Just curious, what camera are you using

[Lightbender]

Since my last post The Hairy Otters have acquired some additional cameras. Starting with the most expensive. This one I have mounted on a swivel that is actuated by the bar on the following flat car. The camera leads into the corners and follows the train.

We also have a couple of new surveillance b/w cameras;

and with a lens;

 

[shamus]

Hi Tony, thats a very neat idea mounting the camera on a flat car. My camera is too big for that. How much was that one by the way if you don't mind my asking?.
Shamus

 

[jon-monon]

Now I can update my entry now. I have a new Minolta Dimage Z1. I have been keeping my eye on it for a while now. I was concerned that the macro would not foucus quite as close as the Oly C-7xx in use by many here, but as you can see by this photo of a $5 bill, it gets close enough

 

[shamus]

Eye eye, nice camera, now how about taking some photos of your new layout then

Shamus

 

[neilmunck]

35mm Yipeeeee!

Digital cameras are all very well but I use a 35mm camera for a number of (I think) very good reasons.

Before I go off on one - Shamus asked why there weren't very many (if any) examples of 35mm camera work on this thread. Probably because (like me) they have a really nice, sexy camera but no scanner so can't get them on the web.

Let the rant commense.

1. My Olympus OM-10 cost £80 when I got it some 6 years ago. They can now be seen selling for about £100 in specialist camera shops. It was second hand and is now probably 15-20 years old ish. Notice how the value hasn't really dropped in 6 years - that is because it still measures up well against the competition in the optical (as opposed to the digital) market.

2. My super sexy piece of kit runs for 2 - 3 years on a pair of button cells about 6mm in diameter and 3mm thick. I notice someone further up the post had an extension lead so they don't run out of batteries half way through a shoot. I don't think I have had that problem in a while as i have ample warning - and even if they did run down the camera still works at 1/60th of a second and you can adjust the appature accordingly to get a reasonably balanced shot that is corrected easily with the modern printing process (I ran a film through at 400ASA when it was 200ASA (DOH) but it came back fine - and that was with all the exposures being half the length they should have). I digress.

3. This is a good point. The camera is totally manual (automatic shutter - but there is a manual over-ride). As a result I can mess about to my hearts content with different effects. Depth of field is mine to control. With a tripod the camera will take acurate exposures up to 10 sec and approximate exposures up to 2min.

4. A friend of mine (not a MRR) bought a statee of the art (5.5Mp about a year ago) digital camera for the thick end of £700 (thats about $1200 these days). If I took my usual number of photos (say 4 36 exposure films a year, not much i know) then it would take me 40 years before I had spent more on developing than he had on his camera. Last month he anounced he was selling it because it wasn't good enough anymore.

5. QUALITY!!!!! With a slow film (100ASA) the quility you get from a cheap optical camrea knocks the sh*t out of any digital camera on the market. Last I heard you could get a 11Mp camera....for scary money. Lets see how big you can blow up a digital image in a slide projector until you can see the grain. Except you can't because it is a digital camera.....

enough - I'm going for a beer before I annoy people.

Neil

 

[shamus]

Well Neil, you have now thrown down the gauntlet. I will challenge you to a dual, just for a bit of fun, what do you say. You say that any 35mm is better than the most expensive camera in digital form, and you stated that:-

quote

"QUALITY!!!!! With a slow film (100ASA) the quility you get from a cheap optical camrea knocks the sh*t out of any digital camera on the market. Last I heard you could get a 11Mp camera....for scary money. Lets see how big you can blow up a digital image in a slide projector until you can see the grain. Except you can't because it is a digital camera....."

un-quote

Yes a slide projector is out, but a slide show using computer and a Television is in


QUOTE
"The camera is totally manual (automatic shutter - but there is a manual over-ride). As a result I can mess about to my hearts content with different effects. Depth of field is mine to control. With a tripod the camera will take acurate exposures up to 10 sec and approximate exposures up to 2min."
Un-QUOTE

Mine can do all that plus a 10XZoom without buying another lens for the job.


Okay, my Olympus C700 is only a cheapo type but here is what I would like you to do. Take a photo (Model) up close with your 35mm get it scanned in somewhere then post it here for all to see. After you have posted, I will take a close up shot and do the same.:thumb: Cannot be more fair than that, if you win, I will applaud. :thumb:
Shamus

 

[Lightbender]

No fair Shamus, The resolution for my monitor is 72 dpi. At that resolution my $20 credit card digital would be a contender.

A 90 megapixel is equivalent to a 35mm. we aren't there yet but the new 40 mp cameras take great pics but are very pricey, but like all digital soooo cheap to run.

