digital camera or skanner

Hi All,
Need your opinion on skanner verses digital camera, if I buy a camera I will only use it for takeing pictures of coins and that is all. But a skanner I can use for other things so that said is a skanner more practical for my needs and is the quality of the picture of a coin good enough verses a camera ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I would have to say... scanner. You could use it for all kinds of things. But a camera could also come in very handy. Scanners come with some photo editing software to make a coin scan come in very clear and easy to view details on a computer screen and get a lot of opinions. Just my thoughts.

 

Scanner. If its just for coin then stick with the SCANNER. But the software can be a pain in the rare depending on your IQ or at least your willingness to learn how to fully us it. Reason i say this is because I see scans all the time of silver coins that look gold in color or are to dark or to light. You should be able to figgure it out the software pretty fast. Some software is such crap, make sure you get a good scanner. One that will let you ajust your DPI range.

Also. You will be able to get a better scanner compared to a digital cam, for the same amount of money if not better.

On anther note. I would say get a Microscope too if your dealing with error or searching for error coins. Or if you are just as anal as me with your grading then it nice to have. I have one hooked up to my computer.

 

Scanners wash out the looks of coins and when you show a scan it looks like the coin was over dipped and left with 0% luster....

Speedy

 

Stepping back a bit...

It is possible to capture an image of a coin with either a camera or a scanner. However, the resulting image is NOT the same. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to replicate the image made by a scanner using a camera, and impossible to replicate an image created with a camera using a scanner.

So, we're not exactly talking apples and apples.

Many scanners don't do a terribly great job of imaging things like coins. For one, coins are small. The scanner has to be set at a high resolution and then cropped. Scanning at high resolutions is often not a quick process. The files can be very large, and slower, older computers will not enjoy dealing with it.

Two, coins are shiny, lustrous, shimmering objects and many scanners often produce very flat (steel gray) results. It is a flat light, run on top of the image, thus it isn't going to have much dimension. I've seen some scanners do a better job than others, but in general, you're working with a fixed, top mounted light source and imaging the coin head on. There's no options for tilting the coin to get a more attractive angle, or adjusting the lighting.

A camera is much more flexible in that you can use a macro lens (or setting) to capture the coin in nearly the whole frame. This high resolution image will not need to be cropped nearly as much, and only reduced (if needed) to display. It is however more difficult to capture a good image of a coin with a camera. You need to know a few things about photography (or be lucky) to really get a good result. If you're not picky, then it won't matter as much, but most people like to try to get the best results possible.

Lighting is unlimited (there are so many different types of lights and lighting that it's too much to go into here). Again, it takes some know-how to use lighting effectively and attractively. Also, the coin can be positioned (angled, etc.) to give the most attractive image.

So without kowing your level of interest and knowledge in photography, the type of lighting you will use and the type of image you want to produce, it really is impossible to recommend one or another. Scanners are cheap. You can find them on sale for under $50. A $50 digital camera on the other hand... won't cut it.

As I said, I've seen some decent scanner images of coins. More often than not, a photograph of a coin will be vastly superior in showing coins, but that's in the right hands. Almost anyone will be able to get a decent image of a coin using a scanner. Most people have more difficulty taking photographs of coins (lack of lighting knowledge, camera knowledge, etc.). Many people can't tell what a good photograph is. 90% (or more) of the photographs people post here are NOT sharp, but most of the people who post them don't even realize it (or worse, they think they are sharp).

Here are just two sample images. Same coin. One scanned (by me) another taken with a camera (not by me, but it's good enough to show the point). I'm not even sure they look like the same coin.

 

That why i said get a good one.

Look what my cheap one does to my scan on the morgan 1921 error post. And the scans on. What did this post

 

Without getting too technical, it is important to understand a couple of other points...

Many scanners are designed to image flat objects. Coins arenot flat, and coins in slabs are actually raised up off the glass just enough that some scanners produce"out of focus" results.

Also, even if you aquire the ability to be able to determine if a photograph is in focus or not, and the ability to focus (or use an autofocus camera), there is a limitation. Your photograph is only as good as "the glass" mreaning the lens itself. Some lenses are shaper than others. That doesn't mean you have to drop $1,500 on a lens, just that the lens you use has to be sharp (and there are plenty of sharp lenses for $200). If you expect a poin and shoot (with simple element lenses that are tiny) to perform as well as larger lenses, you will often be disappointed, however there are poin and shoots that do a decent job and some better point and shoots are really much more than the crappy 110 or 126 film point and shoots that I used to use to take pictures when I was a wee lad.

 

The lighting is much better, but note that NEITHER of these images is in focus nor sharp (see previous comment about 90%+ of the images posted here not being in focus or sharp).

http://s93.photobucket.com/albums/l...current=Morgan1.jpg&refPage=&imgAnch=imgAnch1
http://s93.photobucket.com/albums/l...rrent=morgansdd.jpg&refPage=&imgAnch=imgAnch3

They are probably close enough for your needs, but if one was to take the same image with a decent camera and lens, the results would be superior.

 

Samjimmy,
You make some very interesting points in your post, thank you very much for your input I will look at what others have to say also.

 

There's just really no ONE answer, though since you can get a scanner on sale that would probably do the trick, it might make sense to get the scanner and (eventually if money is an issue) get a camera later. Just try to start understanding the difference between BiG and CLOSE and sharp and in focus.

