Global Scale Modeller

The vid was 2.2GB when I received it from Paul, but YouTube compresses it using it's own algorithms when you upload it, thus making it 500MB for download by YouTube users. So, you're both right OK.....

Colin

You wrote: "I guess one of the limitations in this type of camera are memory cards? but for sure, short HD clips are possible with a DSLR in full HD, have a 16GB memory card in my Nikon and not sure offhand how much video at full HD it can store?"

If a 30 minute HD video is 2.2GB (ref. Paul) .... then you have about 6 x 30 minute HD videos?

Jan

Beserker wrote:Colin

You wrote: "I guess one of the limitations in this type of camera are memory cards? but for sure, short HD clips are possible with a DSLR in full HD, have a 16GB memory card in my Nikon and not sure offhand how much video at full HD it can store?"

If a 30 minute HD video is 2.2GB (ref. Paul) .... then you have about 6 x 30 minute HD videos?

Jan

Dont quote me. I'm still learning.
.

You and me both Colin. I try really hard to never know what I'm doing.
I work hard at making it look like I'm working hard. Haha.

Coen wrote:You and me both Colin. I try really hard to never know what I'm doing.
I work hard at making it look like I'm working hard. Haha.

You're doing a smashing job too

Gee thanks Boss.
I can feel the love.
So warm and tender.

Oh wait... no I just set myself on fire.
Never miiiiiiiINnnnnnddddd

VLC is a piece of compression software and in the properties you will see the compressed file size in most cases. Properties generally always omits details for things such as directory and root files.

It's the old trade off, image quality versus file size - and who says size doesn't matter!!!

alextheblue wrote:It's the old trade off, image quality versus file size - and who says size doesn't matter!!!

Yeah, something like the ol' saying: ..... Quantity is its own quality?

Beserker wrote:Yeah, something like the ol' saying: ..... Quantity is its own quality?

I'm liking that saying!

It's one reason Russia defeated Germany in WWII.

Coen wrote:It's one reason Russia defeated Germany in WWII.

Funny, it reminds me of my first SLR; a Russian Zenit(h) with a German (east) Zeiss Ikon lens ... the camera body was built like a brick s*** house. and lens quality of a Nikon (Paul Simon's). Who says nothing good comes out of a good old dirty little war.....lmao.

Friday my Panasonic X920 arrived. I've been told that it's a good camera.

Now, I just have to get over my "stage fright" and start filming

I mainly do aircraft but lately I've been on a AFV buzz as you can see from my signature below.

Now that's a nice camera! Meant to be their flagship model and a healthy price tag too.....

I'm after a new camera soon, can you let me know how you get on with it please?

Hey Lee

I hope you're not expecting any quick feedback because this is my first video camera and never used these things in my life, I've also never filmed myself modelling and thus have nothing to compare it to.

I'm looking at as many modelling video's as possible and try to get some ideas.

But indeed you are right and this should be their best (no-professional) camera. I know for example that Phil Flory uses 2 Panasonic X900 (the older model) and the quality he brings is just great. But one thing I've learned in my lifetime is that some people achieve great things without top of the line equipment.

I use a handheld Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7 for all my pics, I'm restricted for space in the Hanger but would love to make up a light tent.

Geoff

I use a Panasonic Lumix FZ150 for both stills and my YT videos as it shoots full 1920x1080p AVCHD and all this through a lens made for them by Leica. Sound quality isn't too bad either considering the mic's on the top pointing at the sky! It's macro facility is superb. I was once taking a picture of some lichen on a tree trunk - as you do - and as I still couldn't get the background behind the tree out of the frame, I moved closer and smacked into the tree, that's how close I was!

I have a Canon 5D Mk.II. Coupled with my 100/2.8 IS, it's great for model photography.

I have the nikon d7000 with about five lenses and full studio kit. Not shot Many models of the scale sort yet.

Filo387 wrote:I have the nikon d7000 with about five lenses and full studio kit. Not shot Many models of the scale sort yet.

