I have realized that I NEED a decent camera to represent my coins. Here's a picture from my scanner. http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x275/clembo1872/scan0006.jpg After much adjustment the toning is relatively close but the detail is non-existent. This is an 1861 3 Cent Silver in an ANACS MS63 slab and it IS a beautiful coin. I'm an idiot when it comes to cameras but want to buy a decent one for let's say less than $300? I realize I will need a tripod as well. Simplicity is a key here friends. I can learn as I go through experimentation but repeat that I'm an idiot when it comes to cameras. Looking for something fairly simple to operate that will get me better pics of my coins. I SINCERELY thank you in advance for your help in this matter. clembo
The camera i use is a cheap alterative to an SLR, and its a SLR/Point and shoot hybred. Its a canon S3 IS, and it only costs around 300-350. Its macro capabilities are unbelievable, and you can change lens' out with it like an SLR.
Primary features you need: 1) Macro capability 2) Ability to review pictures rapidly So you need a digital camera with macro feature. I use a Canon PowerShot A630 without a tripod. It has 8.1 MPixels, but that is most likely more than is needed for the purpose of coin photography. To avoid the tripod, I set the coin up in a lot of light, preferably natural. Below is an example of about what my limits are for a close shot (mintmark on a Barber dime). Keep in mind I've reduced the file size for the forum, the real photo can be blown up more than this attachment. The camera cost $330.
Sony Mavica FD-71: http://www.uscents.com/articles/DCP/DCP004.htm FD-71 @ eBay ($80-100): http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=Mavica+FD-71&category0= Spend the other $200 on a VDB or something.
Can you scan a MS63+ Morgan with tons of luster? Maybe a Proof ASE as well? See questions in other thread.
Thank you samjimmy. I can usually get a pretty good scan of a circulated coin be it copper, nickel or silver but jump up to high luster and I lose it. Slabs seem to present a real problem too as it seems I capture the high points of the coin nicely (like the 3 cent silver I scanned) but the lower areas are horrible. The star is sharp but the date and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are awful. It's actually a well struck coin. I like my scanner and have a microscope for close ups. Yup, I need a camera.
I use a Sony Cyber whatever it is called and it comes in at about that price. I will say this, Scanners have BETTER detail (pound for pound). Thats the problem. They kill the luster by recording ever defect in the surface with equal fidelity. Ruben
If the question is can I scan those and capture the luster - yes I can. I use the same technique I use to capture color with a scanner - all that is required is that you tilt the coin slightly on the scanner bed. You do that placing something under one edge - about 1/4" thick. That's what you see at the top of the pic I posted. As for how to get fine detail, scan at a high dpi and save the file as a .tiff or a .png. Then when you want to share the pic downsize the pic and then reduce the file by converting it to a .jpg. Most of the detail will remain but the pic will be much more manageable.
Thanks for the tip. I have done a lot of things on the scanner but tilting a coin was not one of them. I'll give it a whirl this weekend. Still wouldn't mind a decent camera though and a birthday coming up. Hmmmmm.
Don't get me wrong, I have a very nice Nikon myself. But one day I decided that there just had to be some way to get a scanner to take representative and realistic pics as well - so I set out to find it It also helps to have a good scanner - they are not all equal. I have found HP to be the best.
Well, it wasn't really a question, I just wanted to see a couple of other images. The only problem with your tilting technique is that the top of the coin is out of focus. With an ~450x450 pixel image, it's OK, but it won't get more in focus as you go larger. It's one of the better scanned images I've seen though, far as scanners go, and it has nice color. Most scanners are designed to scan the glass surface, and the depth of field ranges from none to less than none. The lighting is what it is. That HP seems to do a pretty good job, though that's it. It's more or less non-adjustable. You can't adjust the lights to highlight another side or angle. You can rotate the coin, and eventually figure out somewhat predictable results, but nothing like using lights. Scanning high res. images is also a tad bit time consuming with many scanners. Not something I'd use for 1,000's or even 100's of coins. I will say though that it's absolutely possible to get as good, if not better detail with a camera (and not even that expensive of a setup. It is harder though, and not as easy as just putting a coin on a bed and pressing a button (tricks such as tilting and adjusting the settings are needed, as they are with photography of course). A $100 Wal-mart point and shoot probably won't cut it, but for ~$500 or less you could get there. I have this tiny scanner I bought years ago for around $70. Works great for just about anything... except coins. The bottom line is that you if it's good enough for your needs, it's good enough. A scanner is useful for other things aside from coins, but if you're not one to scan things often, then I'd probably get a camera as it too has many other uses.
