Many new photographers think they need a $900 DSLR coupled with a $500 Macro lens to take good photos. While it's true these setups produce amazing photos, you can get great photos with a simple point and shoot camera. There are really only two things you need, the ability to see the coin (macro focus), and the ability to cast light on the coin (lamp). My camera I have is a Nikon Coolpix S8200, they can be had for around $249.99 new. That's better than spending $500 on a DSLR that comes with a half-assed lens for macro capability. They come with just a "general purpose" lens. Anyway, as I was saying, even if you have a $89.99 point and shoot, lighting is paramount to image quality. Now I will admit, I'm not using the best lighting set up, but I'm just proving my point. This photo was taken under a 100 watt equivelant CFL light on a ceiling fan. This is the type of photo I see a lot of newbies take. This is the same coin, same angle, same everything. The ONLY thing changed, was the addition of a 40 watt GE Reveal lamp. As you can see, night and day difference. I decided to use something else for another comparison. These are shots taken with a 8.9 MP sensor on a cheap camcorder. Before: After:
Brighter, cleaner light, outdoor quality, longer lasting, plus when photographing slabbed coins you don't get a reflection/shadow of that black writing on the end of the GE bulbs (you know, that says the watts, and has the logo). Just try it. You'll be shocked at the difference between this and a GE bulb from Wal-Mart. "Like night and day!" (Pun intended).
I sometimes use Ott and/or Reveal in 100w eqiv (among others), and depending on the subject can achieve fine results, so does that mean you're quickie lighting set up is better because of the bulb, or that maybe, just maybe, the ceiling fan and/or photographer could have something to do with it? While I agree that there is no need for a DSLR to produce quality coin images, this does not mean your P&S is a better camera. As for the "half-assed" kit lenses, I can tell you that the 18-55mm that comes on most consumer-level Nikon DSLRs is a fine general purpose lens capable of focusing down fairly close, even with out the use of diopters, which means most wishing to use such a camera for basic coin imaging do not need to buy a dedicated macro unless they want to. Perhaps I've misunderstood, but you seem to be implying that higher MPs automatically equal better image quality. If so, do you believe that your 16.1MP 1/2.3 (6.17 x 4.55 mm) sensor is absolutely capable of achieving higher quality results than a Nikon D700 at 12MP (36x24mm), or even an inexpensive consumer DSLR with an APS-C sensor (23.5 x 15.6 mm)? Nice effort, Tim, but if you're going to claim that your camera is "better" than another, at least have the decency to tell your readers, based on facts, why. Perhaps you could weigh the pros and cons and allow the reader to decide what is best for them.
Umm, for the record... no photographer would recommend a $900 camera body and a $500 lens. If you're buying a $500 Micro-Nikkor macro lens, you're likely dealing with a $250-$350 Nikon D-body camera. If you're buying a low-end full frame $900 body, you'd likely be buying $2000+ pro lenses. Beyond that, the MP value on the sensor is deceptive. As Books stated, a larger sensor with less MP will (assuming we're not talking some ridiculous scenario like a 20MP 10mmx10mm sensor going against a 400k 11mmx11mm sensor) produce better images, since the size of the pixel is going to be larger. The reasoning is this: Let's say you have a pixel the size of a grain of sand vs a pixel the size of a golf ball. It will take many of the sand sized pixels to generate the same information that is captured by the one golf ball pixel.
I don't think he was trying to imply that his camera was "better", just that you don't need a fancy high end camera to take good pictures. Tim is on the right track. Lighting and technique is more important than the camera. We have all seen some really good images made with cheap point and shoot cameras. Sure maybe not professional quality, but maybe 90 - 95% of the way there. And if you don't have the right lighting and technique the best camera in the world will still give you crummy pictures.
BTW, Tim, you can't say the only thing that changed was adding a bulb. The photos aren't the same composition. Adding light allows the autofocus to adjust better, since it's not attempting to use a really wide aperture setting to capture light. Secondly, I'm not sure that the photos are necessarily better if they represent a brown coin as nickel colored. You're headed in the right direction, but you likely need to use bulbs with higher temperatures.
Who honestly knew that adding light would brighten the picture before Tim started this thread? Timmah!!!