Nice, recently bought a Nikon D5200 VR and considered the 7000 series, but that's getting a bit high end for me while still learning, felt that the D5200 was as far as I could go with my current skills, heh ... I've jumped into the deep end in hobby's before and lost interest because of doing that, getting on fine with the D5200 now though.

Colin wrote:

Filo387 wrote:I have the nikon d7000 with about five lenses and full studio kit. Not shot Many models of the scale sort yet.

Nice, recently bought a Nikon D5200 VR and considered the 7000 series, but that's getting a bit high end for me while still learning, felt that the D5200 was as far as I could go with my current skills, heh ... I've jumped into the deep end in hobby's before and lost interest because of doing that, getting on fine with the D5200 now though.

I was an army photographer for 6 years I used the d3x then. I also have a Licentiateship with the royal photograpic society.

I mainly use my point and shoot Panasonic TZ40. I have a canon 7D with 17/55 2.8 but I lack the white shooting booths and lighting you guys have. I can't take my wallet out for it when I could be buying a model instead

Paul wrote:Videoing wise I use a jvc everio hd camcorder,great little camera, lighting for the vids is just my overhead modelling lamp, I need new lighting for my stills to so will invest in something that will do both

Mr. Paul, you have stolen my video camera...

Ive been experimenting with my Kodak, its one part of modelling that I need to get a handle on. Some great pics and info here. Thx

I have a Canon 5D MKII but to be honest for this purpose it's much easier to just use the iPhone

Hi guys,

This is my set up, and i know that i might get some stick from fellow photography fans, but i use a Sony A77,
no particular reason apart from the glass is great and i like the ergonomics of it. I have used both Canon
and Nikon before and both brands are great, in-fact i still have an old EOS film camera knocking around somewhere.
I guess what it boils down to is personal preference.
The Sony A77 is a great camera producing good image quality and can also be used for video when I'm
being silly and cannot find my charger for my video camera.



The lenses that i use are,
16-50mm 2.8
35mm 1.8
50mm 1.4
70-200mm 2.8

I also use a Sony HDR-CX115E Handycam for videos, especially for YouTube, its a lot smaller than using a DSLR
and i find it a lot more convenient than trying to set up your DSLR for a good view point for videos
over your work bench.



Don't ask why its in red, my fiancee went out and purchased it, god only knows what goes through there heads.


Also i find a good sturdy tripod helps, i have had many different types over the years however i cannot recommend enough the
Manfrotto brand, i know there are cheaper ones out there, and even more expensive ones, but i find its a good compromise between the two.
Current one is a Manfrotto 055 XPROB with a 496RC2 Ball head.



Well i hope this has given you a little insight to my other part of the Hobby.

Anthony

Back in 2008 I got myself a Nikon D300 along with a 35-200mm lens for a whopping £2500 (gulp). Camera has served me well so far (it has to... the damn thing is 10 x smarter than I am), although when I got the bugger, I never knew I was going to (try) using it for photographing scale models. I can only get some decent close up pics using the zoom but of course, doing so I loose a lot of depth. As such, I'm using my iPhone4S for taking pics. So if someone could recommend me a good macro lens for my D300, I'm all ears.

Desertfish wrote: So if someone could recommend me a good macro lens for my D300, I'm all ears.

There's lots of good macro lenses out there that will focus close up, but none of them will overcome the depth problem. It depends on how small a subject you are trying to shoot, but with some thing like a 1/72 aircraft, you are normally better off using a standard lens (50 ish mm) and getting as close as possible and then enlarging the centre section to fill the frame. The only way to overcome the shallow depth of focus (in camera) is to add more light* and using a smaller aperture**. The smaller the subject the smaller the focus area, I often get asked to photograph diamonds which are usually about 3ct (that's about 4mm!) at that size, when looking through the viewfinder, the focus plane is less than 1mm deep!!

* if you can't physically add more light, you can up the ISO, but this will increase the noise and make it harder to enlarge a section.

** A smaller aperture has a bigger number! Ideally you'd want the biggest number your camera can supply. It's usually f32. Putting the camera on a tripod and shooting at about half a second at f32 outside on a bright sunny is your best bet.

