Camera and Lens tests

[nscaleSPF2]

That's what I thought at first (silly me, you can't really have that level of detail, and such thin realistic handrails in N scale) but Tom's later comment made me realize that DUH, this is a larger scale loco (H0 or even larger). Tom is a multi-scale guy. 

Whoa!  No, silly me.  My comments above still apply, but an N scale subject should be completely in focus!  The only issue is that, if the image is highly cropped, the resolution may not be as good as the best shots of the locomotive.  Will be most interested in Tom's next results.

[tom mann]

Tom, I am really glad that you found a camera that works for you.  This serves as a benchmark for the rest of us: If to want to maximize the detail in a photo, the way to go is a full frame sensor (i.e. one that is the same size as a 35mm slide, 1.5x1.0 inches) and combine this with an outstanding lens.  It is hard to beat Zeiss optics.

As far as your subject, I am blown away by how real the locomotive looks.  I have a hard time convincing myself that this is N scale.  The size of the coupler doesn't even give it away.

If I may offer a couple of additional comments...

As far as perspective, as Peter indicated, a shorter focal length lens decreases the "isometric" nature of the photo and will add to a more realistic perception of the locomotive.  However, when you cropped the first RX1R shot, you increased the effective focal length of the lens.  I would guesstimate that the cropped version resulted in an effective focal length of about 60 to 70mm.  That's why, perspective wise, it looks a lot like the shots taken with your A580.  If you can move the camera closer to the subject, the perspective will be even better (here's hoping you can get the same depth of field).

Ed's comment is a good one, too.  If your results are giving you a depth of field of about 3 to 4 inches, then that is the same amount of the layout that will be in focus.  Pardon me for stating the obvious.  The only way to get more depth of field is to go with a smaller sensor, which is not going to give you the kind of spectacular results that have, so far.  Unless you use the RX1R with focus stacking.

These comments are meant to be positive, and I hope that they help the rest of us understand these photo issues better.

You're right - great points: cropping the photo is the same as what a crop sensor would do.  So it's not a 35mm FOV anymore: The second photo with the better perspective might be 45mm.

In either case, moving to wide (deep?) shots on the layout will show that f22 would be insufficient for DoF and either require focus stacking or a smaller sensor.  That wasn't my primary goal with a camera though.  On a bizzaro Railwire, bizzaro Tom Mann might be starting a thread about a whole different set of camera requirements.   The more you learn about cameras, the more you realize that there is no perfect solution.  It's actually fun to pick something and try to make it work for the most scenarios!

[nscaleSPF2]

It's actually fun to pick something and try to make it work for the most scenarios!

Sounds like the definition of a hobby to me.

[peteski]

  , what scale is the switched in your photos?  O?

[tom mann]

, what scale is the switched in your photos?  O?

HO - Athearn Genesis.

[peteski]

HO - Athearn Genesis.

Very impressive!

[tom mann]

I'm surprised no one commented on the back railing that popped out and the missing cab window.  The cab window fell out when I opened up the box for the first time and I never found it!

[peteski]

I'm surprised no one commented on the back railing that popped out and the missing cab window.  The cab window fell out when I opened up the box for the first time and I never found it!

Hey, $hit happens. Besides, the reason you've posted those photos is for critiquing the overall fidelity (focus, etc.) of the photos and the camera - not of the model itself. 

To be honest, I was so awed by the quality of the photos and of the model that the problems you've mentioned never even registered in my brain.

[nscaleSPF2]

For those of you who may be interested, the graphic below demonstrates the size differences between the various camera sensors that we have been talking about.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

The full frame sensor is used in professional cameras, like those used at major sporting events.  The APS sensor is used in a lot of mid-range cameras by serious photographers and some pros.  The Four Thirds is currently used by Olympus, among others.  The 1" sensor is used by Nikon in their J series cameras. And the 1/1.7" and 1/2.3" sensors are used in most of the point and shoot cameras, and cell phones.

As Tom has demonstrated in this thread, the much bigger size of the full frame sensor can deliver superior detail.

For those of you who are looking to upgrade from their current point and shoot, you can use this chart to help guide you toward a more capable camera, at the expense of losing depth of field.  Unfortunately, that's the trade-off, unless you are willing to focus-stack.

Finally, it is important to remember that it isn't always about the camera.  It's about how it's used.  Just like any other tool, it takes practice and experience to get the best results.

[nstars]

I do get the feeling that one point is missing in the discussion. The first pictures were taken with an APS camera with a 50 mm lens. This a equivalent with a 75 mm full frame camera or in other words its a light tele lens. The second set of pictures has been taken with a full frame camera with a 35 mm lens. In other words a light wide angle lens, which has much more DoF. This is one of the reasons that the frame is out of focus in the first shot.

One of the characteristics of a full frame camera is the by definition more shallow DoF it provides compared than a smaller chipped camera. This is quite nice for artistic pictures but something we do not really need with model pictures. If you would use a smaller chipped camera with a 24 Mp sensor and (for an APS camera) a 20-24 mm lens you could use the same trick with similar results and you probably don't have to go back to F22 to get the same DoF.

Marc

[tom mann]

One of the characteristics of a full frame camera is the by definition more shallow DoF it provides compared than a smaller chipped camera. This is quite nice for artistic pictures but something we do not really need with model pictures. If you would use a smaller chipped camera with a 24 Mp sensor and (for an APS camera) a 20-24 mm lens you could use the same trick with similar results and you probably don't have to go back to F22 to get the same DoF.