 

[neilmunck]

Hi Shamus,

Yes a slide projector is out, but a slide show using computer and a Television is in

I did a quick Google on TV resolution and a figure of 1280x768 was given and that is for a 30" LG plasma flat screen (yours for only £2037.39 if you are interested). You can get smaller TVs with the same resolution but these are High Resolution TVs. This only gives an overal resolution of 983040 pixels which can be beaten by nearly any digital camera.

So you are missing out on 75% of the quality of the image (assuming a 4Mp camera).

On the other hand most cinema films are shot on 35mm film (admittedly VERY expensive lenses/cameras but each exposure can be a maximum of 1/50 sec). Now how big is the screen in your local Odeon/UGC/whatever cinema you go to? Probably about the size of your house, and all off a 35mm frame!

I know most of us aren't really interested in that level of detail in the picture but it is nice to have it there if you want it.

The resolution is one of my dads bug-bears and it has rubbed off on me. I tried to find prices for a 40Mp camera on the web (still only half as good as my old OM-10 mind) but I couldn't (i didn't try very hard). On the other hand it turns out there are a number of photographic forums out there having a huge debate over what is better, film or digital.

Mine can do all that plus a 10XZoom without buying another lens for the job.

But (as my dad knows too well) if you start having huge zoom ranges then the optics are pushed beyond their limits nad the image quality starts to degrade. Thats why if I ever see a 28-400mm zoom lens for an SLR I think it is stupid.

For best results you need a fixed focal length lense because the lenses are optomised for that focal length so the image will be the sharpest possible. In a zoom the designers have to compromise.

AND...I can use one body and attach it either to a 20x microscope (for those really close up pictures), Olympus make microscopes for laboratories and you can get a OM series addapter for them. Cool:thumb: . Or I can stick it onto a 1000mm lense and take a picture from here through your bathroom window (just kidding, I can't afford one )

Take a photo (Model) up close with your 35mm get it scanned in somewhere then post it here for all to see. After you have posted, I will take a close up shot and do the same.

But you can only post up to 70kb (we I can, you're a mod so maybe you can post bigger pictures).

And of course there's always the....

No fair Shamus, The resolution for my monitor is 72 dpi. At that resolution my $20 credit card digital would be a contender.

...problem.

However my parents are investing in a negative scanner (a scanner for photographic negatives that is the size of a frame but totally scary resolution). So when they get that wired up I'll let you know how they look. Put it this way - the computer that a friend of mine and I made for them has 1Gb of RAM and will need it all (unlike the ones they sell at bloody PC world:curse: )

I guess there is no point in getting really carried away about this as on the web no-one will be able to tell the difference. Each system has it's advantages.

Neil,

phew.....

 

[neilmunck]

Thought i'd show you this anyway

It has been scaled to get it under 70kb using the GIMP which I have just downloaded so if it is wrong or looks rubbish then it is because I have only been using it for 5 mins and it is very nice but quite complex. But most importantly FREE!

Anyway, it is from my previous railway that was dismantled about 3 years ago. It was taken on my OM-10 but was scanned in using a scanner direct from the print.

 

[neilmunck]

hmmm.

It didn't come out that well. It was a jpg. I shall need to try and find some tips on how to post images successfully.

Hint hint

 

[neilmunck]

duh

alright, I'm stupid.

I've seen the link at the top of the page nowops:

 

[Raildog]

I agree that we seem to be talking apples and oranges here. Both formats offer excellent images and both have their place. Digital cameras have come a long way since being introduced and the results you can get from the average digital camera are simply stunning. For my new digital, I have three sets of rechargable batteries and a 256 mb memory card. I can take 96, 2288 x 1712 pictures without changing batteries, on one card. Download them directly from the camera to my computer in a few minutes. Oh yea, I can also zoom from 35-380 all the while getting tack sharp pics at any focal length.

After being a professional portrait photographer for over 20 years, I couldn't wait to go digital! The first digital camera I bought was a Nikon 990. I believe it was 3.2 mega-pixels. It wasn't sharp enough to do large portraits, but I did use it extensively for outdoor senior (H.S.) portraits. It's tiny size and instant results made a lot of the job much easier. I still used my F5 and Mamya 6x7 in the studio for obvious reasons.

I next went and bought a Nikon/Kodak DCS760 body. With the familiar F5 body and 6 mega-pixel CCD, it was soon my primary work camera.

This is a 24x20 portrait which I did with that camera. It is only 20k, but I think you can see how nice the results can be. I retired back in 2002 and sold the digital equipment with the business. I now shoot with an Olympus C-750UZ. (My F3HP and lenses sit in my closet, hopefully increasing in value!)