If I had any to show you I happily would. How about a scan of a gold coin and another 8 reales ? The ducat pic does a pretty good job for a luster example. The 8 reales shows luster as well as detail.
The Ducat is close enough. It looks like it all but kills the luster, however you can see there's some there. I think I'd use a camera for that type of coin. Seems to do better with coins with a bit of color and toning. I don't think you'd get much better of an image using a camera with that 8 Reales, though it would all be in focus. Coins aren't exactly the easiest thing to photograph (due to the size and lighting, etc.), and good photography (of any subject) requires knowledge that few people possess. Many moons ago I used to shoot professionally, went to school to study it, and have been playing around with manual cameras since age 7. If I hadn't done that, and just got a point and shoot, (even one that can do mostly anything), I don't think I'd have a clue. Back in the day, before in camera light meters and manual focus and exposure, you had to have a basic understanding to take any picture, but that really isn't needed today to take pictures (taking good pictures is another story). If you're old enough, you remember shooting, developing and printing slides. There wasn't much room for error, and no software to clean everything up like today heh.
Playing with the scanner. Here's a few new pics. http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x275/clembo1872/cointalk/a0003.png http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x275/clembo1872/cointalk/a0004.png http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x275/clembo1872/cointalk/a0005.png First up is a PCGS MS63 1899 Morgan withouth being tilted. Second is same being tilted. Third is the MS63 ANACS 1861 Trime tilted. Much better detail. Others haven't fared so well but I'll keep playing. Have no clue how I decapitated the Morgan!
I have a few digital cameras. Also a large amount of the now old film cameras. If you want a few suggestions, here are some: For one thing get familiar with cameras and photography. Check out www.bhphotovideo.com for example. Order one of thier catalogs. Largest supplier of photo equipment around. Also, go to miscellaneous stores and see what is available. Ask tons of questions but hold off buying until you know what you want, need and will use. Keep away from the heavy SLR types with changeable lenses. If not heavy into photography, you'll never need such a heavy piece of equipment. When you go somewhere, you want something you can easily carry Obviously you'll end up using your camera for relatives, friends, neighbors, crime sceens, dumb things people do so you'll want a camera that has large photo capacity abilities. Make sure the camera has a removable card for memory. Many of the cheaper ones only have a built in memory and if it goes out, goodby camera. Most cameras today take what is called an SD card. Many take the Compact Flash or XD cards. Do not buy a camera that takes a special card used only by that manufacturer. Those could cost you more than many cameras. As to batteries. Make sure you buy a camera that uses standard batteries such as AA or AAA. Be careful with cameras like Sony that require a special battery. Those too could cost a small fortune. My Sony Mavica MVD-7 and MVD-88 require a special battery that cost about $25 each. My Canon S410 also has a special battery that cost about $30 and if the special rechargers stop working, guess what, no camera. There are many, many digital cameras out there and don't be fooled by expensive sounding names. Some of the best ones are like Vivitar, Fuji, Panasonic, etc. As to what else to look for. Make sure there is a Macro feature. Also, some telephoto even if only slight. Always make sure it has a built in flash or a hot shoe for external flash. I have one camera that you need a special cord for to have a flash. Some have both. Fuji S5000, S7000 and S9000 has both. Make sure whatever type of memory card is used it can be upgraded. Some cameras will not take the newer high gig memory cards. Example it is common for a SD or Compact Flash card to be 2 gigs now. They all used to be 256Meg, 512Meg and then some were 1 Gig. Also, note the higher the memory card, the higher the cost, usually. Your camera should have a method of protecting the lens. Possible threads at the front of the lens for filters, a screw threwd on the bottom for a tripod, at least 4megapixel resolution. You should not have to pay more than $200 for the better cameras pending on where you live. A decent one should run about $150 or even less. Out of all the cameras I've got I've never spent more than $300 and that was only once. Many of the others were less than $50. If the instructions appear to be made for someone in a futuristic world, you might want to avoid that one. You'll spend way to much time trying to take a photo. Example is somehow my DXG was set on movie mode and I was trying to take photos at a Father's Day party. Took me a long time to figure out what was wrong.
Thanks Carl, I'll be 45 in July so by the time I'm 60 I should have this figured out! Just kidding, I really appreciate your advice as well as all the other advice I've been given. Looking for a decent camera that is fairly simple and I'll FIND IT! clembo
