<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gats: Better give you the URL, eh? http://www.pnc.com.au/~audiosat/models/digital/digital.htm Gary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for sharing the grand photos. Nice work on your engines. Picking a digital camera is becoming more difficult every time I see the shots and which machine you are using. Just about the time I think I have a selection I stop and decide to think it over some more. Great work guys. These digitals sure make it easy for communicating ideas. ------------------ Residing in BNSF's St. Croix Subdivision near Trempealeau, WI
Excellent work, Gary. Both the painting of the WP locomotives, and the photography. The photos sure show the advantage of being able to take them outside in natural light. I have been meaning to make a diorama for this purpose, but have not got round to it yet. Just bought a new 35mm SLR, ready for my next trip over the pond to shoot more southern California trains. I used it to take some macro shots of N scale models for my web site, and am very pleased with the results. Some were taken on the layout, but I need some proper lighting for this, but outside, I use a tripod and set the aperture to f32 so get great depth of field. Will post a pic or two when I get time to take some more. Shouldn't really be talking about 35mm in this topic ------------------ Alan The perfect combination - BNSF and N Scale! www.ac-models.com http://Andersley.homestead.com http://galleryusarail_tehcaj.homestead.com
Hey guys. The FD-91 sony mavica has a 14x optical zoom (stay away from digital zoom) equivalent to a 35mm to 535mm regular camera lens. It will autofocus down to 1/2" (but can not get enough light that close) and even has auto stablization for those zoomed in shots. The highest resolution is 1064 by 768 with about 8 to 10 pictures fitting on a disk. Standard 1.44 meg floppy disk. It will also do short movies! To see some of my movies, check out my tribute to the San Diego Model Railroad Museum at: www.geocities.com/sdmrm Nice pictures gats! ------------------ David http://www.geocities.com/nscaler_55
Thanks for the comments, nice to see another UP lover in trainboard ------------------ http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pcassar/index
Thanks, all. Patrick - it's a battle to make the decision. I chose the Nikon as I had used it before (I had picked up one in HK previously) and saw the advantage of the twisting body - it helps get a low shot. I also have a Pentax MZ-10 35mm running a 28-70 aspherical and 70-300 macro zoom and it is great for those greater depth of field shots that Alan alludes to. Both have their pros and cons. With the digital, I can take the shot and have it on a page and uploaded in 10 mins. The Pentax takes a bit longer, but I have far more control over the photos composition. Gary. ------------------ Gary A. Rose http://www.pnc.com.au/~audiosat/ - The Unofficial TC&W page N to the Nth degree!
I too have recently ventured into the digital photography arena. I bought a Kodak DC290. I am well pleased with the initial results. I also bought a 64mb flash card, so I can take ~130 high res. pics before filling up the card. The pics are great, and when printed on photo paper with my HP printer, people can't tell the difference from "film" pictures. One of the best features is the ability to dispose of a pic before printing it... there is a lot to be said for the instant gratification you recieve from seeing your pics immediately, then being able to print, e-mail, post, etc. I have owned many 35mm cameras over the years and currently have several thousand color prints... I wish the reasonably priced digital camera had come along about 15 years sooner! Chessie
Hi Chessie, what do you call a 'reasonably priced' digital camera? Do you have to pay a fairly high price to get good results? I know they are getting better all the time, and the prices are coming down. My son is in graphic design/publishing, and he says they get lots of unuseable digital photos submitted, the quality is appalling. Some of the pics seen on this thread are excellent, so modern cameras CAN take good photos. Prompted by this thread, I bought a digital camera magazine to find out a bit about them, and it seems I would need to spend about a thousand pounds to get a good one (about $1600). Think I will use my 35mm for the time being, and let prices fall some more, as digital is obviously the future, but has still not the versatility of film. It seems that if I came over to the states for a couple of weeks to photograph trains, I would need a van load of batteries!! ------------------ Alan The perfect combination - BNSF and N Scale! www.ac-models.com http://Andersley.homestead.com http://galleryusarail_tehcaj.homestead.com
Alan, A quick search using Dogpile, inputting Nikon Coolpix 950 or camera of interest, will yield primarily commercial sites selling digital cameras. The cheapest I have seen the 950 was sub-US$700. Most were around the $800 mark. And being a superceded model (by the 990) it could be cheaper again. Have a quick look. Gary.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alan: Hi Chessie, what do you call a 'reasonably priced' digital camera? Do you have to pay a fairly high price to get good results? I know they are getting better all the time, and the prices are coming down. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Alan, My camera was about $800 US dollars.. in terms of "reasonably priced", I set the benchmark at under $1000 US dollars. You can spend a lot more or a lot less, and yes, the prices are dropping all the time (as are most computer related items). It all depends on your intended uses and personal preferences. The one I selected has a high degree of flexibilty (features, available lenses, etc.) plus is easy to use. I think you have the right idea by "researching" them first; that is what I did before I bought. It also helps if you know some folks with real world experiences that can give good advice. As far as batteries, my camera came with a set of Ni-MH rechargeable AA batteries; they last thru many shots, plus you can substitute Alkaline AA's when you need too. Good luck on whatever you decide to do! Chessie
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nscaler: Here are some pictures taken with a Mavica fd-91. The engine was about 1" from the camera and was taken outside in indirect light. In the second shot, the background was deleted (paintshop pro) and the sky picture added in the third. In the final picture (not here), I extended the ballast down. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> NScaler Nice pics. The natural lighting adds alot to the realism of the equipment. Too bad we couldn't reproduce that lighting in the railroad room. Room lighting always seems to harsh. Isn't photo retouching fun! My brother does this for a living. I have a Polaroid DCS-640 (640x480) Camera with a serial cable and twain drivers. It was only $120 at the company store. I haven't had the time to use it yet. John
John, You can do indirect lighting indoors. Use several very bright lights aimed at the ceiling (do not let any light show down). If possible use relectors to aim as much light up. The ceiling will act like a large reflector and diffuse the light. And one of the few advantages of 35mm is long exposures and bracketing (but still waiting for film processing and "wasting" film) to get more light. Hope this helps. Go BNSF and SF (and UP some). ------------------ David http://www.geocities.com/nscaler_55
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nscaler: John, You can do indirect lighting indoors. Use several very bright lights aimed at the ceiling (do not let any light show down). If possible use relectors to aim as much light up. The ceiling will act like a large reflector and diffuse the light. And one of the few advantages of 35mm is long exposures and bracketing (but still waiting for film processing and "wasting" film) to get more light. Hope this helps. Go BNSF and SF (and UP some). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks NScaler... I'll give it a try. At least I won't have to worry about waisting film. John
