Canon PowerShot G9 X Mark II

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Anyone have one of these?

I'm thinking about one for quick and easy layout photography without the need to upgrade my SLR that can result in print-worthy photos.

[DKS]

I used to have one. It was just a bit big and clumsy for layout photography. My preference is still the SD 4000 IS.

That said, 10 MP may be borderline for "print-worthy" photos.

 

[Lenny53]

What size prints do you want to make that you can't do with an DSLR?   DSLRs have larger sensors so can not compare megapixel to megapixel.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

What size prints do you want to make that you can't do with an DSLR?   DSLRs have larger sensors so can not compare megapixel to megapixel.

I need at least 8.5x11.

I know DSLRs CAN do that, but my 10 year old 40D can just barely pull it off.

[MK]

Yes you can!  It's all about the lighting and lens.  My ten year old Nikon D300, 12 megapixel, can print 16 x 20 if you get the proper shot.  I've done it, so 8.5 x 11 is not a problem.  I think the 40D is around that era.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

Any point and shoot with 3x optical zoom is going to give you major problems with macro photography. A 1" sensor is also going to give you major depth of field problems... small glass + small sensor will introduce a lot of noise and refraction on an image with the aperture clamped down.

Mirror-less systems start at about $400. And you can get a dedicated macro lenses for this type of work. If you have a 40D, then a Canon mirror-less body with an EF to EF-M adapter should allow you to use your current lenses.

Right now I use an 80D as my daily shooter with an ancient 400D/XTi as a backup rig. Some of the new lenses are INSANELY good for their money.

[DKS]

Any point and shoot with 3x optical zoom is going to give you major problems with macro photography. A 1" sensor is also going to give you major depth of field problems... small glass + small sensor will introduce a lot of noise and refraction on an image with the aperture clamped down.

While I'm not about to claim that this example image is technically perfect--far from it--I'm not seeing what you're describing as the expected flaws, at least not to an objectionable degree. This is a point and shoot with ~3x optical zoom and small 10MP sensor with the aperture stopped down as far as it can go (~f8). Image is full-resolution, un-shopped. The camera is a Canon PowerShot SD 4000 IS. And anything other than a camera like this one could not possibly have captured this image.

View the image full-size: http://davidksmith.com/modeling/images/misc/IMG_3931.JPG

[wcfn100]

I'm not seeing what you're describing as the expected flaws, at least not to an objectionable degree.

I agree there's nothing really objectionable, but there's also almost nothing in focus in that shot. 

Jaosn

[Jbub]

I agree there's nothing really objectionable, but there's also almost nothing in focus in that shot. 

Jaosn

True, but the depth of field is greater because of that.

[peteski]

I agree there's nothing really objectionable, but there's also almost nothing in focus in that shot. 

Jaosn

The back part of the green truck and the building look to be in the bast focus to me.  Even the individual blades of grass growing at the base of the building are visible.
Unless you use pinhole photography (remember that concept?) or focus stacking, getting entire photo in focus is a tall order.

[robert3985]

The back part of the green truck and the building look to be in the bast focus to me.  Even the individual blades of grass growing at the base of the building are visible.
Unless you use pinhole photography (remember that concept?) or focus stacking, getting entire photo in focus is a tall order.

Being able to stop a lens down tof16 or f22 goes a long way to increase DOF.  However, then ya got diffraction problems that soften the photo, which are a product of light coming to the sensor through a small opening.  Back in the day when I was shooting film, using a Micro Nikkor 60mm f2.8 lens on my SLR, I'd stop it down to f32 without any appreciable diffusion softening.  However, on my first DSLR, a Nikon D40 with only 6MP, I didn't notice that my f32 shots were noticeably softer than what I saw on 35mm Fuji Velvia transparencies.  This was because of the largeness of the individual pixels comprising the sensor and why the size of a digital camera's pixels contributes to sharpness and overall dynamic range.  It's one of the reasons that full-frame sensors are generally better than cropped-frame sensors, just because the size of the pixels are larger on a full-frame sensor.

So, the philosophy is that if you don't want to use focus stacking, and you want to use a smaller camera to "get down" on the scene as DKS has done, you'll have to put up with a photo that is either out of focus over most of the field of view, or soft due to diffraction if your camera/lens combination will allow you to stop your lens down to f22 or f32.

Pinhole lenses or conversions really soften your photo,  but really increase your DOF.  For me, the softness is too much in a pinhole conversion, and my converted 35mm lens sits on the shelf.  I also had a hotspot in the middle of my photos using it that I could never fix.

Photo (1) DOF experiment with pinhole conversion of a DSLR 35mm lens showing diffraction effects:


Photo (2) Heavily Photoshopped pinhole photo again showing diffraction effects, but excellent DOF.  Central hotspot is obvious:


Some lenses just have better DOF than others, such as my ultra wide angle 11-16mm f2.8 Tokina.  It'll stop down to f16 and its DOF is hard to beat at that f-stop, with no discernible diffraction artifacts.

