Hi all,
After noticing how many people had digital cameras at GZG-ECC 4, I have
a question: what do you look for in a digital camera, and how do you choose
between them? Specifically, I'm looking for one that I can use to take really
nice pictures of miniatures (of course!).
Because this is completely off-topic, please just respond to me and not
the entire list. If anyone else is interested, I will summarize the responses
I get and send it to you. Thanks!
> Because this is completely off-topic, please just respond to me and not
Hi Rick,
As MANY on the list are probably interested in taking pictures of their ships
(or at Cons, etc.), I don't think that it's OT at all.
And as I've just done some research and purchased a digital camera
myself (it should arrive tomorrow or Friday :-))
Things that I looked at:
1) Cost - how much are you willing to spend compared to how much
non-hobby use it'll get.
http://shopper.cnet.com/ is a good source of comparison pricing once
you've got a general idea what you want.
2) Minimum focal length / Macro mode. This is really important if
you're planning to take close up pics of minis. The closer you can get
(generally) the better.
3) Optical / Digital Zoom. Optical is better than Digital for
clarity, but most cameras these days have a combination of both,
either 2X/3X or vice versa.
4) Size. If it's a pain in the <you know> to carry the thing around
at a Con, you won't. You'll leave it in the room/car, and no pictures
will get taken.
5) Pixels. Anywhere from 1 to 3+ MP these days. What you need is
dependent on what you're going to use it for. For web-based stuff 1
MP will suffice, but for printing them out as pictures, you'll want at least 2
MP.
> Schoon wrote:
> ships (or at Cons, etc.), I don't think that it's OT at all.
Cost of these things is always dropping the digital camera I had access to
cost the owner Aust$1000 approximately, I've looked at cameras of
equivalent quality which now cost Aust$500 - 600. Don't let the money
burn a hole in your pocket, be a careful shopper.
> 2) Minimum focal length / Macro mode. This is really important if
Marco is a must.
> 3) Optical / Digital Zoom. Optical is better than Digital for clarity,
Always go for a camera Optical Zoom over digital, digital zoom does the same
thing that your paint program does when enlarging a image and you end up with
a pixelated image. Also make sure the lens is glass not plastic.
> 4) Size. If it's a pain in the <you know> to carry the thing around at
?????? :)
> 5) Pixels. Anywhere from 1 to 3+ MP these days. What you need is
I read that 1 megapixels is equivalent to 100 speed ISO film, the more pixels
the better resolution.
> On 4-Apr-01 at 20:24, Derek Fulton (derekfulton@bigpond.com) wrote:
> >5) Pixels. Anywhere from 1 to 3+ MP these days. What you need is
> pixels the better resolution.
Maybe taken with a disk camera. megapixels are a lie:). First you divide by 3
because it takes three pixels too make a color. If it were a square image that
would give you 580x580 resolution, not too hot.
The pro I know who really needed a digital camera bought a nice APS camera and
doesn't have any prints made, he just has the negatives scaned.
On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 10:19:25 +1000, Derek Fulton
<derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote:
> I read that 1 megapixels is equivalent to 100 speed ISO film, the more
I'm not sure where you got that idea from but it's not even CLOSE to accurate.
Sorry, Derek.
Photographic film is usually given in lines per inch or lines per millimetre
resolution. Good quality ISO 100 film is around 4000 to 5000 lines per inch. A
1 megapixel display can handle 1200 by 900 pixels. In the same aspect ratio,
ISO 100 film is closer to 4000 by 3000, or 12 megapixels. (This is just a
rough calculation. A 35mm negative is wider than an inch, so there are
actually 5500 to 6900 lines across on a negative, but I'm not sure how many
lines down. I'm not sure of a 35mm negative's aspect ratio.)
So, digital cameras are still a ways off to compare with 35mm SLRs. The
problem I found with digitals in the sub $1000 range is that they are too
slow. Even if the resolution is high, the speed is slow. My brother, a
professional photographer, is looking at a digital that can handle
1/1000 of a
second exposures, but it's over $5000. Which is awesome, considering anything
remotely close to this was over $10,000 a couple years ago.
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:34:46 -0400 (EDT), Roger Books
<books@jumpspace.net> wrote:
> Maybe taken with a disk camera. megapixels are a lie :). First you
Oops! Forgot that! So, think 36 megapixels to compare to 100 ISO film (see my
previous post).
