"Digital Camera for Photographing Miniatures Please Help" Topic

I have been wanting to buy a new camera and would very much like anyone opinion on a good brand or set up.

This is one I found at Amazon……….. I would like to spend less then 500 USD for a camera but would like to take very nice photo's of single and group miniatures.
link

Any Advice ?? Thank you in Advance

The tripod and the lighting are probably more important

my wife just got a new one-make sure it has the ability to auto focus on multiple objects…on hers a picture of 4 people- the screen will show 4 autofocus boxes around the people's heads- amazing….but this feature is good for close up shots of 20 minis all ranked together-otherwise closest one is in focus and rest are blurry
oh and a light box.. with multiple light sources

You will want one that has a Macro lens. I do not see that listed in the specs for this camera. It may have one, I just do not see listed.

Seems to me like this camera has high noise and low image processing skills? No mention of the macro function so probably not the best device for the money! Look at a second hand DSLR with macro lens.

Make sure you have a macro feature, some cameras also have a "super-macro" setting. My other half has a Pentax with this..in the UK they go for probably less than £150, and a little mini-tripod is invaluable. These are universal and go for £10.00 GBP to £20.00 GBP
Flash always looks dreadful.
I had an old Nikon coolpix (5 years ago) and I HATED it. found it really awkward to use. However the newer ones must be better (couldn't be worse)

some pics here:
These were taken on a pentax

itinerantwargamer.blogspot.com

link

How about this ??

I have this :

link

and it is a great camera. It has a super macro function, which I find invaluable for taking pics of my minis.

The tripod and the lighting are probably more important

Make sure you have a macro feature

Heed that advice

This looks too have everything in the spec's

link

George,
As J S points out your lighting set up is more important,as for a tripod, well i`ve got one but don`t use it for photos of figures.
I use a Kodak ZD710,gives me ok results.
picture
picture
picture
picture
picture
Regards,

Nice photo's Colbert

I have a light box already ……. that came with 2 lights

I'm a Fuji fan. Super lenses, terrific macro facility and top results every time, whether you're shooting miniatures, portraits or landscapes. I'd recommend this:

link

Henry
battlegames
battlegames.co.uk

George,
I use natural daylight bulbs(2) I`ve never tried the light box.
Regards,

For Goodness sakes, go ask this question in a photo forum!

some good ones are: dcresource.com, dpreview.com, steves-digicams.com, …

All compact cameras have a macro option that will more or less do what you want.

Nikon was once leading the compact digital camera field, but walked away from it, and generally their cameras are inferior. I don't know about the P90 and they have always had good macros.

You can get a camera for under $200 USD that will do. As has been said, a tripod will be at least as important.

For $500 USD you can even think about a entry level DSLR.

Panasonic, Canon, and Fuji, maybe Sony, are pretty much the leaders right now.

All the automatic functions people are talking about are fine up to a point.

But if you're going to take miniatures photography seriously and want full control of how things come out then you' need as many manual controls as possible.

Do not consider buying a camera that does not have at least an aperture priority mode, which will allow you to control depth of field.

Program modes, automatic modes, or scene modes just will not do the job properly.

The ability to set a custom white balance is also very useful if you will be taking pictures under artificail light.

For $500.00 USD USD you can even think about a entry level DSLR.

A lot depends on how you're going to display your photos – if you're just going to post them on a blog then a DSLR is massive overkill.

And a DSLR is not necessarily the best tool for that job – which can be done well by cameras far cheaper than any DSLR.

Compact cameras generally have smaller sensors and therefore use smaller focal length lenses which give a greater depth of field (though the focal length of their lenses is always quoted as a 35mm equivalent).

Best advice you've been given so far is to go and ask on a digital photography forum.

I have exactly the same camera as Henry recommends – does everything you'd want

Mike

Because of the DOF effects, aperture control on a compact digital is not terribly important. OTOH the DOF of a macro is much shallower, and you usually want as much DOF as you can get when doing macros with miniatures (easiest way is more light), and I'm not aware of a good comparison site for compact macro capabilities.

How much George should spend depends upon what else he will do with the camera, which, as we agree, is best advised at a photo forum.

Good point about white balance.

Sony Cybershot does it for me. Nowhere near $500 USD either. If you're looking for professional results, then I can't help you. But my Cybershot takes very in-close pics, in natural light, even without a tripod (you just focus and use the 2 second delay timer and hold really still): excellent detail far over and above what you need for the Net….

Check for the minimum focal length for macro photos, in macro mode.

