i personally see a huge difference between the 2 cents in the previous post
the one on the left appears to be significantly crisper whereas the one on the right is (blurry?)
i would imagine the full-size or even magnified images would show huge differences
my hope is the image on the left is from a more costly (better quality?) lens/camera combo so i'll feel less like a sap for spending what i did on my camera/lens . but for the difference of $50-75 vs say $300-500 you are right that the quality is just about good enough for the less expensive setup
still better than a lot of dealer/auction sites and from the less expensive setup
guess it is all in knowing how to use whatcha got .
guess it is all in knowing how to use whatcha got . >>
That's it in a nutshell! IMHO
Applies to megapixels even more so then lenses. At least at the upper end- above 5 megapixels and for publishing on the web and not making large prints. Lens quality differences really become obvious when shooting back lit subjects, long telephoto lenses, zoom lenses and big prints. None of these factors come into play with coin photography for the web except perhaps in control of highlights if the lenses have inferior coatings as many cheaper lenses do. For years people have asked me for advice on purchasing cameras and though i have always had a very high regard for fine optics, for most folks this isn't the answer to getting better photos. Applies to cameras as well.... For photography in general, it's the EYE for composition, lighting, visual conceptions, creativity, etc... Look at some of the GREAT work that some photographers have produced with pinhole cameras! No lens at all here!!! Just a pinhole in a box..... One can have the greatest camera in the world and still produce average or lesser images if they don't know how to use the tools. With digital, it really helps to have a very good working knowledge of Photoshop or a similar program as well. It's just amazing the quality of the images that can be produced with some of the basic digital cameras out there!!!! And how images and lighting can be corrected with photo editing software.... It's one reason why I ended up changing careers in middle age after being a professional photographer for decades!!!Digital made it so much easier, especially in mixed lighting. There are kids taking pictures with their phones now that would have been tough shots to pull off with film not too many years ago!
Great thread rmpspmrs!!! Thank you for posting and sharing all the GREAT info and tips!!!!! Cheers to you!!!!
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
<< <i>...i personally see a huge difference between the 2 cents in the previous post
the one on the left appears to be significantly crisper whereas the one on the right is (blurry?) >>
The difference is definitely there. The Spiratone lens is not as sharp as the Rodenstock. But if I added a bit of sharpening to it, you'd probably see even less of a difference.
<< <i> my hope is the image on the left is from a more costly (better quality?) lens/camera combo so i'll feel less like a sap for spending what i did on my camera/lens . but for the difference of $50-75 vs say $300-500 you are right that the quality is just about good enough for the less expensive setup >>
Yes, no worries, the better result is with the more expensive lens, though my point is that for web publishing the more expensive lens may not be required, even for grading
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
Comments
very nice comparisons
i personally see a huge difference between the 2 cents in the previous post
the one on the left appears to be significantly crisper whereas the one on the right is (blurry?)
i would imagine the full-size or even magnified images would show huge differences
my hope is the image on the left is from a more costly (better quality?) lens/camera combo so i'll feel less like a sap for spending what i did on my camera/lens
.
but for the difference of $50-75 vs say $300-500 you are right that the quality is just about good enough for the less expensive setup
still better than a lot of dealer/auction sites and from the less expensive setup
guess it is all in knowing how to use whatcha got
.
<< <i>.
very nice comparisons
guess it is all in knowing how to use whatcha got
. >>
That's it in a nutshell! IMHO
Applies to megapixels even more so then lenses. At least at the upper end- above 5 megapixels and for publishing on the web and not making large prints.
Lens quality differences really become obvious when shooting back lit subjects, long telephoto lenses, zoom lenses and big prints. None of these factors come into play with coin photography for the web except perhaps in control of highlights if the lenses have inferior coatings as many cheaper lenses do. For years people have asked me for advice on purchasing cameras and though i have always had a very high regard for fine optics, for most folks this isn't the answer to getting better photos. Applies to cameras as well....
For photography in general, it's the EYE for composition, lighting, visual conceptions, creativity, etc... Look at some of the GREAT work that
some photographers have produced with pinhole cameras! No lens at all here!!! Just a pinhole in a box.....
One can have the greatest camera in the world and still produce average or lesser images if they don't know how to use the tools.
With digital, it really helps to have a very good working knowledge of Photoshop or a similar program as well. It's just amazing the quality of the images that can be produced with some of the basic digital cameras out there!!!! And how images and lighting can be corrected with photo editing software.... It's one reason why I ended up changing careers in middle age after being a professional photographer for decades!!!Digital made it so much easier, especially in mixed lighting. There are kids taking pictures with their phones now that would have been tough shots to pull off with film not too many years ago!
Great thread rmpspmrs!!! Thank you for posting and sharing all the GREAT info and tips!!!!! Cheers to you!!!!
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
<< <i>...i personally see a huge difference between the 2 cents in the previous post
the one on the left appears to be significantly crisper whereas the one on the right is (blurry?) >>
The difference is definitely there. The Spiratone lens is not as sharp as the Rodenstock. But if I added a bit of sharpening to it, you'd probably see even less of a difference.
<< <i> my hope is the image on the left is from a more costly (better quality?) lens/camera combo so i'll feel less like a sap for spending what i did on my camera/lens
.
but for the difference of $50-75 vs say $300-500 you are right that the quality is just about good enough for the less expensive setup >>
Yes, no worries, the better result is with the more expensive lens, though my point is that for web publishing the more expensive lens may not be required, even for grading
http://macrocoins.com