> The pro I know who really needed a digital camera bought a nice
There's such a thing as a "nice APS camera"? *L* Sorry. I used to work for
Kodak. I wasn't impressed with APS film. Nice grain structure, but it's still
a little more than half the size of a 35mm negative. I still much prefer 35mm,
particularly since they are cheaper than APS cameras. APS is good in the sense
that it's smaller and easier to carry.
> On 4-Apr-01 at 22:46, Allan Goodall (awg@sympatico.ca) wrote:
> >The pro I know who really needed a digital camera bought a nice
Definately not as nice as 4"x5" (I don't own a 35mm) but using your figures an
APS camera is still about equivalent to a 6MPixel digital.
> At 10:39 4/04/01 -0400, you wrote:
<all that good stuff about film snipped >
The source had was a book from the local library, one of those how to
....
books. Unfortunately it's not on the shelf at the local library (at the
moment) and working from memory is always a dangerous thing. But the important
point is, the more pixels the better the resolution and currently in the shops
here, 2 to 3 megapixel cameras are comparable in price to what
I paid for my 35mm SLR (Aust$800 -900). Based on the price drops I seen
in the last 6 months the price will continue to drop, by the end of the year a
good digitial camera will be affordable even to me:)
Hi Rick,
I bought a digital camera last year after finding one that fits my needs. I
use it for shooting miniatures (obviously ;-) ), autocross events (yes,
with
cars in motion), and general purpose stuff. I bought the Sony F-505V
which is a 3.3 megapixel camera. It can take pictures in several modes from
640x480 to 2240x1680 with JPEG and TIFF file options and has tons of options.
- Lens
If you're concerned with image quality make sure your camera has a good lens
system. This one uses a Carl Zeiss lens that takes beautiful images and more
than makes up for the difference in megapixels from other competing cameras.
It has a 52mm accessory thread so you use can standard filters and lens
accessories like those on camcorders and SLRs.
- Macro Zoom
When shooting miniatures make sure that your camera can handle macro zooms.
The 505V can be held almost right on the miniature for the maximum closeup
shot possible. Many cameras require more distance to focus and do not provide
as close a shot.
- Image Format
Another thing to watch for is the file format. Most cameras have compressed
formats such as JPEG while some like the 505V offer uncompressed formats as
well. This will allow quality "raw" images that can be printed at 8" x 10"
that look as good as 35mm shots.
- Memory Storage
The only downside I've found with the 505V is the small memory stick they
provide with the unit. It's only 8mb and can be filled with one
high-res
uncompressed TIFF image. I purchased a 64mb stick that I use most of the time.
Now they sell larger ones and there's also portable memory devices like the
Memory Wallet that you can use to download images off the camera to a micro
gigabyte hard drive.
- Speed
As Allan mentioned earlier, digital cameras are not as fast as SLRs yet, but
they are getting closer at least in picture quality. I use it at some of my
racing events (when I'm not in the car! ;-) ) to take shots of both
stills and cars in motion. Some have been blurs, but after some adjustment
I've learned to use certain settings and techniques for stuff in motion with
good results.
- Savings
One of the biggest savings I have had is no film processing. Before, I had to
buy film, get it developed, scan it in, and then finally retouch it for my
work. This cost time and money. The camera has already paid for itself in this
alone.
Check out this site for more help and reviews: http://www.dpreview.com/
If you like, I can send you samples from my camera of a variety of shoots.
Mike
Now to catch up on the tons of email from the list that have been pouring
in...don't you guys ever take a break! ;-)
[quoted original message omitted]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Derek Fulton wrote:
> pixels the better resolution.
Errr? ISO is NOT resolution?? In fact, 100 ISO film has a MUCH higher
resolution than you're ever going to get with a digicam, anywhere in the near
future. So could you explain what link you are trying to suggest between
resolution and ISO here? Or am I misreading it?
Oh, one more thing... When comparing digital camera's to SLR's, be aware that
digital camera's use only approx. half of the field of view for a given optic.
So for wide angle shots, you need twice as 'wide' a lense for digital camera's
(14mm digital camera gets the same result as a 28mm focal length SLR)
As for the speed of the camera, I understand most digital camera's are
indeed in the 100 ISO range, which _may_ be a problem if you want to go
for high depth-of-field (to get nice battlefield pictures), without
ridiculous amounts of light.