This is not always spelled out in the basic literature, but any decent camera, and camera store should be able to tell you what it is – note, even camera shops don't always have skilled help. You may need to check the technical brochure, or the manufacturer's website, for the info.

Mine has a short one of about 2".

Some can be as long as 12 – 20 inches, so really aren't suitable for taking photos of miniatures up close.

Good, natural lighting is best, if available. Avoid taking photos with the flash in most circumstances – just wait for better, natural light, or buy a decent two-light setup.

I have one of the small, Olympus cameras with the 10X optical zoom, and a decent macro mode.

Optical zoom is best – don't be fooled by the other ones, or a combined digital zoom rating.

You should be able to get a great camera for $200 USD – $300, and probably much less. 4 – 5 MPx should be more than sufficient.

As mentioned, use a tripod, or other base, and either a timer delay, or better yet, a remote switch.

Almost forgot to add, a large LCD screen on the back is better for helping to frame shots than the viewfinder, in my opinion.

I looked at that model about four months ago when I was looking for a new camera. From my research it is not the best camera in that class. It had consistent poor to bad reviews on picture quality and resolution. This really turned me off. You can get some good reviews with sample pictures with comarisons to other similar models, from many different brands of camera on this site.

link

direct link to the P90

link

I wound up going with a Canon SX10-IS, I was able to pick it up for $360 USD on Amazon, it looks like it can be had for $345 USD now. It was Canon's direct competitor to the Nikon P90. They have since come out with the SX1-IS, biggest change is support of HD video and RAW image format, but it is much more expensive and due to its different type of sensor actually has slightly lower image quality than the SX10-IS.

As I said I went with the Canon SX10-IS. I couldn't be happier with this camera. There are only two things that bother me about it. One is the lens cap that comes with it. It doesn't clip into the lens well after a lot of use and can fall off easily if not seated well. The other is that it doesn't have a high speed, so it doesn't do well with action shots as if I'm remembering correctly it has a max rate of 1.3 shots per second. One other thing is that it is pretty heavy for a non-DSLR so you will get tired if you are carrying it around for a while.

Other than that it is outstanding. The 20x optical, with 80x after digital allows you to take some outstanding long range zoom shots, just make sure you use a tripod or you have your arms and hands braced well as the built in image stabilization can only do so much.

It's macro capabilities are outstanding as well. In super macro mode this camera can actually have something touching the lense and still be in focus, not that you want to make a habit of having things touch the lens. The Super Macro mode is 0-8 inches. Normal macro is something like 8-18 inches if I'm remembering correctly.

It has full manual control which is a big bonus. It's got most of the features of a DSLR without the high price of one and it's lenses.

Unfortunately I can't get to Photobucket at work or I would post some links to photos I took with the camera.

Also if you buy online, be careful who you buy from. I almost bought from a company in New York, but the deal seemed too good to be true, $200 USD when most places were selling in the $360 USD to $400+ range. I decided to check them out and found a review site for businesses and they had nothing but bad reviews, of trying to get people to buy way over priced accessories when trying to buy the super low priced cameras and then not selling the camera if you refused to buy the extras. Buy from someone reputable.

To my knowledge, they did not have digital cameras back in the medieval days…

I have a sony cybershot, the equivalent now would I think be this one:
link

Works fine for taking pictures of my little men.

The main attraction though is it's usefulness for taking tourist type pictures.
My camera is pretty small and rather thin.
On holiday I can stick it in a pocket and carry it fairly easy.
That means I am MUCH more likely to have the thing on me when I want to take a picture.
That blank bit at the front slides. Protects the lens etc. When you want to take a picture you slide that down and the camera turns on.
It also has a big screen at the back which is good for reviewing your pictures.

Back to miniatures.
I have a particularly spectacular inability in the region of taking pictures of miniatures.
I've found a method works for me.
No flash.
Big tripod and a patio table…
Take pictures using the sun as a lightsource in early evening when there's at least a bit of cloud to diffuse it.
Not terribly convenient, but works pretty well.

I'll second the advice to go to a photography site. Dpreview is a good one. They have great detailed reviews and they have a forum. There are also pure photo forums around that have sections just for Macro photography. Head over there and check out what people are shooting with. I think even Flickr lists what camera takes the pictures.

for instance, Canon released four new camera models today, all of which fall into your criteria. And they're releasing another set of cameras at the beginning of September. Sony's got a new dSLR coming soon. And Nikon just released new cameras two weeks ago.

There's so much churn in the digital camera market that you really need to do your homework. Any cameras that have been recommended here that are more than six months old have probably already been discontinued.