Photo (3) DOF experiment using my Tokina 11-16mm UW Zoom at f16, its smallest aperture.  No diffraction that I can see, and a DOF of an inch or so in front of the lens to the pink cliffs 19 feet away:


Although all of these images were taken with a big Nikon DSLR, and I've used them here to illustrate DOF using an UWA zoom, and DOF (but with diffraction artifacts) using a lens converted to have a pinhole aperture, the problem still remains as to camera placement and image composition, which DSLR's are not an ideal photographic rig for.  Yup, they're great for overall layout shots and macro product shots, but for street-level, in-the-scene placement such as DKS has done, it's damn near impossible to do that with a DSLR...or even a mirrorless or small point-and-shoot.

I never thought I'd say it, or mean it, but...with the quality of new smartphone cameras and their near-ideal lens placement at about a scale human's eye level and small size...I am tending strongly to think that an iPhone or Google Pixel 2 XL are going to be the near-perfect model railroad cameras for close-up, in-the-scene shots.  I think so strongly enough that I bought a Google Pixel 2 XL several weeks ago and I'll be using it to take close-ups on my layout for focus stacking with my Helicon Focus Pro software. I'll post some results when I get my layout set up. 

Anyone have one of these?

I'm thinking about one for quick and easy layout photography without the need to upgrade my SLR that can result in print-worthy photos.

Ed. Nikon has a terrific sale going on right now until the last day of June.  If you don't want to upgrade your SLR, you can buy an entry level Nikon D3400 DSLR with a 24.2MP sensor and with best-in-class image quality, two lens package for $499.95...a $350 "instant savings".  As an added bonus, the camera is very small, which for a DSLR will allow you to get places on your layout you couldn't with a larger DSLR.  The two lenses in the package are an 18-55mm kit lens, and a 70-300mm telephoto zoom.  I've shot the 18-55mm kit lens before and it has excellent optical quality, and close focuses about 5" in front of the lens (.9 ft from the camera's focal plane) and it stops down to f22, or f38 depending on where the zoom is set, for plenty of DOF.

My daughter has this camera and kit lens, and when we compare the quality of her photos vs my photos using my big Nikon D7200 and my expensive lenses, there is really no discernible difference in quality since the sensors are virtually the same in both cameras.

Gotta remember, this is an entry-level DSLR, and it's not as fast as more expensive DSLR's, but for taking photos of your trains, in most cases it is going to be hard to beat with its class-leading image quality and under $500 price tag for the two lens package.

No doubt that output from this setup will produce excellent large prints.

And, if you want, it comes in bright red! 

BUT, as I've pointed out above, your smartphone camera might be your best bet for model railroad photos, if you want those eye-level, in-the-street shots... if you've got an iPhone or can get a Google Pixel 2 XL (the smaller Google Pixel 2 has the center of the camera lens about a quarter of an inch further from the phone's edge than the larger Pixel 2 XL, so it fails the "1/160th scale eye height test")...and at 12.2MP, quality large prints are definitely possible. However, with any smartphone camera, you're going to have to use a focus stacking program for extended DOF since no smartphone camera allows manual aperture control...or even has a small aperture capability.

On the other hand, for pure ease of use, and for most general model railroad photos...excluding in-the-street closeups...the Nikon D3400 is superior to any smartphone camera.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[DKS]

For me, the softness is too much in a pinhole conversion, and my converted 35mm lens sits on the shelf.  I also had a hotspot in the middle of my photos using it that I could never fix.

Likewise I converted a Canon 50mm lens to a laser-etched pinhole back in the 1990s. I found the hotspot could be corrected by attaching a deep homemade hood around the lens, but the softness bothered me, and after about a dozen shots I never used the lens again. (Not to mention it was a PITA taking loooong exposures with melt-your-models hot lights.)



Oh, and by the way, don't forget light... the more light you can pump into a scene (within reason), the sharper the image will tend to be.

 

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I've always been a Canon guy. But damn, that Nikon deal is kinda insane and would replace a lot of gear all at once and solve a number of problems...

Hmmm.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Anyone want to buy a used Canon 40D? It'll stop a bullet.

[tom mann]

Sometimes that softness looks like cheap 35mm print film from the 70s and 80s -  and that could be a very realistic effect if that’s what you’re shooting for.

[DKS]

Sometimes that softness looks like cheap 35mm print film from the 70s and 80s -  and that could be a very realistic effect if that’s what you’re shooting for.

True, and you could add some film effects like dust and scratches to make it look like an old slide, as well as subtle color shifts, lens flare, etc.

Sort of like weathering to disguise modeling flaws or a bad paint job...