What camera are you using??

I'm a Canon user. Never used anything else except maybe a Kodak snapshot camera or two in the past. My first SLR was the Canon Rebel XS film camera. I still have it...packed away somewhere. But, I had been wanting a nice digital SLR ever since they first came out. So, almost a year and a half ago I finally decided to dish out the dough for one. I had been considering one of Canon's Ti models that were priced around $600-$800 I think. So I went to the local camera shop, told them what I was interested in, and came out with my brand new DSLR......but it wasn't a Canon Ti model. I bought the Canon EOS 60D instead. It's a bit more pricey than the Ti models I had been looking at. But I absolutely love this camera. It takes wonderful photos and will take even better ones as I learn to be a better photographer. I've since added a Tamron 60mm F/2 Macro lens. I haven't used it as much as the 18-135mm lens that came with the camera but I've taken some cool pics with it and it will definitely get the use since I've always been intrigued by extreme close-up and Macro photography.

My day to day camera is a OLYMPUS 570 UZ the only thing I dont like about it is in" movie" mode the zoom doesnt work I still have a few point n shoots laying around For my film work I use a Canon EOS REBEL II with a 80-200, a 35-80 mm lens and a CANON 100-300 ef zoom, good enough for me and my purposes. Do need to get a decent camcorder though, My CANON vhs camcorder recently finally gave up the ghost after many years.

Sony Cybershot, with a 4X zoom. Not a very good camera for real close up shots. I'm looking for something along the lines of the Canon SX150iS, thanks to the earlier reviews here.

Don Stauffer

I use a Nikon D-40X, a now discontinued model.  However, any of the cheaper Nikon SLRs would be similar. I use an SLR because I have never seen an electronic viewfinder that has adequate resolution for good focusing.  Manual focus is essential in good macro photography (model photography is a subset of macro photography.

Also, the "kit" lens that comes with Nikon SLRs is an absolute jewel for model photography. It is their 18-55 mm lens. Here is why.  Most macro lenses are only macro on or near their longest focal length.  But in model photography you are interested in emphasizing perspective, not shrinking it.  Using telephoto focal lengths condense/shrink depth, the opposite of what you want in model photography.  The Nikon 18-55 is macro at ALL focal lengths. It also stops down to f/32 for really good depth of field.

My comment on manual focus is because the camera's focus computation does not know which part of the model or scene to focus on, so it picks its own plane of focus. You as the modeler and photographer can much better determine what area to set for best focus.

Nikon D40 user here too.  And, I only have the 18-55 lens.  Sometimes I can't get the lighting I want, I flip to my Droid 4...which somehow does a better job with lighting.

I make all of my photo backdrop photos outdoors with real sunlight.  Results are very realistic.  Sure limits my realistic type photography in Minnesota winters, though :-(  

During winter I am restricted to eBay style photos with light tent or diffuse room light.

Thanks a bunch for the temptations!!!

Last thing I need is another expensive hobby!

But the good news is, the price of cameras is going down!  Model kits and tools are going up!

Oh brother. Here I go. Mainly due to this thread and a lot of thinking of how to take macro shots (special thanks to Don, for the info on your experiences with this). I bit the bullet and bought a Nikon D5200, with the 18-55. I'll meet my constant learning curve with modelling with another one in photography!

I do have a couple of long lenses, but never use them for model photography.  To me, a long focal length compresses depth, and for model work I want to expand depth, so I use the shortest focal lengths I can, and get in really close.  Better perspective.

         Just saw this thread so I'm very late in contributing, but I use a Nikon D90 for model photography.  Typically use a Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 using  a small aperture and relatively long exposure to get sufficient depth of field.  The zoom and close focusing capability of this lens allows both for whole model shots and relatively close in detail shots.  For very close shots, I have an old Nikkor 55mm F2.8 macro.  No AF or communication with the D90 with this lens, so everything is shot in manual.  As mentioned by others, I also have a long lens or two but they are not really ideal for model photography.  I really like the Sigma 100-300mm F4 for sports images, although I would love to try that 400mm F2.8 posted earlier. 

