what is the best camera for coin pics. -$400.00

tippingmyhat

Hello,,,

I have alot of coins that i would like to share with you all and i would like to know what kind of camera most of you all are using.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

darktone

I like my Sony Mavica as it's easy to use. It takes floppy discs for film and I like this feature. mike

goose3

I like my FD Mavica too but it sure sucks if you want to get pics developed. If you want something that you can use as a normal camera as well as a coin camera then you would not want a Mavica.

(Obviously I tried to get a pic developed............and it was awful)

Sphinx357

My Olympus Camedia D-560 for $200 works quite well for what it is. I know the pics I put up on here look like ass, but that's because of the 50k limit. The ones that I have for myself are quite nice for a $200 camera.

FC57Coins

Another vote for Sony Mavica - I find that the zoom feature works best of any of the ones I've tried.

pmh1nic

Ricoh RDC-5000 if you can find one or the upgrade RDC-5300. I paid $270 for the RDC-5000 and I think you can find the RDC-5300 for under $400. Here are a few shots with the RDC-5000:

Mrpawn

Olympus C-4000. Easy to use. 4megapixel and better macro than comparably priced Coolpix. IMHO

Fairlaneman

pmh1nic that is a Great shot of the half dollar reverse. ..

Ken

darktone

<< <i>I like my FD Mavica too but it sure sucks if you want to get pics developed. If you want something that you can use as a normal camera as well as a coin camera then you would not want a Mavica. >>

you can use a camera for something other than coins! I actually forgot that someone might want use it for dual purpose- I have never even tried taking a picture of anything else besides coins with it. mike

LucyBop

Cannon G2...

tompkins

I'd add the observation that the quality of the pictures is more impacted by the lighting than the particular camera you use. My pictures (with a NIkon Coolpix 995 which I got quite inexpensively used on eBay) range from as good as any I've seen to pretty bad----and the difference is how much time I take getting the lighting right so things are bright enough without shadows and reflections---if you put the light too high, you get ugly reflections; if you put it too low, you can get shadows making everything look like a doubled die. But you do need to make sure the camera has a macro capability and DON'T use digital zoom--some cameras (probably most cameras now) have both optical and digital zoom. Quit zooming when the optical maxes out, because after that you're doing pixel interpolation and doubling which noticeably reduce quality.

But that said, I've been real happy with both a Ricoh 4300 (until it died for no apparant cause) and more recently the NIkon.

Pete

stujoe

I agree that with proper lighting most digital cameras can achieve good results if they have a decent macro. My old Fuji 2400, though wasn't all that great and needed more light than my new camera (and couldn't get as close).

I have been getting decent results with my new Nikon 4300 (but still learning lighting.

http://www.coinpeople.com/images/otherpic/test2.jpg

A 550x550 shot - about 50k

http://www.coinpeople.com/images/otherpic/test.jpg

Up close and personal 1100 x 1100 at 150k.

pmh1nic

fairlaneman

The Ricoh is fairly simple so even a novice like me can (with a little practice) get a decent photograph .

Ditto Tompkins and StuJoe. I would guess that improper lighting rather than a deficiency in the camera is responsible for the poor results I sometimes get.