Are there any digital camera's in the 400 ASA range yet?
Cheers,
> Absender: derk@cistron.nl
trying to suggest between resolution and ISO here? Or am I > misreading it?
Trying to clear up this confusion a bit (as far as I, not really an expert,
understand it)
The ISO number refers to a film's speed. That is, how much light you need to
get a decent image on the film.
As per specification, speed is not related to resolution. However, the
bigger the light-gathering particles in the film, the faster a film is.
Thus, a 400 ISO film has a worse resolution than a 100 ISO one. In practice,
unless you want to blow the picture up really big, it doesn't make much of a
difference. Also, there has been a steady progress in film technology and
photochemistry, so today's 400 film might well have a resolution comparable to
an ISO 100 20 years ago (just as an example, don't quote me on the numbers).
I think what Derek read referred to comparing the film's/Digicam's
speed, not to the resolution. Does anyone know how digicam resolutions and
speed are related - if at all ?
Greetings
Re: What would I look for in a digital Camera.
For Taking photos of Miniatures/Internet:
a) Ability to take REAL close-ups, down to 1cm
b) At least 640x480 resolution with 24 bit colour. c) Price d) Good lens: so
get one from a camera maker rather than an electronics maker.
For general use: e) Zoom feature. f) Expandable memory g) TWAIN compliance
The Ricoh RDC-300Z is a good buy, at $300 US for
all but g).
I got an RDC-300 (no e) a few years ago, and it's really
good for taking pics of miniatures. For example,
http://www2.dynamite.com.au/aebrain/IRR_ROME.JPG
shows a 15mm Irregular figure, with the mirror behind it showing a picture of
the camera.
http://www2.dynamite.com.au/aebrain/EPIC/ORKRHIN.JPG
shows some 6mm figs "up close and personal". The figs are
Evil Empire Orks and a Rhino, with early-model H&R Nato
infantry and a GHQ M-113A1 in the background.
http://www2.dynamite.com.au/aebrain/EPIC/CAPIMP.JPG
is also a goody.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/epic/files/Images/GOFFIK2.JPG
shows how close you can get. This is a 6mm group, remember, taken from a
distance of about 1cm away.
> At 08:41 5/04/01 +0200, you wrote:
(Derek hangs head in shame) As I mentioned before I read it in a 'how to'
book, couldn't find it on the shelves at the library (damn those other
lenders!!!!) but I'm fairly certain that's what the author was saying, but?
<shrug>
Also Beth came home and told me that mentioning digital cameras on a internet
mailing list doesn't rate as subtle way to 'ask for a christmas
present':)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Derek Fulton wrote:
> Also Beth came home and told me that mentioning digital cameras on a
LOL! Damn you're early, it's only _april_! Or do you Ozzies have
Christmas in June?;)
Cheers,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Derek Fulton wrote:
> The source had was a book from the local library, one of those how to
Then again, there's a HUGE market of 2nd hand SLR's. I bought mine, a
nice, ancient, manual-everything (well, almost) minolta for approx. 300
guilders. 250A$ or so, I guess. (Of course, then comes tele-lenses, wide
angle lenses, filters, etc etc... But that's the same 'problem' with any
camera)
So as long as you don't mind not having an in-built CRAY-II to decide
for you how your pictures should look, you can get both manual and automatic
SLR's, of good quality, FAR cheaper than any digital camera:)
I contemplated a digital camera last summer, but decided to get a 2nd hand SLR
(my first), instead. Simply can't get the same quality for anywhere near the
price. That was back then, and a few years in the future the balance may well
be different.
Hmmm. If you just want pictures to put on the web, a digicam will do you fine,
though:)
Cheers,
> Derk wrote:
Three years ago while I was purchasing my 35mm SLR camera I enquired about
digital cameras, the retailer at that stage didn't even keep any in stock,
they were simply a too expensive, slow moving item and at that stage he
recommended developing my film as slides and scanning them in if I was that
keen. Today digital cameras are all through the camera shops and the 3
megapixel camera are not too expensive, the speed at which these things have
developed is really impressive.
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
Just out of interest, which one did you go for? I might be looking for
one soon thanks to my employer's newly instituted 'long-service award'
policy (they've decided that five years' constitutes long service in tha games
industry).
> Things that I looked at:
<snip Schoon's list>
I'll add another point to Schoon's
INTERFACE : if your PC has USB ports (anything less than 2-3 years old
should have) and Win98, go for a USB connection over parallel / serial.
If it doesn't have onboard USB ports, go out and buy a USB interface card.
It's soooo much faster, as we continuously point out to the bozo
who decided we should buy a serial-only camera :-(
On the point of resolutions, anything more than 640x480 (maybe 800x600) is
overkill for web images. Even if you want to use the camera for
taking holidays snaps etc (which I intend to - it's how I'll get it past
the 'Purchasing Approval Authority' - ie my wife) then 1800x1200 is
still enough resolution for 6"x4" prints on a 300dpi printer.
On the point of cheap second-hand SLRs vs digital cameras - don't forget
to add the cost of developing and a flatbed scanner to the cost of the
SLR when figuring the difference. And there's convenience as well - a
picture taken with a digital camera can be up on the web within a few minutes
of it being taken. Alternatively, you can see immediately if
it's out of focus / too dark / smudge on the lens / camera strap across
the picture etc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Derek Fulton wrote:
> Derk wrote:
> megapixel camera are not too expensive, the speed at which these
Yup. I'm still giving it a year or two, though:)
Cheers,
> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:11:15 -0400
the best resource I've found is:
www.imaging-resource.com
it explains terminology, compares products, etc. very helpful site.
I do not own a good one, but was looking at them last year.
OPTICAL Zoom. One of the important things is OPTICAL zoom. Many of the budget
cameras bost 2x, 3x, 5x, etc. but really mean DIGITAL zoom. Digital Zoom takes
a portion of the camera's resolution and doubles (or more) the pixles. It is
the same effect as taking a.gif image in Photoshop (or any
other graphics program), croping the image to 1/4 the image, then
resizing
the 1/4 picture to the original dimentions of the picture. Which is a
long way of saying it is a MUCH more grainy picture. Optical Zoom changes the
image that hits the cameria's receptors (the part that converts light to
digital information). If you are going to take pictures of miniatures, an
OPITICAL Zoom is critical.
Minimum Focal Distance. Related, is the minimum focal distance of the camera.
If the camera can only focus a meter or more away, it is probably not suited
for taking pictures of miniatures (pictures will be too small or too blurry).
Do not take the advertisements word for how close it can focus. TEST IT
YOURSELF. If it has an LCD viewer (see below), you can tell pretty quickly how
close you can focus on an object.
LCD Viewer. An LCD viewer is a big help for situations like taking pictures at
a con. Because you do not have to bend over to see if something is is focus or
not, if you have the image you want, etc. it speeds up how fast you can take
the picture (and minimizes the interruption to the game). An LCD viewer also,
as stated above, is a nice benifit when shopping for it, because you can test
the minimum focal distance.
Pixels: It depends on what you want to do with the camera, and what your
budget is. If you just want to post.gif or.jpeg to the web, 640x800 is good
enough. I think that once you have a digital camera, you will want to be able
to take some better quality pictures (wife, kids, pet, girlfriend, vacation,
etc.) and be able to print a half decient copy. To do this you will want at
least 1 megapixel resolution.
Flash. My wife was trying to be good to me and bought me a bottom line digital
camera without a flash. It is impossible to use any time except in bright
sunlight outdoors.
Cost. What will fit in your budget. Of the top 5 that I list, this is the
LEAST important. I have already gone the route of buying a cheap camera (with
horrible results). If you can't get what you want in the price range you want,
it may be better to wait. The quality of cameras is going up in the same price
range. I also expect the price of middle end cameras (1 megapixel) to come
down. Your budget is your concern.
Other considerations:
Memory: How many pictures can you take (at best resolution). If it is too few,
you will be frustrated at some point. Is the memory
expandable/replaceable?
Connections: How to get the pictures into your computer. USB, and
FlashCard/Smart Media Cards are good as they are quick (you may need to
buy a card adaptor for your computer to read them, but I have seen some of
these
at $20-40). Serial or Parellel are bad. These are SLOW.