Don

I've got a Nikon Coolpix S6100 point 'n shoot. It has 16 Megapix,7X zoom and is touch screen.I also have a film SLR Nikon w/multiple lenses.I can get much closer with my film camera,but the digital is faster to post pics and you can delete the bad pics instead of paying for them.

You can buy lens attachments to allow closer shots.  They are often sold in sets, and screw on to the front of the lens if your camera lens has a thread on the front.

Nikon (and Canon I would imagine) makes a device that mounts between the lens and camera body that allows for ridiculously close focusing.  On a 20mm lens, the point of minimum focus would actually be on the surface of the lens.   I forget the magnification ratio when using a macro lens, but its quite a bit more than a stock macro.

Alas and alack, it only fits on SLR cameras.

I've been an amateur photographer for many, many years. Since going digital I have a Nikon D80 DSLR and a newer Nikon D5100. Even though the D80 is older I still use it for model photography most of the times as I reduce everything in size for the web. I think any decent DSLR nowadays will serve well for model photography.

The main thing in my arsenal is a Tamron SP AF Di 90mm Macro Lens. This is the same macro lens that Tamron has been famous for for many years, but has come out in a new version specifically for digital cameras. The 90mm lets me give some room away from the model to work and not block lighting. It stops down to f32 to give a large depth of field. I have been very happy with the results from this lens.

Past year been using the  Nikon 3100, which came with a 18-55mm lens.

Since reading how important the depth of field is, I always use manual option  to obtain the max setting.  Odd though that Don's camera is older, but has better depth (f32), mine going only to f22.

The macro issue is a bit confusing.   The setting itself I don't use because it locks in at f3.5 and can't be changed.  Then there are macro lenses, I've seen discussions both for and against regarding model photography.  At $400. CAN for a 90mm macro lens, bit much just to see if it makes any difference.

Also noticed when downloading the camera pics to the comp they are at 72dpi.  When I upoad to a photo host, they are switched up to 96dpi.  Other than increased size, would this alter the quality?

regards,

Jack

The max f/# depends on the focal length on that lens.

DPI only has to do with printing. DPI doesn't matter when posting images to the web.

Yours is a good question, DPI and web display is oft misunderstood. So you're not alone, Jack!

Don and Greg, thanks!

I was just shooting a few photos to update a thread, and I noticed the fstop was up to f36 while adjusting the zoom, while the dedicated dial was already set to what I thought was the max.  So yea, still learning.

Are the online depth of field calculators worth bothering with?

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-calculator.htm

In the second link, Digital SLR with CF of 1.5x, exactly what is 'CF' ?

regards,

Jack

To me, the main reason I use an SLR is that I can preview the depth of field through the lens in the viewfinder.  So I check that way if I want to actually see how I am doing.

And as far as dpi, I usually use ppi (pixels per inch) if I am talking about size in inches.  However, as someone said, physical size is meaningless for online images.  So the big thing is the number of pixels per picture width and height.  I find 1000 pixels wide is usually enough, but the FSM forum resizes the picture to fit in the forum format anyway.  But you do not want to make picture too small.  So I stick with 1000 or higher.

I'm a bit of a non-conformist.  Pentax K-10 D, usually with a 16-45 lens.  Not the latest Pentax product (only 10 megapixels), but a fine, versatile camera.

But a couple of years ago I gave my wife a little Canon "superzoom" with a 50x lens.  I haven't tried it for models yet (it may be tough to pry it from her fingers), but I suspect it would be fine for the purpose.  It has 10 mp and a fantastic lens that has a huge depth of field.

jtilley

I'm a bit of a non-conformist.  Pentax K-10 D, usually with a 16-45 lens.  Not the latest Pentax product (only 10 megapixels), but a fine, versatile camera.

<SNIP>

jtilley -whadaya mean 'non-conformist'? Whatever, I use a Pentax K7 - also not the latest - and Pentax guys have to let the world know that Pentax IS a great camera. Photography was a serious hobby of mine way back in the film days and I started with Pentax (last film cam was a ZX-5N). Jumped into digital with a K20 and later the K7. To get back OT, I haven't posted what I use because most of the pics I've posted are really snapshots - little attention paid to the things a real photographer should do.

