Scanner or Digital Camera images

Hello,

Does everyone use a digital camera for pictures? What are the opinion of scanned coins images? Which one is prefered? Can anybody tell the difference? Just wondering wich way to go is best...

Thank You

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think a scanner is a pretty good way to go. But i would not know, I don't have one. It seems like it would be the easiest way though. I put my MacBook camera up to a loupe . Not great but it's all I have for now.

 

QUICK AND DIRTY : Scanners. They're easy; anyone can do it.

HIGH QUALITY : Digital cameras. ALL the best images are photos. When quality counts, cameras are a must.

Quality images make a BIG difference in selling on the net; better photos, better price when selling.

There have been a number of CT threads on this topic. Search the internet. There's even a book coming out.

 

A scanner is great for decent quality, quick & dirty images. A camera, used properly, is going to give better overall images in general IMO.

 

So anyone have a recommended digital camera and lens combo for great macro/closeup shots?

 

One thing a scanner absolutely won't pick up is luster, so an MS, an AU and an XF will often look the same.

 

I've tried this trick after seeing Doug mention it earlier and it does help. I'm sure with more practice (and patience) I could get it down.

I've been getting some pretty good pics as of late off a scanner. Copper has been real good and that's always tough on a scanner.
Cranking up the dpi and leaving the lid OPEN helps a lot in this process I have found.

My biggest scanning problem now is proof coins. They get "streaky" as it were.

Scanners are great and easy. NOT just dirty pics as mentioned earlier. You can make them work.

Still I plan on buying a decent camera as I want to have both options.

 

I'm pretty low-tech with cameras, so I just went down to Best Buy electronics with some coins, asked to see some cameras with good macro, turned off the flash and gave it a try. I found several with excellent results. Mine is a Sony DSC-H1.

Then I got a small camera stand ($20); that removes any human-induced jitter at the moment of shooting.

Another handy feature - an auto-timer. The kind you use for group photos that enables the photographer to get into the picture.

Mount the camera on the stand, focus, then shoot using the auto-timer. That ensures that any hand action from pushing the shutter doesn't affect the photo.

Also get one that does auto white-balancing.

 

I use a scanner for modern coins and a digital camera for ancient coins.

The ancients don't have flat surfaces and somehow my scanner picks up extra light from them.

Both HP scanner and Olympus camera are from around 2001.

 

All my coins and notes are scanned I just cant get the hang of using my camera to do it LOL

 

I use a Sony Cybershot DSC-V1. Can't say I prefer it as it's the only one I've ever used though. Not that it doesn't work well. It's got 5 MP and it gets the job done.

 

I scan my coins and mostly they come out OK,I scan at high resolution
and get really good detail but,scans seem to bring out many hairlines and imperfections
that aren't noticeable even under a glass.
And at times coins seem to come out with color problems
that you don't see in hand ,changes toning colors,maby.

 

This really sums up the issue. I've seen GDJMSP's scanned images and they are OK (better than most other scanned images), but a camera would do much better. People generally don't have the proper equipment or knowledge, let alone macro photography equipment or knowledge, to produce decent images. If that's you, then you probably would be better off scanning.

It's showing the hairlines and imperfections due to what I'd term "ugly lighting" - the flat, more or less uncontrollable scanner light. It's along the same lines as why you see RED EYES in snapshots (and not in professional portraits). Direct, straight-on light rarely makes anything look good, unless you're going for that flat look. Multiple, angled light sources will show dimension, etc., etc.

 

A digital camera with macro can be had for $200. Easy to learn. To each their own.

 

And that's exactly what I'm talking about, and exactly why most people can't get good results. There's just a bit more to it than, "A digital camera with macro can be had for $200. Easy to learn."

 

I should have prefaced my question with I'm an videographer, editor, dp, producer and director.. While I have years of experience with film & video it doesn't help with coins much.

Ideally I am looking for a digital camera I can mount, connect via USB, and take and store photos all at once via the USB (remote control).

 

I'm not sure where the gaps are? Maybe macro photography of shiney objects (just guessing, but really I have no idea).

Regarding, "I am looking for a digital camera I can mount, connect via USB, and take and store photos all at once via the USB (remote control)." This is software driven, though this isn't what I do so I can't tell you what's better than what. I know the software that comes with my Canon cameras has that type of live direct to computer via USB shooting capability, but for all I know, all cameras might have this. Although I was a Hassy and Nikon guy with film cameras, it seems I've locked into Canon for low-end digital. Even a cheap, used Canon Rebel might do the trick (interchangable lens, 6MP, with the often packaged 18-55 lens which is pretty good for a $100 lens really, plus it's a macro to 0.9ft). If this is for a personal inventory, this might be too much, but it's a decent camera for other things. I'll probably be selling mine, thus I've looked into about how much they run used and it seems like it comes in around $350.

If interchangable lenses aren't needed, and you're looking for more of an all around, smaller camera, then you might want to check out the Canon S5 IS (there are two versions, the newer has 8MP). It's one of those 12x zoom point and shoots on crack type. It has nice some advanced modes, and pretty amazing macro abilities for what it is. I haven't compared the quality to the 18-55 lens, but I took a few test shots and it's a pretty cool little camera. But you had better like the glass as it's fixed and can't be removed.

 

A canon powershot S3 or S5 IS. I use the S3, and the macro capabilities are amazing. No extra lens needed =)

 

May as well take this a step further.
If you want really good close ups a microscope is very helpful.

I use a QX3. It's a kid's toy basically that hooks into a USB. It has 10x, 60x and 200x settings. I prefer the 60x as 200x can be tough to adjust.

Your images show up on your computer screen and are easily stored. Great for error collectors.

I'll try and get a few pics later.