RC Tank Warfare community hobby forum

P1040252 by Jaap van der Kooij, on Flickr

P1040253 by Jaap van der Kooij, on Flickr

P1040254 by Jaap van der Kooij, on Flickr

P1040255 by Jaap van der Kooij, on Flickr

P1040256 by Jaap van der Kooij, on Flickr

P1040257 by Jaap van der Kooij, on Flickr

P1040258 by Jaap van der Kooij, on Flickr

P1040259 by Jaap van der Kooij, on Flickr

P1040260 by Jaap van der Kooij, on Flickr

P1040261 by Jaap van der Kooij, on Flickr

P1040262 by Jaap van der Kooij, on Flickr

P1040263 by Jaap van der Kooij, on Flickr

P1040264 by Jaap van der Kooij, on Flickr

P1040265 by Jaap van der Kooij, on Flickr

P1040266 by Jaap van der Kooij, on Flickr

P1040267 by Jaap van der Kooij, on Flickr

P1040268 by Jaap van der Kooij, on Flickr

P1040269 by Jaap van der Kooij, on Flickr

P1040270 by Jaap van der Kooij, on Flickr

P1040271 by Jaap van der Kooij, on Flickr

I love the dimpled surface that becomes apparent when WW2 armour is seen 'in the flesh', so to speak. It's also one of the hardest features to replicate, believably, in scale form.
At least the Russians appear to have provided a well-lit display area, as this is needed for close-up photography. I found the lighting to be a tad on the dim side at Bovington, and The Munster Panzer Museum. Well, for my older iPhones (v4 and v6), that is.
I think my iPhone 8+ could perform a lot better there, now.
A decent SLR with flash, is another story.
Excellent photos, by the way, Jee.

Thanks,
I used my Panasonic G5 as it is rather small and still give decent pictures.
The halls in Kubinka are mostly well lighted. some parts are a bit dark, but there I used my flash.
I didnt want to use too much the flash as I wasnt sure it was allowed.
So, I put it on P, iso 1600 and made most pictures like that.

For the pictures with the high position, I used a monopod, together with stretching my arms it was just enough.

jee wrote:Thanks,
I used my Panasonic G5 as it is rather small and still give decent pictures.
The halls in Kubinka are mostly well lighted. some parts are a bit dark, but there I used my flash.
I didnt want to use too much the flash as I wasnt sure it was allowed.
So, I put it on P, iso 1600 and made most pictures like that.

For the pictures with the high position, I used a monopod, together with stretching my arms it was just enough.

Again, some useful info for future snap-happy visitors
I also use a mirrorless camera for its relative compactness: the Canon EOS M50 (with an 18-150 mm lens), coupled with a sturdy Manfrotto Monopod- when travelling. The monopod also helps support my right ankle, which is full of titanium screws.
Panasonic makes excellent cameras, and their compact travel models are superb.
However, with the quantum leap in photo-tech found in iPhones- especially in the last three iterations, up to the latest 13 Pro- carting a camera bag around has become less necessary.

43rdRecceReg wrote: I love the dimpled surface that becomes apparent when WW2 armour is seen 'in the flesh', so to speak. It's also one of the hardest features to replicate, believably, in scale form.

I would argue that a lot of those vehicles didn't have some of that "pitting" during the war. There are a lot of military vehicles that sat outside for a great number of years before being painted or restored. So many WW2 vehicles were dumped in scrap yards after the war and only rescued years later. Some of it is actual texture from manufacturing and some of it is from the 5, 10, 15, 20, or more years sitting out in the elements.

Yep. Rust for sure on some of those plates. On period photos German rolled steel was very smooth.