Some of those small compact cameras do indeed do a nice job of model photography.  Because of the small chip the lens has a short focal length.  The depth of field is strongly affected by the ratio of focal length to subject distance. Because of the small focal length, that ratio is favorable even with close distances to the model.

Wow, just stumbled onto this part of the FSM forum, and I'm glad I did.  Lots of good info.  I've decided to get back into building again, despite the difficulties in getting supplies (working overseas in a desert style country), so photography has been my main hobby for the last two years.  I'm a Canon user, and I was using an older 10D with a kit 28-135 lens at model shows and for ebay style shots, and a SX10 for the quick in-progress shots.  About a year ago, the 10D gave up the ghost, and upgraded to a 5D Mk II.  My stash is on the other side of the world till this summer, so I'll have to wait till then to get back into model photography.

I use two different Canon EOS Rebel models, an XT and a T3i. Basic 18-55mm lenses for both, just don't have the money for nicer ones.

I must be an odd ball here for the fact I prefer film over digital. I do own a canon rebel xt, in film I have a Pentax K1000 with the 50 f2.0 and 28 f2.8, canon Elan II with a sigma 70-300 and 50 1.4 "fantastic lens and worth every cent at $400.00", and to wrap things up my Yashica Electro 35G.  Film wise I shoot Ilford HP5 Plus traditional black and white, Fuji Superia 400 xtra and Velvia 100F "slide film" and Kodak Extar 100 "color print film thats saturated like slide". If you cant tell, photography is anoter hobby of mine. Oh, for black and white, I print and develop my own film and prints. I get the same joy from the smells of this hobby as I do in the darkroom with hints of sulphur and vinigar.

modeler_zack

 Oh, for black and white, I print and develop my own film and prints. I get the same joy from the smells of this hobby as I do in the darkroom with hints of sulphur and vinigar.

No 4x5 yet. 

Only one place I know of in the same area still processing color transparencies.

Gotta make some time for 120 / 220 later this year.

My enlarger durst f60 if I remember correctly can handle 35 and 6x6 mf. It would be fun to try mf with either a hasselblad or a rolleiflex.

My wife has several old view cameras.  We used to get spectacular model shots.  But no longer use them- too much work.  She has a 16 mp digital now that gives better, sharper images than those film cameras.

Developing sheet film (4x5 and larger) can be done 3 ways that I know of and have used- machine process, dip and dunk using stainless steel hangers and in a tray.  

*Machine process is best for color slides and negs as those films need the precise and repeatable result that comes from maintained equipment.   Get to know your lab techs as they can tweak the timing/temps to get the best results for your needs (push/pull process and tonal tweaking).  

*Dip and dunk with hangers is just plain unwieldy and uses up a lot of chemistry, but is fairly good for large quantities of film in either B/W or color.   You work by feel over open tanks in the pure dark, or use infrared specs to see what you're doing.   This is my least favored method of development.

*Tray development in the dark is heavily favored for Zone VI B/W work where each sheet needs a specific development treatment.   You have to take extra care not to scratch the emulsion when doing this.

Tray development is the least expensive and easiest method of sheet film development as you only need enough chemistry to get the film wet, can do it in a light sealed closet and is considered by some to be the "purest" form of development (if that matters).

Otherwise, developing sheet films is no different than roll films- it is all time and temps.

I have had a lab run my FP4 sheets through the C-41 line before... idiots.

I miss shooting large format, but I just don't have the time these days to labor over the image like I once did.

Just unboxed my shiny new Nikon D800...  waiting for the battery to charge before taking any shots with it.    The accessory  vertical release/ battery grip is on back order, so no high-speed shooting for a while.

Should be fun learning how to shoot video with this thing, but I can use all my AF lenses to do so..16mm f/2.8, 17-35mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, 80-200mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/2.8.   I think my old MF  lenses should usable for video as well, just no AF or auto-aperture.