CJSomerset wrote:

Desertfish wrote: So if someone could recommend me a good macro lens for my D300, I'm all ears.

There's lots of good macro lenses out there that will focus close up, but none of them will overcome the depth problem. It depends on how small a subject you are trying to shoot, but with some thing like a 1/72 aircraft, you are normally better off using a standard lens (50 ish mm) and getting as close as possible and then enlarging the centre section to fill the frame. The only way to overcome the shallow depth of focus (in camera) is to add more light* and using a smaller aperture**. The smaller the subject the smaller the focus area, I often get asked to photograph diamonds which are usually about 3ct (that's about 4mm!) at that size, when looking through the viewfinder, the focus plane is less than 1mm deep!!

* if you can't physically add more light, you can up the ISO, but this will increase the noise and make it harder to enlarge a section.

** A smaller aperture has a bigger number! Ideally you'd want the biggest number your camera can supply. It's usually f32. Putting the camera on a tripod and shooting at about half a second at f32 outside on a bright sunny is your best bet.

Thanks for the info CJ. Although the "depth problem" I was talking about, was referring to reduced depth of field you have with zoom lenses as opposed to a depth of focus problem. Not sure if it really matters in scale model photography, but I find it silly having to stand over a meter away with the zoom fully extended in order to take a closeup picture, while my iPhone can go as close as 6-7 cm and still take a decent closeup. The 18-200 mm lens I went for on my D300 has been a superb wide angle/zoom combo, even though I had to give up manual aperture selection (only does auto), but so far it has handled all the pics I've been taking superbly. It's only recently I've tried to do some macro photography (if you can call it that) and found the shortcomings of the lens I have. I could of course carry on using my iPhone, but I find it silly having to use a phone while I have a £2500 worth camera lying around.

Desertfish wrote:So if someone could recommend me a good macro lens for my D300, I'm all ears.

I would agree with CJ that a 50mm would be a good lens. I shoot 95% of the time with my 16-50 2.8 and most of the time at 50mm. I would use a fixed 50, but mine is broken and I haven't bothered getting a new one. You can pick up a Nikon 50mm 1.8D for not that much or a 50mm 1.8G for a little bit more, both are nice lenses that are nice to have for other things as well. But when I need a proper macro shot I use a Sigma 105mm 2.8, I think it's nice and sharp, here is a shot I've taken with it of a 1/72 cockpit, you could get closer but don't really need it.



Nikon has a 40mm 2.8 Micro that might be a good compromise and give a bit of both.

Here are some reviews of some of the lenses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSy8qvg ... 2A1E27202D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6my3DO0 ... 2A1E27202D

Desertfish wrote:)Thanks for the info CJ. Although the "depth problem" I was talking about, was referring to reduced depth of field as opposed to a depth of focus

That's basically the same thing, when you look through an SLR you have the aperture wide open (probably f2.8) so that as much light as possible gets onto the focus screen, making it easier to see the subject. When you press the shutter, the aperture closes down to the f stop that is correct for the exposure. Some cameras have a depth of field preview, that lets you see the image with the aperture closed down. But it will be so dark that it is almost impossible to see.

If you go into your garden and put something about 2 ft in front of the camera and focus on that. When you look through the view finder you'll see all the background is out of focus. But (on a bright day) when you take the pic and look on the back of the camera, you'll see the background is now in focus. That's because you are viewing at f2.8 ( which will blur the background) and taking at something like f16.

If you put your camera into "A" mode (aperture priority) and select f2.8, the finished pic will look the same as when you are viewing it.

The longer the lens the more pronounced this effect will become. On a wide angle the background my look sharp all the time, at 200mm even at f16 you might not be able to get the background sharp.

That's why your iphone takes good close ups (it's got a 4mm lens). But a wide angle will distort you image, things in the foreground will bigger than they should be and thing in the distance will be smaller than in the real world. Plus everything at the edge of the pic will get bent by the "barrel" distortion.

A telephoto will have the opposite effect, so 50mm is a good choice.

