Yet another camera question

Thanks again dougsmit, that's a nice shot. That's what I'm trying to accomplish. I'm starting to understand the type of shot I'm after and, right, I was going about it the wrong way. Wouldn't the distance you're talking about just fall under the wide specs listed above at 7.9"? Or is this still the wrong lense altogether? And (sorry for drilling you) what about the optical/digital zoom - is there a comfort range for those type shots? And.....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The problem is that if you do not fill the frame, you reduce the quality of the shot. My example uses half of the area so it will be OK. If you have to shoot with twice as much empty space, you will have half as big an image. At some point, the quality loss becomes a problem. If you already own a camera, you make do with the problem. If you are shopping for a camera, it might be better to buy one that has better abilities for coins.

 

Cameras are better than USB microscopes or scanners for numismatography

Neither scanners nor microscopes can give the results of macro photography. Scans lack depth and the lighting is always at the same angle. People who are adept with a scanner can get satisfactory results, but there is a danger of scratching the scanner glass and that is almost unavoidable if many coins are laid on the glass and possibly slid around or rotated.

Folks on ebay have described light wear occurring on high points of MS coins they scanned. Remember that glass is made from sand and at a microscopic level, the surface of glass can look like sandpaper, especially in the area of any flaw in the glass, like a pre-existing scratch on th e glass. With many of today's scanners, the glass is a non-serviceable item, and when the glass gets scratched enough, the only remedy is a new scanner.

USB microscopes are severely limited in depth of field, so it you have a coin tilted at all, the microscope will not be able to get the entire coin in good focus.

But cameras, too, are limited when using macro feature or micro lenses. In that case, moving the camera twice as far from the coin will effectively double the depth of field.

Remember that it is difficult to evenly illuminate a coin for photos if the end of the lens is only an inch or two away from the coin. That's the reason I moved to a DSLR and 60mm micro lens.

Scanners cannot produce images like this, but the macro feature on point-and-shoots or macro or micro lenses on DSLR's can achieve similar results. : )

 

Really? Is that all you need (from the camera/lens point of view)?

 

While there is nothing wrong with the 60mm macro (a very nice lens), I prefer longer for the additional working distance. 100mm is better; 150mm is better yet. If I were starting from scratch and wanted to make the best possible coin photos, I would buy a DSLR with the longest macro lens my budget would allow.

'Need' is a different matter than 'Prefer'. For that matter we all have different definitions of 'Good Enough' and 'Overkill'. If all you do with photos is to sell on eBay, almost any half-decent camera, used properly, can do.

 

Well, I am starting from scratch, but I don't want the best possible coin photos (mostly I want it for outdoor family stuff) -- just "nice" coin photos is good enough for me. I was thinking "near bottom of the line but decent" DSLR.

So, I was thinking a Canon XSi, which comes with a 18-55mm lens, and then a zoom that was something along the lines of a 50-150mm.

Thoughts?

 

Clyde, a River God

.

Doug is right; I don't disagree. I use my Nikon D300 with an excellent 105mm VR Micro ED-IF lens as well, but I prefer the 60mm micro ED lens because it is smaller and I take my photos on the leaf of my desk. I use a good Bogen Manfrotto tripod instead of a copy stand, and I use the camera's self-timer or a remote trigger, or set controls and trigger shutter from my MacBook Pro with software that gives me Live View, through the lens, viewed on my computer monitor.

It's what I want to use and is entirely adequate. : )




.

 

I think the photo that Dougsmit took with his wife's digital camera shows how good a cheap point and shoot can be with decent light. That's not a bad photo for a $125 camera. It's way better than most I see on eBay.

Now look at the photo of the Portsea Conder token that Larry posted. I have that token in a lesser grade and I am seeing details that I never knew existed. Not bad for a $4000 camera.

If you are happy with a Toyota then you don't really need a Ferrari. Same with cameras. Find one that works well and fits your budget. You may have to look at a bunch to find one that you like. I'm a fan of Canon and can recommend all their products. I have had cameras not work right out of the box but never a Canon. They have great tech support too, if you have a problem call them and they will help you out. I like Nikon too.

Here is my setup, an old Canon 20D from 2004 with a 100mm Canon macro lens and a 420EX diffused Speedlite mounted on a Kaiser copy stand. All this cost about $2500.



The copy stand makes a big difference. And yet with all this fancy equipment I sometimes take horrible photos. Usually too much light is my problem.

But once in a while I take a photo as good as Larrys.



Well, almost...:whistle:

 

You have the advantage, Hiho

.

You have more time to take pictures because I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to auction YOUR coins. LOL

Actually, a copy stand like yours would be nice to have, and if I had that, I'd also get a pair of those Kaiser 300 watt lamps like Mark Goodman uses. I read his Numismatic Photography book then sent him some photos. I asked if he had any suggestions; all I got were compliments.

I had borrowed the book for 12 weeks from the ANA Library, but recently when buying The Soho Mint & the Industrialization of Money, I picked up a copy of Mark's book for here in my office.

I am breaking in my new copy of PhotoShop CS4. I took the photo this morning and prepared this invite for a friend. This is simply a screenshot of one draft.







.

 

Larry's token is an exceptionally fine photo. Some might say the token is responsible but those of us who take pictures recognize that Larry really did his part very, very well.