digital camera for modeling question

I've decided it's about time to bite the bullet and lay out for a digital camera. I've narrowed the decision down to a couple of Olympus models, with virtually identical features (optical zoom, memory, yadda yadda)- one has 3.2 megapixels, and the other has 4.0. I know the mantra is 'buy the most camera you can afford' , and more megapixels is obviously a good thing, but for model photography, is the additional 0.8 megapixels going to make a signficant difference? Enough difference to justify, say the cost of two nice Tamiya kits? (Especially if one of those is the Carrera GT?)

Also, is there anything I shold know/look for regarding macro/closeup photography? Will most or all digital cameras do OK? I'm frequently impressed with the close up pics some of you guys manage, and I know I usually can't do that well with film. When I ask salespeople about it, they tend to be pretty clueless. Not many car modelers at my local electronics store, I guess.

Anyone have a favorite camera for shooting models?

Megapixels dont play much of a role with model photogrpahy. I have a 2.0 Megapixel camera with macro and my model pictures are clear as anything.

Make sure the camera has MACRO...its a must!

Most of my pics are made by Cannon A70 from my co-worker at the office. The blury ones are made with my uncles Sony. I'm planning to buy one and it's gonna be Cannon. Good quality/price ratio.

'Bout the Mpix. If you'll do some photo editing, than 4 Mpix would be better, but for ordinary pics I would go with 3.2 Mpix.You should also pay attention to the display - the bigger it is, more battery it will use.
If you have an option, choose few of your favorite cameras and test them at the store. Take a picture of the same object with all the cameras and take the one you're most comfortable with.

To me, if you have a awsome model car and a fuzzy picture, you have a bad model car, becuase you cant show the quality of the model.

I would say keep saving even more and by the time you have the money camera prices will have droped another $40, Get somthing that isnt below 4MP, you will notice the difference in the end and im sure you wont only shoot model cars, when i first got mine i thought i was but i was wrong, i shoot more action than anything......

A good camera is well worth your money!!

www.dpreview.com :)

Megapixels are getting to be like the sales guys always trying to sell the computer with the fastest processor even though the computer has a junk video card and the customer wants to play games(the card is more important)What I'm trying to say is it depends what you want to to do. For most pictures 3.2 is plenty high(2.1 is a bigger pic than any normal computer monitor can display)And the files can get huge. Only profesionals taking magazine pics or doing photo retouch really need these really high megapixels. Optical Zoom and Macro are far more important. My pics are all taken on a 2.1 megapixel Kodak(3 yrs old)they have to be greatly reduced to get the 80Kb max for board posting.

For modeling, you need macro mode and a real zoom.

Olympus might not be the best choice, but not the worst.. if you like it, go for it !

for modeling, a 2mpix is ok (all piction on my web gallery are from a Nikon 2Mpix)

For most pictures 3.2 is plenty high(2.1 is a bigger pic than any normal computer monitor can display)


Megapixel are for printing use, not for "computer monitor use"

if it would be for computer only, a 1Mpix would be fine..

3.2Mpix are fine to print picture of 8"/10", which is a perfect choice.
4Mpix and more give you a spare for croping your picture

Megapixel are for printing use, not for "computer monitor use"

if it would be for computer only, a 1Mpix would be fine..

3.2Mpix are fine to print picture of 8"/10", which is a perfect choice.
4Mpix and more give you a spare for croping your picture

I know, that's what I meant about magazine pix. I know from a printer's perspective you need as high a res as possible.

I use a sony 5mpix and i get good pics. Ask mike. He has seen what it does but i use 4.5 mode and not 5 mode.

Unless you want to print nice 8"x10" photos 3.2 MP is just fine. As mentioned the MP is more for printing use not posting.

I have found that Nikon's have the closest Macro. Nikon's can be a little fuzzy on the edges but that's being nit-picky. I owned an Olympus, they are nice as well but the best Macro I could get was a couple inches (off whatever I was taking). With my Nikon I can get as close as inch, sometimes less.

The Nikons from 2 to 4 MP are very good at macro, the white balance works well etc. There is a BIG rebate on the 4 meg model right now.
Go here:Camera reviews (http://www.imaging-resource.com/) , click on "Daves picks" then "Macro" :p

i have a 3 mega pixel. but i only use 640x480 picture sizes. so theres really no point for me to buy such a ncie camera if i want to just use it to take 640 x 48- pics. but i do use the full size to take pics of "stuff"

hehe me personally ... i dont use the macro setting ... i stand back a little bit and zoom in on the car ... better depth of field that way then from the macro setting ... plus then you can use a flash as well to kill some shadows (or photograph on a nice overcast day outside) ...

3.2 mp is good enough
optical zoom > digital zoom
compact flash memory card = cheapest memory out there
built in flash is a plus but one that will also accept an external flash is good to

most cameras have a poritrait setting on the configurations ... that works the best (as far as presets go) for taking photos of a model car ...

lighting and background of the model a lot of times can make a picture ... more then having the right mp camera ...