BUT when you move into Macro (or Micro if you buy Nikon) all the above rules get compounded. The closer you get to the subject, the less depth of field you have. To the point that when looking through the camera (at f2.8) almost nothing will be in focus ( that's the depth of focus I mentioned) and even when you take the shot at f32 the depth of field could be down to less than 1cm.

JohnMW's shot above shows this problem. His metadata says it was taken at f16 but you can see that the depth of field is about 2cm.

This one was taken at about f22 but it has much better depth of field because it's taken from farther away.

JonMW wrote:

how the hell do you get that instrument detail on a 1/72???

Desertfish wrote:

CJSomerset wrote:

Desertfish wrote: So if someone could recommend me a good macro lens for my D300, I'm all ears.

There's lots of good macro lenses out there that will focus close up, but none of them will overcome the depth problem. It depends on how small a subject you are trying to shoot, but with some thing like a 1/72 aircraft, you are normally better off using a standard lens (50 ish mm) and getting as close as possible and then enlarging the centre section to fill the frame. The only way to overcome the shallow depth of focus (in camera) is to add more light* and using a smaller aperture**. The smaller the subject the smaller the focus area, I often get asked to photograph diamonds which are usually about 3ct (that's about 4mm!) at that size, when looking through the viewfinder, the focus plane is less than 1mm deep!!

* if you can't physically add more light, you can up the ISO, but this will increase the noise and make it harder to enlarge a section.

** A smaller aperture has a bigger number! Ideally you'd want the biggest number your camera can supply. It's usually f32. Putting the camera on a tripod and shooting at about half a second at f32 outside on a bright sunny is your best bet.

Thanks for the info CJ. Although the "depth problem" I was talking about, was referring to reduced depth of field you have with zoom lenses as opposed to a depth of focus problem. Not sure if it really matters in scale model photography, but I find it silly having to stand over a meter away with the zoom fully extended in order to take a closeup picture, while my iPhone can go as close as 6-7 cm and still take a decent closeup. The 18-200 mm lens I went for on my D300 has been a superb wide angle/zoom combo, even though I had to give up manual aperture selection (only does auto), but so far it has handled all the pics I've been taking superbly. It's only recently I've tried to do some macro photography (if you can call it that) and found the shortcomings of the lens I have. I could of course carry on using my iPhone, but I find it silly having to use a phone while I have a £2500 worth camera lying around.

I've always found the Tamron SP 90 lense fantastic for macro work , should be able to pick up a good one either evilbay or amazon

+ 1 for the Tamron Lens.

I love my Tamron macro, in fact it's my go to lens when I need
A well detailed macro shot, but I find my Mrs is always using it for flowers !

Actually you're better off with a bridge type camera (largely speaking) if you want to photograph fairly small models and assuming you don't want to spend silly money. The reason for this is to do with focal length/depth of field combined with max wide angle of lens. For small model photography you want a good wide angle and you need to be able to get really close (a macro facility). Most bridge cameras, as they use a smaller sensor will have therefore a shorter focal length and subsequently much more depth of field, plus they usually have a great macro facility. Conversely, your average lower end Nikon or Canon SLR with a modest zoom kit lens and having a larger sensor will therefore have a longer focal length and therefore less depth of field, plus no macro facility. A macro lense won't actually solve the problem as they are normally of a moderate telephoto construction. For your SLR you really need a very wide angle lens, possibly a 18mm (equiv on a 35mm) would do it. Having said that you do need a bridge camera you can manually stop down to a small aperture in order to get reasonable depth of field. You're also going to be best using a tripod.
The clues that give away the fact that a piccie is of a model are mostly, the wrong viewpoint, too little depth of field and lastly wrong camera lens angle. If you think about it your average shot of a real full size aircraft will normally be shot with the equivalent of a 28mm wide angle (35mm standard camera) and most likely at an aperture of F5.6/F11 in average daylight- this combination gives enormous depth of field, a situation you have to strive to simulate with your small model.
Bridge cameras are sort of taking over these days as they provide a more versatile and compact solution to a photographer who doesn't want to lug a heavy bag around- the Panasonic FZ200 is a good bridge camera ideal for many applications and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

Personally I use a couple of cameras.
Canon S90 as a point and click

Nikon D300 with an 85mm or 105mm Nikon macro lens if its close up. Nikon speedlight SB-600 as a flash, that works remote too which is handy.
One of the most important things for macro is possibly the tripod so a Manfrotto with a quick release does the job there.