 

[Raildog]

Here is a picture taken with the C750, previously posted.

 

[Raildog]

Here's a 1.3 mp image from my Olympus D360L.

 

[jon-monon]

Hi Neil,

I just bought my first digital, and at even just 3.2 Mpix, you can see by Abe's eye that the res is quite adequate. I read somewhere that 5 Mpix is equivelent to 35 mm film. I still have, and will keep my Minolta X-700 and all the lenses from 28MM to 500MM, fixed and zooms and doublers and triplers and filters and moter drives and strobes and and and, and the new digital one does it all with the hassle, manual or auto. Abe's eye was taken with manual apature, shutter speed and focus. It adjusts manually or automatically for the light temperature, and the lense, although it doesn't have quite the light gathering of a fixed, short lense, does quite well and is equivelent to 38 to 380 MM in 35 MM camera speak.

The differences between a zoom lense and a fixed lense, in a practical manner, for most people, is reduced light gathering in the zoom. It remains to be seen if I will ever load film into my X-700 again, or the manual Argus C-2, or the old medium format Argus, or or or probably not If I do, it will likely be to get out the 500MM elephant gun

The feeling of getting a nice digital camera is the same as the feeling as when I go tmy first good 35 MM, except the results are not dissapointing, because I can see the problem right away and fix it. Also, without a darkroom, I am able to utilize full manual control with results that are not negated by the photo processors automatic controls on color and exposure. Sure I tried slides, but I don't care to hassle with the slide screens and when you get prints, you are again at the photo processors mercy. I also have much improved features like a built in spot meter, auto bracketing and color balance. I expect it to be the same camera it is now 10 years from now. If your friends digital camera became not good enough, I suspect so do many other things in his life.

Give it a try my friend, if you want to experiance the joys of photography, if you want that feeling you once had. I'm assuming you have lost your love for photography, or you would shoot more than 4 rolls per year. I've shot more than that in the 5 days I've owned my new baby. Perhaps the resolution is less than 35 MM film perfectly exposed and processed, but it good enough. It's better than good enough. My love for photography is renewed, it's as strong as ever, what better reason to go digital? Now go on, go get a digital camera with manual controls and a reasonable lense, forget resolution and have some fun

EDIT: I started this reply this morning sometime, or early afternoon, before Neil and Raildog posted photos. Looks like you do nice work, Neil! Great shots, Raildog!

Oh, and Welcome To The-Gauge!

Oh, and moderators have the same photo upload restrictions, under 70K, 640 X 480 max., or I would darned well take advantage of it myself If you reduce your scan to about 635 X 475 in the GIMP and save as .jpg with 75% compression (default), you should come in under 70K most of the time. Yes, it is a great program! It's all I use for photo editing. Hollywood uses it too! Hmmmmm, wouldn't that imply they've gone digital

 

[shamus]

Well this was taken using my Olympus C700UZ, with overhead lighting only.
My latest scratchbuilt climax.
Shamus

 

[Raildog]

Beautiful Shamus! I'm always blown away by the beauty of your modeling and your attention to detail. One can tell that you really love your hobby.

Oh, and the picture is a great one too!

Do you mind sharing what settings you used and your light source, etc?

Thanks,
Jerry

 

[shamus]

Hi Jerry, Many thanks friend.
Well, I use now Fluorescent Daylight Tubes, not Cool white as some might think. These are placed on my ceiling at 18" intervals.
When I was a professional Photographer (Years ago) I always used for 3 lamps Main light -fill in and back light. Plus I had the proper gear to go with it like Roliflex 3.5f or my Mamiya C220/330 and Paraflash. Now all gone. So I experimented with these Daylight tubes and found them to be as near perfect for model photography as makes no difference. These tubes are Philips TL'D 58w/950 With the digital set on f8 and a shutter speed on auto this damn camera does it for you, its great, I don't have to think anymore. I do need to clean these every time I do a photo shoot as the colour temperature shifts a little when they are dirty.:thumb:

Cheers
Shamus

 

[Lightbender]

Hello Neil, Shamus, Raildog,

If this digital/film debate gets any more heated and you guys continue firing off pictures at one another just to prove your points, I can tell you that I for one, am enjoying every minute of it. This could be an argument that everyone will enjoy watching.

 

[Lightbender]

Hello Shamus,

The new traincam camera that we purchased was $120 CDN, about 50 quid. This included the camera, receiver and power supply. It has no audio and the camera LEDs aren't hooked up to the power leads, this will be remedied.

A change of plan for this camera is to build it into a battery powered RC train cam with remote panning. So far with the help of some lego and a dismantled Radio Shack RC car we are getting results;