Marc

All true points, but my primary reason in switching cameras was to get the perspective that was missing with the 50mm (75mm) lens.  The fact that I also reduced diffraction and can still print up to 10" wide is a bonus, but If I really wanted DoF, I would still have to use Helicon (or something similar).

[robert3985]

N scale and Z scale have their own set of problems because of their size.  Just to simplify things, to get the same effect as you have achieved in HO scale on an N-scale model, you have to get essentially twice as close.  DOF gets much more shallow when you get closer, so it's possible that f22 wouldn't get an entire N-scale engine in acceptable focus, when that works okay for HO scale.  Z-scale will have even more of a DOF problem.

If you plan on cropping all your shots, or most of them, the advantages of a full-frame sensor start to disappear.  Wildlife photographers prefer APS-C crop sensors chiefly because they regularly crop their images in order to zoom in on the wildlife subject.  Additionally (and this doesn't apply to this thread very much) telephotos used with an APS-C sensor are the equivalent of 1.5 the focal length effect of a 35mm camera lens, so cropping is usually not necessary especially when using a long telephoto.  Depending on how much area on your image you are cropping, when using your full-frame sensor body, the pixel density of an APS-C sensor vs cropped Full-Frame can easily give much greater resolution to the smaller sensor.

I decided to do a non-HF shot just to see what lens I liked best for a product shot similar to Tom's HO switcher shot, except in N-scale and on my layout.  My macro-prime is an AF Micro Nikkor 60mm f2.8 D, but I don't like the perspective this ultra-sharp lens gives me for close-up model railroad shots.  My body is a Nikon D7200, with a 25mp sensor...rated by DxOMark as the best APS-C sensor they have ever tested, second overall out of every sensor they've tested in Dynamic Range to only the full-frame Nikon D810, which beats the D7200 in that category by two tenths of a point... the FX D810 at 14.8 EV's vs the DX D7200 at 14.6 EV's.  Maybe there are better sensors out there now as these were results from April of 2015, but nonetheless, the D7200's sensor is superlative.

After fiddling around with hand-held shots, it became evident that I was going to have to set up my tripod to get the results I wanted because of the slow shutter speeds and 100 ISO settings.

I also decided to shoot a long engine rather than a switcher, to see if I could get it all in focus, so I set up an Athearn UP Challenger on the Park City Branch line.

The one lens that was giving me my best perspective was my carry lens, which is my AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 G II ED, with a minimum focal length of an equivalent 28mm full-frame lens, which, if I could get close enough, should give me good perspective "vanishing"  lines.

However, I ended up shooting at 22mm, which is a full-frame equivalent of a 33mm wide angle lens.  I couldn't get as close as I wanted, so I had to crop the image.  However, I was shooting Nikon RAW (NEF) which gives me a high dynamic range image of 27.6mb.  I converted it to a jpg file to upload to Google Photo which reduced it to 2.7mb compressed.

Photo (1) - N-scale Athearn Challenger shot with Nikon D7200 APS-C Sensor Body, Nikkor 18-200mm at 22mm,  ISO100, f22 at 2.5 seconds:


My focus point was on the first engine's cylinders, and it appears that the engine is totally in focus, front to back, and even the rails going off in the distance on the adjacent mainlines are in fairly good focus, as well as the foreground grass. 

I see absolutely no need for a full-frame camera for miniature photography.  Sure, a full frame camera works great with wide-angle lenses for portraiture to isolate the subject, and full-frame sensors generally have better low-light sensitivity and less noise when shooting in the dark at high ISO's.  However, neither of these factors are significant for model railroad photography.  My photo was shot under the light from a single 100W equivalent LED bulb as the main light, with my layout lights on, with a tripod and remote electronic release... no problemo.

Sure, if I were going to enlarge my shots to fill up a billboard, then maybe I'd think more about the diffraction limiting properties of a large sensor in my camera, but enlarged to fill up my Dell 25" Monitor...I don't notice ANY lack of quality.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[peteski]

The model this thread was on is H0 scale.  If I understand  correctly he wants to give the model a more of vanishing-point perspective. To do that he would need a wide angle lens (which naturally has greater DoF than standard or telephoto lenses) and have the camera close to the model.

[robert3985]

The model this thread was on is H0 scale.  If I understand  correctly he wants to give the model a more of vanishing-point perspective. To do that he would need a wide angle lens (which naturally has greater DoF than standard or telephoto lenses) and have the camera close to the model.

I've read Tom's posts too believe it or not.  However, I do not get the impression he is wanting a camera and lens combo to shoot a single subject or scale.  The photo I shot of my Challenger was shot with a wide-angle lens...33mm equivalent, but it won't focus close enough to get the eyeball distortion both Tom and I want in taking photos which get us "in" to the layout, or make the subject look larger.

I tested a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 set at f22, but unlike a lot of ultra-wides, this one doesn't focus closely...its only flaw.

I also happened upon a new ultra-wide 14mm macro for full-sized cameras, but I don't know if it's got the right mount.  The macro photos were very interesting and DOF looks to be quite extreme...I'll post a link when I find it again....minimum focusing distance at 1:1 was 4 point something millimeters...

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[tom mann]

@robert3985  - your image isn't appearing for some reason.