The P90 does have Macro listed in it's specs if you look at dpreview. It's supposed to focus down to 1cm.

This is what I use:

link

and here some recent pics:

link

I would agree that light and a tripod are fundamental, as a macro function. Also, I would keep an eye on models that date immediately before the latest release. Their quality may be just as good as the latest toy, they would probably lack some of the most recent bells and whistles, but you'll probably get a significant discount on the price.

AONeill, that's the Cybershot my wife got after she liked mine: my Cybershot has the old extendable (fragile) lens, otherwise, they are identical as to picture taking quality. I think the macro on the Cybershot is 2" (don't have my manual in front of me), plenty close enough to take great closeups of minis. I too use natural light (from windows, usually not direct sunlight) and NO FLASH. A tripod is essential for some applications, but many pics can't be taken with a tripod, because of angle and access, etc: then you focus, push the button, and wait (steadily) for the time delay to go off (as I said, I use the 2 second delay a lot)….

Now why would you want a new fangled 'teen megapixel camera when you can get excellent pictures with a 2 or 3 mp one ? :D

Seriously, all those megapixels will not help you if:

1. You do not have a good, true optical macro function [not digital macro, that's usually crap and your average PC picture application doest it better]
2. You do not have good lighting around your photo subject. Good lighting is instrumental even if your camera has a very good low F number lens [like F 2.8 or even less) in macro mode. You could buy a lightning kit and in the long run this will help you achieve better photos, but in the beginning you could just try using as many household lamps as you can. Most modern cameras have a flash lamp built-in and some allow attaching external units. This is something you should check before a purchase since in some models this may not work correctly in macro mode [you will get 'burnt' photos]
3. If your hands do not shake, you may not need a tripod, but this device helps immensely even with those magic anti-shake functions in modern cameras. Good cameras have the tripod connector ;) part in metal. I saw quite a few cameras with a plastic connector…
4. Take some time and do some test photos with several cameras of the same subject if possible. See how the cameras work under different conditions and what is most important how the colors are captured / displayed. You will be shocked to see that a lot of expensive cameras even capture color poorly under low light conditions. Remember, experiment and choose the one you like most :)

Good luck !

Hi,

I did a little study of white balance with multiple photos on my blog. I would value your advice as some of you clearly know what you are talking about. I use a compact digital panasonic lumix 10x optical zoom.

link

Thanks,

John

ps Sorry for somewhat hijacking the thread, but I thought it might be somewaht helpful. I think white balance and lighting are the 2 most critical aspects of photographing miniatures.

Started with a sony cybershot and was and is happy with it.

Wanted a camera With better zoom so got an

Olympus SP-565UZ 10MP Digital Camera with 20x Optical

get pic easy to use but it is a FLINTLOCK.
The time it takes from push to snap is far to long so i was not able to use it for outside work like action shot of reanactments.

Look to trade it in on a a cyber shot with 15 zoom.

As a note a friend played at our waterloo 2008 game and use my olympus to take the pics.

lordghee photo bucket

link

I said " why are only the minatures in the forground in focus how come everything else is blurry"

Friend shuffling his feet " oh you wanted like a magazine photo, I took it so the subject would be in focus, like a model shoot."

He thought he took some great photos but I thougt that you should be able to see it all.

Know what you want

Lord Ghee

Ah yes, I forgot the timer setting,
I always set it to 3 second.
Click.
Let go the tripod.
It settles down…
Takes picture.

Works way better than any other method I have tried.
Some people are dyslexic.
I'm photographically challenged.
The cybershot still manages to take pretty good pictures for me… so long as I stick to my method.

I poked around a little bit. It turns out that depth of field when close is pretty much tied to magnification. Therefore, while one camera might have a better macro lens than another, their depth of field is pretty much the same for a given shot. In fact, if you are shooting for the web, it is better to zoom out, then crop the center, rather than "fill the frame" and reduce the image in photoshop.

The one measure of a macro is the minimum field of view, but it's hard to find that information, because the sites that do publish it are only concerned about the better cameras these days. However, I believe nearly all quality compacts have a sufficient macro capacity for miniatures.

So it's pretty much what else you want to do with the camera that counts…

I have a Canon Powershot with a Macro fonction : the results are not so good when I'm taking pics of miniatures…

The best results I get are with my Gsm phone !!!
My Gsm is "HTC Diamond".

Did you try to take a picture of your miniatures with your Gsm phone ??
It's very easy and the result is really good.