From what I've seen posted using scanners, I could probably take an image from 5-10 feet away (non macro), and get a similar result. To show this point, I present to you... the ear. Taken ~6 feet away from the subject with an autofocus cheap lens ($100). One picture is the full image, the other is cropped (actual size). Sorry, I wish he had a coin in his ear, but see if you can see the hairs.

This is esentially what you are doing with a scanner (taking a large image and cropping out most of it for the small area). I'd say it's roughly as sharp as the scanner, but if it's not, keep in mind it was taken ~ six feet away, hand-held. A better lens (yes, there are sharper lenses than that $100 one I used for that shot), and a higher than 6mp camera would produce a better result.

 

I have not been able to get a decent picture with a digital camera. It could be because the cameras have not been great ones. All the pictures I have posted in my gallery were taken with a scanner. I've found the detail of half cents in particular does not show up. The large cents I've scanned have had much better results. I don't like slabbed coins, so I can't comment in that regard. If money is a factor, I'd go with the scanner. A camera capable of taking the kind of picture you'd need are (or were when I was looking) much more expensive than an adequate scanner.
Just my two cents.
thunder_puck

 

Well, there is a reason people paid me $150-$250/hr. when I had a photography business back in the day. A camera is a machine and most people's intimate knowledge of the machine is that there's a silver button that you press once you see what you want to shoot in the viewfinder (or LCD screen). I'm not saying that's you, just in general. Technical knowledge of photography is something that must be aquired (no photographer I ever knew was born with it).

Also, I will say that there are plenty of cameras (and lenses) which make it impossible to take a decent, sharp image, so it may not be you. I'm pretty sure the person above knows how to put a coin on a glass scanner bed, it's not his fault. The scanner may (in all probability) be unable to scan a coin sharply.

It helps to have both (knowledge and equipment capable of achieving the desired result)

 

My daughter gave me her old kodak digital camera madel dc200 mega pixel but she lost the instruction booklet I have tried to take a picture of a coin but just is not clear at all. And she lives in calif, so much for that and maybe this camera is just to out of date for this use.

 

It is unlikely it would be able to produce a decent image...

Megapixel CCD sensor delivering up to 1152 x 872 pixel resolution

The camera that took the ear shot is a mere 6mp (3072 x 2048) which might be the lowest you'll find in a store these days. Been some time since I've bought a camera.

Focuses from 27 inches to infinity

That's far from macro and if it had decent resolution you could crop the image but... it doesn't have decent resolution.

More on the lens...

The DC200 uses a "focus-free" (fixed focus) optical-glass lens, with a focal length equivalent to a 39mm lens on a 35mm camera (a slight wide-angle), and a maximum aperture of f/4.0. The focus-free design provides good sharpness from 27 inches (0.7m) to infinity.

You don't want anything "focus-free" ... ever... for anything... It's basically the equivalent of one of those $5 disposable cameras people leave on wedding tables for guests. Almost impossible to get a good image of a coin with one of them, and likewise with this camera.

 

Thanks again Samjimmy.

 

so much depends on what you plan on doing with a camera or a scanner. A scanner today could be purchased that does scanning, printing, copies, has slots for camera cards and lots of other things. You could make copies of tax, medical, misc documents. Then if you want you could make copies of photos your friends and relatives have taken. I've got three scanners. The most recent and cheapest was $22 on sale. To buy a camera just for coins is a waste. However, digital cameras today come in massive variety of sizes, types, qualities with numerous funtions and a great difference in cost. I presently have 5 digital cameras and the fugi S7000 uses two cards at the same time. One is a 256meg XD and the other is a 2gig compact flash card. With both and the camera set for about one step down from max quality I can take somewhere in the 2,500 photo range. That is kind of nuts I think. Pending on where you live you may want to check out camera shows and computer shows. Around here we have both. One camera show a month and computer shows all over the place. By going to one you could learn better what is available and what you may want to buy and at such shows prices are far less than at any store.

 

A tip on using a camera.. a simple one... get a tripod. even a cheap one.
You will be glad you did!

 

.... and always use a shutter release (which used to be a cable but now it's often a remote control) or the self timer (set to a couple seconds is fine). Many people use a tripod... but press the button with their finger. With macro photography... that's pretty silly. It's the slight vibration and movement that throws it into a blur (the whole thing one generally tries to avoid by using a tripod in the first place).

No problem. Good luck in shopping for your new scanner and/or camera

 

true on the timer/****ter release, but even without using that a tripod makes a world of difference!
My biggest problem is lighting, ad not getting glare on the slab's plastic.

 

Light is reflective, so you need to use the same trick as shooting portraits of people with glasses...

Tilt the slab just enough that the reflection drops off. Now the coin won't be completely flat (perpendicular) to the lens, so parts of the coin (even if slightly so) will be closer to the lens and parts farther away. If you can adjust it with your camera, choose a higher f-stop for maximum depth of field. This closes down the lens (letting less light in) which requires a slower shutter speed (hence another reason to use a tripod). The lower the number, the less depth of field... the less depth of field the more narrow the range of what will, and what will not, be in focus. You want a shallow depth of field when taking pictures of people in the park (this is what gives that blurred background effect, making the subject pop out.

OT: If anyone is confused about "the same trick as shooting portraits of people with glasses" ...

When shooting portraits (pictures) of people who wear glasses, ask them to raise their glasses off their ear about 1/2" (tilting the front of the glasses down towards the ground). You won't see that unattractive flash in their glasses blocking their eyes and messing with the metering. Works in portrait studios and just taking snapshots at home of friends.