Sometimes though, if you have a decent zoom and the light is decent you can often trim and zoom in what you want to see in camera.

ƒ/22.0 @ 0.8 sec
ISO 80
32.5 mm
Pentax K-5

This was taken in one of those cheap bought-on-ebay photo tents. Base is a gloss white acrylic sheet.

Sopwith Camel by JimD_K10D, on Flickr

ƒ/20.0 @ 0.3 sec
ISO 80
47.5 mm
Pentax K-5

Same setup with a black backdrop and a gloss black acrylic sheet base.

Fokker Dr.1 by JimD_K10D, on Flickr

Looks like I need a new video camera as I am still in Standard Defn. However I use Pinnacle Studio 18 for the editing software (as I have used Studio for years) and find it very easy to use and has a bit more flexibility than Windows MM. You can find tutorials on YouTube.

Hello,

New here, but not to photography/video. My photography arsenal includes a Nikon D800, and a D90, both of which are DSLR's, with 5 lenses including a 85mm, 1.4 MF, a 70-150mm 2.8 MF, a 70-200mm 3.5-6.5 AF, a 50mm 1.4, and a 24mm 2.8 AF.

If anyone has photo gear questions, feel free to pm me.

Welcome
Gee, I feel bad as I only have my iphone Would love a setup like yours though, maybe eventually

Thought I'd just show a pic of how I set up to take photographs of my models now. I use a Fuji s100fs camera....

I've been looking for a background like that. Going seemless from blue to white.
Seen them at Camera shops but then they are huge, like 4 meters by 2 meters.
Can you tell me where you got it?

peppie wrote:I've been looking for a background like that. Going seemless from blue to white.
Seen them at Camera shops but then they are huge, like 4 meters by 2 meters.
Can you tell me where you got it?

Here you go

https://www.calphoto.co.uk/search/gradu ... background

Thank you sir

Creating a graduated backdrop couldn't be too difficult for anyone with an airbrush. I may give it a try.

I have a nikon D7000 and some good lenses just another hobby it gets expensive. Haven't take any photos yet but cant wait to post them

Currently don't take many pictures of my models, mostly pics of the family and videos of my teen pole vaulter, but I have a Canon T1i with the following lenses:

EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
EF 50mm f/1.8 II

I have just bought a Nanguang light package that consists of 3 LED Light heads and stands, it also comes with a photo plats and 6 paper backgrounds that clip to the photo plate (clips supplied) and all comes in a handy carry bag.

The cameras I use are my Kodak Easyshare C613 or my Sony A550 DSLR with either an 18-50mm lens or 50mm macro lens.

The lighting set up, must find somewhere more handy to use it


This is the handy bag it all comes in


Les

I've just bought myself a Canon 80D DSLR and I'm looking forward to trying it out on some models.

The macro lens I'd wanted turned up a couple of days ago- it's a Nikon nikkor 40mm f2.8g af-s dx. I'm still very new to all this "proper" camera lark, but here's a non model related pic I took of a penny while playing around with the new lens.



It's a full size, cut out section of a 6000x4000 pic. I love this stuff. Now I just need to learn how to use it=)

Les0012 wrote:I have just bought a Nanguang light package that consists of 3 LED Light heads and stands, it also comes with a photo plats and 6 paper backgrounds that clip to the photo plate (clips supplied) and all comes in a handy carry bag.

That's a really neat looking setup - do you have a link to the set online anywhere?

My main camera is a Canon EOS5Dmkiii and I've got three lenses that do most of my work 16-35, 24-105 and 100-400 all Canon EF - I've also got a set of fixed focal length lenses but to be honest the zooms cover pretty much anything I want to do unless I want to get in really close with a macro.

Most of my model shots are actually done with a Canon SX710 point and shoot, unless I want to muck about with depth of field etc which is when I get the grown up one out.