White set probably refers to a custom white balance settings. Most cameras have the option to set that. What you want to do is point the camera at some white (a piece of paper) or pure gray (it can't have any color) that's illuminated by the lighting your subject is under. Then you can measure a custom white balance temperature. This should give you true color (depending). If you're using a mixture of lights with differing color temperatures, the colors will vary across the image, depending on which light is dominant at any place.

And you don't always have to get up real close to take a "macro" photo. You can use a very long lens from a few feet away and get the same look. The following was shot with a 320mm equivalent lens.

link

Of course, it's up to you whether to want to spend the $2,500 USD for the camera kit…

I take all of the pictures on my blog with a little 7 megapixel kodak, just make sure you have a lot of light and photoshop.

cavenderia.blogspot.com

just make sure you have a lot of light and photoshop.

No need for Photoshop. There's several good free programmes out there that do a good job.

Or Photoshop Elements does 95% of what Photoshop does for 10% of the price.

Does anyone know ……… if the Multi Face tracking feature allow you to focus on multipul figs ….. in ranks or just the first fig ?

The face recognition may or may not work depending upon how well the sculpting and painting simulates a real face. And it may be turned off in macro mode…

However it should put as many faces as it can recognize into focus…if it has enough depth of field. If it's not, it may simply be because you are magnifying the image too much. You would have to zoom out some.

RE: Photoshop -- can anyone recommend a good freeware program for Mac? I do not need anything fancy, but I'd like something a little more sophisticated than iPhoto for some final touches.

DestoFante

If you have X11 installed on Mac OSX (if not, it should be on your installation disk, perhaps under Developer Tools) then try GIMP:

gimp.org/macintosh

Henry
Battlegames
battlegames.co.uk

I use a tethered canon A 610 using PS Remote link I can preview the shots on my computer screen and take multiple shots with various focus points. With that I can edit the photo to give much greater depth of field than is possible with a single shot.

I found a cheap camera was better than an expensive one, for the "depth of field" reasons some have said. Having good lighting, clean background and a stable platform to take photos (ie tripod) are also more important.

If you are taking photos to put on the web, you don't need huge megapixels – 1 or 2 is ample.

I produced a disturbingly "looks-a-bit-shoddy but gets good results" guide to taking photos on my website here.

link

Tim

Hi Tim,

Nice little tutorial.

Hi Destofante,

I got to admit, I found GIMP a bit of a challenge, Henry must be very patient. You can download a full trial version of Photoshop Elements and use it for free for 1 month, which I am doing now. It seems quite a bit more intuitive than GIMP.

John

George, I just bought an Olympus S830, which has a good super-macro mode on it, I walked out the store a little under $300 USD lighter, tax included.

There's also a very nice Pentax model (S60?) that has an incredible Macro mode, you can put the lens about 1cm from the subject and it will focus sharply. The store didn't have the Pentax point-and-shoot, or I would have considered it.

$15 USD for a baby tripod. Spend the rest of the $500 USD on a good lighting setup, like a 300w halogen work light, or a quartet of 50w halogen desk lights. Go to the local art-supply store (Michael's will do nicely), and get some light blue or light gray posterboard, and make a light box.

I wouldn't buy a Nikon point-and-shoot, personally, but I would buy a full-on DSLR.

Keeping up with what are good compact cameras these days is pretty much trying to track a moving target. They're all good.

Digital technology for the compact is now pretty mature. You can do some playing about with face detection modes and video modes, but the limit of what can be squeezed out of a tiny sensor is pretty much at the limit.

My own rules of thumb are to get a camera with a good piece of glass on it- a largish quality lens gets the physics of focusing tiny rays of light onto the sensor working in your favour. Small bits of glass aren't your friend.

I'd also (if feasible) think about a camera that gives you a RAW option, and one with superb manual controls (perhaps the Panasonic LX3, Leica glass is sweet).

PS Elements is rather kind to beginners, as is Corel PSP. If you can put the time and effort in, GIMP is both powerful and free.

But mostly, macro photos aren't just about the camera. Being able to control camera shake (tripod is good) or lighting (flash is good, diffuse it though or it will be too harsh).

Personally I'm very much an SLR/DSLR kind of guy these days (is 5 SLR camera too much?). But the camera you get should basically be in line with your intended uses.

YEs, the macro feature is what you need. It allows for a very short focus. I have a Sony Cyber-shot 7.2 pixels that I paid about $250 USD for (IIRC) and it does just fine. And I don't use or need a tripod.

I would like to thank everyone for there kind imput and help