Coin Magnifying Camera

WRONG! I bought one for $35 and it works great! See...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I purchased an eFlex microcamera and didn't like the results, so I guess I'll try a light box with different lighting effects and experiment with it. From past experience in lighting some of the lighting spectrum can be disastrous to photographing a coin, especially fluorescent (cool white) lamps. I'm unsure of the led lighting I've seen in the light boxes and the effects on coins. Cheap is cheap.

 

I am referring to the microscope cameras that cannot work at all without a computer. They are completely tied to it. If that's what you have, which has lasted for six years, I am amazed. The thing I bought didn't last three months.

 

Like others, I thought that an expensive camera would generate the 'best' pictures, and while they are very good, 'best' is subjective. More than not, what's needed is a quick method to generate 'optimal' photos that express a condition/item that you wish others to comment on. Simple, low tech solutions are generally what's needed.

Sure enough, there are setups and equipment that create awesome pictures...which is a great way to capture your collection and make for awesome presentations (especially when the coins are in the vault/bank and not readily accessible). A means to an end. Picking the right one is what's being discussed.

As we often see here, newbies are still in the learning mode for photo taking as they are in coin collecting. With time, experimentation, reading...things come into 'focus'. While some camera phones are challenged, in my experience the issue mainly resides in the photography and the photographer. Tons of posts here and elsewhere discuss the matter to a much fuller extent. A Search Tool is a terrible thing to waste. Many newbies can answer their questions with some time and reading...and plenty of experimentation. Personally, I find great satisfaction capturing a fine shot with a low tech solution. And many members here have a mastery of their phones/setups to generate some splendid shots of their coins.

As in golf, it's less the equipment and more the golfer. Stick with it and improve.

 

Unfortunately its a microscope; not a camera. I would guess I did focus on the label...granted it still needs some fine tuning. I tried scanning on a scanner - which worked ok with un-slabbed coins. The coin did look fuzzy...I was hoping it was just me - def appreciate the feedback!!

This seems to be a very popular subject here...without an real decisive answer like "this is what you need to buy".

 

You aren't the first to say this, and others have insisted that only halogen (incandescent) bulbs are acceptable when examining a coin to grade it.

I have a feeling that it's less about spectrum and more about size. An unfrosted incandescent bulb (without a reflector) emits light from a very small area; a fluorescent lamp, or a frosted bulb of any kind close to the coin, emits light from a larger area.

A point source (small area) is best for highlighting luster, hairlines, and rub. A wide or diffused source will make it harder to see all of these. That alone would make fluorescent a bad choice.

Spectrum: an incandescent bulb has a very smooth spectrum, although it's usually weighted toward the red and away from blue. Fluorescent bulbs have irregular spectra, with several strong lines (spikes). LED bulbs tend to have a large spike in the blue spectrum, and a broad hump from red through green.

I'd expect this to make a difference when you're trying to capture toning. For everything else, though, color just isn't that significant, and I'm not sure why it would matter what spectrum you're using. You want to see luster, hits, damage, and wear, and all of those behave the same no matter what color you're using.

One last thing for photography: flicker. Old four-foot fluorescent tubes (office lighting) tend to flicker 60 or 120 times per second in the US, 50 or 100 times per second in UK. Compact fluorescent bulbs flicker faster, but still flicker, and might have the 50/60-hz cycle superimposed on that. Incandescent bulbs in general don't flicker enough to notice. LED bulbs -- some do, some don't.

This is important to cameras, though, because if you're using a short exposure, it might happen to fall while the light source is unusually dim or bright. (My latest camera actually warns me if it thinks my lighting is flickering). That's an argument in favor of incandescent lights. I'm still hoping to make it work with LED sources, though; I hate the heat of incandescents, and I doubt that coins like it much either.

 

Oh, gotcha. I misunderstood your post. I do not have a microscope camera, this is a regular DSLR that I have tethered to the computer.

 

The old fluorescent 4' lighting used starters whilst the newer used ballast type of transformers which are by energy compliant standards now electronic. Yes there are many colors in the lighting spectrum available in different combinations of red, blues and green. Most likely the best one is a "Full Spectrum" light which mimics daylight and is also known as a "grow light" and can be special ordered. Incandescent "type A" or Edison base lamps are inefficient and the candle power is to low to capture the best features of a coin, IMO. Halogen is extremely hot and bright. I've seen some what I think are to complicated setups for photography on CT, but each to their own. I follow the KISS theory "Keep It Simple Stupid" and it usually makes sense. LOL

 

I'd agree if you're using a video camera, or a cell-phone camera, or one of these USB microscopes. If you're shooting with a DSLR, you can just up the exposure time, although that can be inconvenient.

 

Cheap Canon point and shoot.






Expensive Nikon DSLR

 

Both look good to me. Sharp, clear images that show the coins off well.

 

Which means you don't have to go overboard and spend a boatload of money to achieve decent shots of coins. And I think the photographic angle is way better than the microscope.

 

I use my iPhone (either a 5S or 6S) and a single ocular on my microscope for closeup shots. But frankly the LED lights are difficult to diffuse and pictures can be washed out. I've been playing around with different media to soften the light, but more experimentation is needed. And for most things, a clear shot at optimal distance can be blown up to capture most of the finer details anyway.

Low tech...low cost. The phones weren't cheap, but when replaced, they serve their new purpose just fine. If I get crazy...I breakout my Nikon.

 

Before you buy one, make sure it zooms. I bought one in November and then realized it doesn't, so I have to move it closer or further away from the coin to get what I want. I wasted my money and now will have to buy another one that does zoom.

 

John, make sure the zoom feature is an optical one and not a digital one or you will get more pixelation in the view as a digital zoom ( adds material that is software generated and may not be actual). Jim

 

It would have been nice to see both camera shots of the same coin for a better comparison. Both coins looks good regardless of the camera used.

 

Sorry. Didn't have 'em on the desktop. The point of the post was not to compare images of like coins but to show folks the fact that good coin shots can be had by cheaper cameras. In other words, you don't have to pay a bundle on an expensive DSLR to do decent coin photography.

Unless you didn't like my photogs.......

 

The Canon IS camera is great , I still use mine on larger coins with the close-up shroud accessory. Of course it has higher resolution and their IS ( Image Stabilization) is terrific if your quivery Jim

 

I disagree. I don't have a bunch of extra cheddar laying about for a camera at that price point so I took a $25 gamble on this guy here from Amazon.

Couple of minor complaints but all in all a very good budget option for a guy like me.

l

 

Halogen and incandescent are not the same.

I can filter images on my phone to capture the accurate representation needed.