 30feet.

D700 f29@6secs.

 

Close up station shot D90 f25 @ 2.5secs

 

Now for some taken with the i phone 5s..

 

WD 2-8-0 basks in the sunshine in the yard..taken from below the canopy

 

The local garage

 

 

Hope this illustrates that while for its generally accepted that there is no substitute for a dslr and a decent lens there are specific areas that the humble phone can be the first choice.

I have loads of i phone images most seem to be taken at f2.2 @ 1/33 sec..camera decides!

 

All great fun and very rewarding..and with digital you can review and retake as often as you like.

 

Hope this all helps.

 

Davy. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[vitalspark]

Couple more..with phone inverted lens is low enough to be looking up at images..as it would beef standing next to the real thing.