Tripod mount. Unessential, but nice feature. Allows you to take sharper
pictures from a tripod than taking them by holding them. You can also purchase
a 6" tripod for taking table top pictures.
Shutter cable release. I have not looked to see if any digital camera has
this, but combined with a tripod, would improve those shots that you want to
be crisp.
Batteries. What type of batteries does it use? Can you get them? How expensive
are they? Can they be recharged? If they can be recharged, is a recharger
included?
Bulk/Mass of camera. How heavy/bulky is it? Would it be hard to
transport (or be subject to damage easily from doing so)?
Lense size. (Higher End Models only) Is the lens in a standard size that you
can add standard filters to? A UV filter can protect an expensive (or
irreplacable) lense for minimal cost without loss of picture quality.
Now I will tell you what I am looking for as an example. Minimum of 1
megapixel 5x (or better) OPTICAL zoom Color LCD viewer on back. Macro lens
ability or minimum focal distance 2' or less. USB or Card interface.
However, a camera purchase is a very personal thing (much like a computer
purchase). If you settle for less than you want, you may regret it every time
you use it.
> On Wed, 04 April 2001, Derk Groeneveld wrote:
> So could you explain what link you are trying to suggest
Technically, you are very correct. But there is a connection between ISO and
grain size, which translates to resolution. But, yes, a good quality ISO 400
professional film can have a similar grain size (and, thus, resolution) to ISO
100 consumer film.
We won't even GO into colour saturation...
> Oh, one more thing... When comparing digital camera's to SLR's, be
THANK YOU!!! That was the missing piece of the puzzle. I was reading up on
digital cameras and seeing "equivlanet to 37mm SLR lens" stats, and wondered
why it was only "equivalent" to an SLR lens. I was wondering why it wasn't
using the same focal length. Now you've answered my question!
> Are there any digital camera's in the 400 ASA range yet?
I think so. There's a new Nikon/Kodak hybrid out right now that my
brother says is very fast (for a digital). He's a professional photographer,
specializing in hockey. Hockey arenas are dark (believe it or not, even with
TV lights) and the action is fast. He seems to think he could use this digital
under those circumstances. I believe he usually uses 400 or 800 speed film,
pushed to between 800 and 1600 ISO.
> Brian Bell wrote:
Also important to remember that LCD eat through your batteries faster than you
can blink, but LCD screens are VERY HANDY for reviewing and discarding
pictures you have taken, freeing up storage for more photos.
Get one of those little black transformers (is that the right name) you can
have the camera plugged into a outlet, have the LCD screen on and not run does
the batteries, my friend only had set of batteries, so I was constantly
stopping to recharge them when taking photos of our miniatures.
Another thing you can do with most digital cameras is the plug them into
TVs and view your pictures that way, instant slide show and handy at the end
of the day back at the hotel room while on holiday.
> Flash. My wife was trying to be good to me and bought me a bottom line
Important point. even some of those disposable film cameras have flashes.
Some very good points...here's another: Make sure when you look through the
sight, you see what your camera sees. (I forget the fancy term for this...)
Bought a D-Link DSC 350....No removable memory media...Your sight is
seperate from the camera lens (like in the old/cheap film
cameras.)...Slow
-- but fast enough for those single shots...It does have a video mode
that is so bad you might as well say it doesn't...On the positive side...It
uses a USB hookup to my computer. The provided software has a "snapshot" mode.
This lets me setup my Lego bots'n'stuff near the computer and I can snap away.
I can then instantly dispose of unwanted shots ect. (This does
compensate a little for the non-lens sight. Move the model, shoot,
focus the camera, shoot some more, ect. Until I get the shot right.)
Donald Hosford
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> >Because this is completely off-topic, please just respond to me and
Just to throw in another angle on digital cameras... I reciently found a cheap
alternative by using the Intel web camera that I have at work (cost approx.
US$80).
While it is _not_ portable and doesn't take good
distant pictures at all, it can take great photos of miniatures for posting on
a web site. I can take my camera and slide the miniature to almost 1 inch away
from the lense and then take a picture that has crisp focus and is saved as a
~35K JPG. Then I can upload the picture without really needing to do any
editing.
You the results on my site at
<http://www.angelfire.com/nc/wconvention/wc_miniatures_1.html>
Try to ignore the poor lighting.:( I did most of the pictures in an hour one
evening after work.