Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="SuperDave, post: 2451460, member: 1892"]Dave's not here, man. And I'm a third-grader by comparison to rmpsrpms, from whom I've learned 75% of what I know today. From a technical specification standpoint the Nikon is more than up to the task. What it lacks - as Ray mentions - is the Electronic First Shutter Curtain (EFSC), a feature which causes the initial shutter opening to be not a mechanical event, but an electronic one. Rather than a shutter snapping open, the exposure is begun by the sensor being "turned on." This eliminates the tiny vibration caused by the shutter movement, tiny but large enough to reduce the sharpness of the shot. Rmpsrmps has demonstrated this photographically in the past. It has been standard fare on Canons for many years, but only the Nikon D810 fullframe camera has it from that brand. Is this a dealbreaker? No, not necessarily. If you do your job as a coin photographer correctly, and fill the sensor with the coin itself, your resulting image will be nearly 4000 vertical pixels in diameter. This will require you to downsize the resulting image by 75% just to be able to post it online (I'm posting things at 1000px these days), and the downsizing process itself improves the sharpness of the resulting image such that nobody will ever know your camera lacks EFSC. They'll still be astounded by the quality of the images. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> Where the lack of EFSC will show is in 100% crops - pieces cut full-size out of the original image to show details. They won't benefit from the downsizing bonus, and you'll be less-happy with them than you might otherwise. However, the sheer size and quality of the sensor works in your favor - for detail images, just bring a little more magnification to bear and shoot the detail individually, making it large enough to require some downsizing on its' own. There are the further options of shooting RAW, to take advantage of the more sophisticated postprocessing options for sharpening, and/or using a more complex postprocessing program like Photoshop or the Gimp to improve the original shot. EFSC is a "last 5% of possible quality" factor, not a dealbreaker. Yes, a D3300 will provide quality capable of making others envious of your skills. Further, if your intent is to use your Nikon as a walkabout camera for non-Macro purposes, it is (in my opinion) superior to Canon in just about every way in that usage. Nikon has a significant advantage in autofocusing systems and capability - more focusing points, better response. If I were a pro outdoor shooter, I would shoot Nikon. Now. Lenses. It should be said first that this is not a point-and-shoot activity. The most expensive, capable lens will still require you to learn the "nuts and bolts" of photography - Aperture, ISO, Exposure, and how they interrelate. You will need to manipulate these settings manually for best result. It's that simple, but it isn't simple. Some people just don't ever adapt to the level of technical competence (and learning) required; others are intellectually oriented in that direction and can make an iPhone or an inexpensive point-and-shoot ([USER=43130]@C-B-D[/USER] is an example) create excellent images. Plan on an advanced level of learning, be ready to exert the commitment and time to acquire the knowledge, or you will be disappointed with your expensive paperweight. You can approach the lens problem by throwing money at it and spending $500+ on one very, very good bespoke Macro lens (quite a few exist), or you can employ lesser lenses whose capabilities in this narrow niche are just as good as the more expensive lens, but require a bellows or spacers to achieve the necessary magnification and quality. My most expensive lens cost me $65, and the camera I use it with was $84 used from Adorama. It will do this (the full-face image is half the size of the original): [ATTACH=full]512134[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]512135[/ATTACH] ....and I was in a hurry when I created those. Whichever way you go with lenses will not change the need for an appropriate camera mount and shooting setup, which can be as cheap as a $20 tripod and a board hung over the edge of a table (kludgy and impermanent, requiring it to be rebuilt every time you use it), ranging up to a custom modified microscope stand mount created by someone like rmpsrpms (not "cheap" but pretty darned inexpensive for the capabilities you get with it). I use the latter, and thank my lucky stars every day for having it. So that's a fixed expense either way. The bespoke 100mm-ish Macro lens will autofocus on your camera and ease the process for something north of $500, or you can drop $50 or so on a bellows from Ebay, a few bucks on necessary adapters, and start accumulating cheap film duplicating lenses for fun (to my left are a total of 9 different lenses, having cost me a cumulative $150 including the lovely Schneider Componon-S with which I shot the above), each of which are capable of providing results only hardcore enthusiasts will be able to discern from an $800 Nikon 105VR. The latter will make your experience marginally less complicated. And there is then the additional process of acquiring and learning remote shooting software, which - although free for Canon - costs money for Nikon. Shooting remotely - controlling the whole process from keyboard/mouse, and focusing on the monitor in front of you instead of a tiny viewfinder - is a game-changing capability which cannot be lived without once experienced. Plan on using it, whatever you do. There. That should cause an appropriate level of analysis paralysis. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches