NathanB Posted June 3 · Member Share Posted June 3 Reverse of Menander I Soter drachm showing Athena Alkidemos standing left, holding shield and thunderbolt. I have an micro four-thirds camera with a 14-42 mm kit lens. I have taken some decent pictures of not-tiny coins (like the one above) with it using extension tubes. Unfortunately, while I can kind of find my way around my camera, I really don't understand much photography theory. I also find it slow and cumbersome to take the photos. I just use a small USB LED light and one or two Coleman battery lanterns that are actually intended for camping and power outages. I'm also familiar with using a flash to "freeze" the image in place. Unfortunately, my camera's built-in flash does not produce good images of coins. I would like to get better images if possible--more detailed, and sharper. Of course, I'm on a budget (hence this post). So my three "dumb" questions are: Would a close-up filter help me? And could it be combined with one or two extension tubes? Is there any way of using a 45-150 mm lens to improve things? Is the only way to really get better images to buy a macro lens? And if so, what would be the cheapest macro lens that you would consider worthy buying for someone on a budget? Thanks in advance for your thoughts and suggestions. I guess part of this is really me trying to motivate myself to take some coin pictures using my camera. It's been so long. My little LED light broke and I need to buy a new one. I find it hit-and-miss in terms of getting the background to be truly black, and getting an image that's not too blurry. The last seems harder to do now that we moved more than a year ago. And I absolutely hate fiddling with my cheap tripod and my little coin stand. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rasiel Posted June 3 · Member Share Posted June 3 Pic of your setup? My first advice is to forget the ancient coin. Go and get a penny to do your test shots with. That's a coin everyone can relate to. - On camera flash is useless. The subject is too close to the lens. - Extension tubes and close up filters are cumbersome to handle, degrade image quality, complicate setup and might cost more than getting a macro lens anyway - Off camera flash is too difficult to set up anyway. Opt for a continuous light solution which is far cheaper, easier and can deliver great shots. - Do get a macro lens if you can afford it. ~100mm is the sweet spot in terms of working distance and cost. - A 30 year old lens can outperform a brand new one and be much cheaper - Don't worry about the background being too black in-shot. This is best done in post processing. - For sharpness there is no better alternative than a good lens and a tripod. None. Rasiel 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akeady Posted June 3 · Supporter Share Posted June 3 (edited) I use Micro Four Thirds also - an Olympus E-M1 with the Olympus 60mm macro lens. I use a copystand and a LED panel that sits on the camera hotshoe. I recommend the 60mm macro if you want to buy a decent micro four thirds macro lens - I've had mine for more than five years and am happy with it. The copystand and the E-M1 I bought secondhand and I got the 60mm at a discount too as the box was damaged. The E-M1 is playing up a bit as the mode dial doesn't work reliably, but this isn't important for coin photographs as I control it from a 'phone. (I started with an E-M10 and wanted a macro lens for coin photos, ended up getting the E-M1, then an E-M1 Mk II and now am OM-1 and about 10 lenses, so the camera gadget addiction is nearly as bad as coin collecting 😄) This was my setup a few years ago - I haven't used the two daylight lights attached here recently and I moved the setup out of the messy room a long time ago! And this is the photo' used by the seller I got it from (his camera): I didn't do any post processing with this medal apart from cropping. The coin is raised using a imple dowel rod or CD spindle. I can do in-camera focus stacking, but rarely bother. Rasiel above takes great coin photos, all I can add is my own experience with Olympus gear. What I've found is that what's needed, in order of importance: Stable mount - I played with a tripod for a while but found it awkward to position the coin - the copystand is much better. Lighting - I stopped improving things when I got this - https://www.aputure.com/products/m9/ - there are better lighting setups, but I'm happy enough with what I get from this. Good lens - I haven't tried extension tubes, but have seen good results from them, though you probably have to start with a sharp lens anyway. The Olympus 60mm works well for me. Camera - most modern(ish) cameras are good enough - I don't know which body you have, but it's probably as good as the E-M1 I use, which was launched in 2013. ATB, Aidan. Edited June 3 by akeady 7 2 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaleun96 Posted June 3 · Member Share Posted June 3 (edited) Quote So my three "dumb" questions are: Would a close-up filter help me? And could it be combined with one or two extension tubes? Is there any way of using a 45-150 mm lens to improve things? Is the only way to really get better images to buy a macro lens? And if so, what would be the cheapest macro lens that you would consider worthy buying for someone on a budget? Some good suggestions already but I'll add my $0.02 as what's a photography question without more opinions than people giving them! 1. Close-up filters are better at longer focus lengths, probably around 70-80mm I'd look to use a close-up filter over extension tubes. I wouldn't combine it since you're already stretching the performance of the lens, you'll surely run into diffraction territory trying to use an aperture that gives you enough depth of field at that magnification. The best close-up filters are those made by Raynox, such as the DCR-250. 2. Your photos are already pretty good in terms of detail for using a 45-150 and extension tubes. I'd say lighting is the main area where you can experiment and get significantly different results. Unless you're unhappy with the sharpness and resolution, or the pain of setting up the lens and focusing it etc, I'd focus more on lighting. 3. I'd say the main problem a macro lens will solve for you is the ease of use. Unless you really want to get out every last bit of detail, which I understand myself, then you probably don't need better optical quality but it sounds like the setting up and use of your gear is what is discouraging you / making taking photos harder than it needs to be. So a macro lens can definitely help you there while also giving you better performance. A better tripod/copystand is definitely a huge improvement. Ideally you can have something you can leave out in an almost ready-to-go state. If you're short on space, that means optimising its footprint so it doesn't take up too much room or can be hidden away and easily brought out when needed. Copystands are pretty good at this but decent ones are expensive. The WeMacro vertical stand is affordable but requires some additional components. You want to be able to easily and precisely move the camera closer to or further away from the coin. Copystands often have a rack and pinion mechanism for this but cheap ones will have a lot of "play" in the mechanism and flex or move about. Copystands with a simple clamp system are a bit of a pain since you have to continuously make adjustments until you get it and right and inevitably each time you clamp it down, it moves slightly away from where you want it. You can probably make a setup using the WeMacro stand plus a macro rail like this one for less than a good copystand. Lighting is the next biggest pain. Whether you use continuous lighting or flash doesn't matter so much. Flash can "freeze" subjects in place but that's really more a function of the shutter speed and flash speed. You need a good stand either way so there's no reason continuous lighting can't work for you. I've used both at various points but I prefer flash because you have more control and a smaller body for a much higher power. The downside is that it can be hard to see what you're doing since the live preview will be underexposed so you may need a continuous light source to just let you see what you're doing. You can easily spend more on continuous lighting than a flash but continuous lighting definitely has a lower minimum price, you may just find it doesn't have enough power or it's too big or too difficult to control etc. Cheap but good camera flashes start at around $70, I use the Godox TT350 primarily and have for years. Whichever you choose, the main thing is finding a setup that is consistent and requires little adjustment. My own lighting setup is based on that principle and while it produces great photos most of the time, it may not produce the best photo for a particular coin. Some coins I will spend more time on and customise the lighting but as a baseline you want a ready-to-go setup that will get you good results every time and great results most of the time. Going back to lenses. Old lenses can definitely be had for cheap and perform better than new ones, the trick is finding the good ones. There's plenty of trash from 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago but there are some gems too. Unless you want to spend time on researching which is best, or there's already a consensus on a great old lens to buy, I'd try to stick to modern ones. The best bang-for-your-buck when it comes to old lenses are enlarger lenses. Great ones can be bought for $75-$150 and rival some modern lenses but they require fiddling around with to get the right extension or reversed-lens combination and changing magnification can be difficult. To wrap this up, my advice is to focus on the things which are stopping you from wanting to take photos first. This will probably be related to the lighting and stand/tripod to begin with. After that, the lens probably comes next. Once you've solved the initial annoyances there, you can then start focussing on other things to improve your process. In the last 3 years, I went from a tripod + manual macro rail to a specialised vertical stand, custom lighting adapters for my camera flashes, motorised linear rail for moving the camera and focus stacking, a custom controller for automated focus stacking, a motorised X axis for translating the coin platform under the camera, an optical rotation stage, an optical goniometer for tilting the coin, and an illuminated background so I can get a reliable one-click background removal in Photoshop. Each was added one step at a time in order of what aspect of taking photos for my coins was annoying me the most. After solving the main tripod and lighting issues, the gains are incremental but they add up when you take enough photos. Edited June 3 by Kaleun96 11 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Posted June 3 · Supporter Share Posted June 3 (edited) Great thread and comments. I intend to get a setup for coin photo. Unlikely to have enough time before September/October, but has been putting/uptading the shopping list based what I have read on thise forum and elsewhrere. I already have Sony Alpha 7 and Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA Distagon T* Carl Zeiss so plan to keep the camera and use the lense for photos of old catalogues using the same setup. Prices are approxime and I may find some cheaper. Kaiser Vertical Stand Metal Base Plate Code no: 5504 Column 1 m, with gear rack and fine drive Code no: 4475 Lenses Sony FE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS Ⅱ Sony SEL20TC Lighting LED Lighting Unit RB 5020 DS2 (5467) To raise the coin from the base plate I plan to use round neodymium magnets of about 1 cm diameter. Comments/feedback are wellcome. I am particularly unsure about the best practice of image processing with intention as little as possible of post-processing of the coin image itself and getting colours close to how they are seen by human eye. Edited June 3 by Rand 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaleun96 Posted June 3 · Member Share Posted June 3 1 hour ago, Rand said: Great thread and comments. I intend to get a setup for coin photo. Unlikely to have enough time before September/October, but has been putting/uptading the shopping list based what I have read on thise forum and elsewhrere. I already have Sony Alpha 7 and Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA Distagon T* Carl Zeiss so plan to keep the camera and use the lense for photos of old catalogues using the same setup. Prices are approxime and I may find some cheaper. Kaiser Vertical Stand Metal Base Plate Code no: 5504 Column 1 m, with gear rack and fine drive Code no: 4475 Lenses Sony FE 70-200mm F4 Macro G OSS Ⅱ Sony SEL20TC Lighting LED Lighting Unit RB 5020 DS2 (5467) To raise the coin from the base plate I plan to use round neodymium magnets of about 1 cm diameter. Comments/feedback are wellcome. I am particularly unsure about the best practice of image processing with intention as little as possible of post-processing of the coin image itself and getting colours close to how they are seen by human eye. That Kaiser copystand looks amazing! It costs a pretty penny but it does look quality. Unfortunately I don't have enough experience with copystands to say whether you can, say, get 90% of the quality and features for half the price or not but maybe someone else here does. For the lens, note that the 70-200mm has a maximum magnification of 0.5x. This is probably fine if you don't want to focus stack as any higher magnification and you will struggle to get high relief coins entirely in focus but the coin won't fill the frame so you'll have "wasted" space in the image in a sense. If focus stacking might be something you want to try one day, I'd go for a macro lens with at least 1x magnification. The Sony 90mm 1x macro is an excellent performer. The Sigma Art 105mm 1x macro is even better but if you want something cheaper, don't need autofocusing (which I wouldn't recommend for coins anyway), and want the ability to go to 2x, then the Laowa 100mm 2x macro is the best bang for your buck macro lens ever made in my opinion. For image processing, it can be tricky to get the white balance right. I've used white balance cards for this but they don't work well with my lighting setup. Trying to white balance yourself is a recipe for disaster as not only will the screen you're editing on have a bias but even ambient light will bias what you see so you'll get a different result if you edited the photo in the morning or evening for example. It used to be that I'd wake up in the morning to take a look at the photo I edited the night before and be shocked how far off white balance it was. The best method I've found for my own process is using Photoshop's "Auto Color" tool, which is just a one-click correction. It's probably not perfect but more importantly it's consistent so all my photos are similarly balanced even if the original photos were biased in different ways (e.g. too yellow or too green). 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted June 3 · Supporter Share Posted June 3 (edited) 9 hours ago, NathanB said: Would a close-up filter help me? And could it be combined with one or two extension tubes? Is there any way of using a 45-150 mm lens to improve things? Is the only way to really get better images to buy a macro lens? And if so, what would be the cheapest macro lens that you would consider worthy buying for someone on a budget? I don't have any experiences with macro filters, but I take coin pictures with macro tubes (no-name China stuff from eBay) using a Canon EOS Rebel T6s and a Canon EFS 18–135mm lens mounted on a tripod. As said above, a copystand and a real macro lens would certainly be better. Yet, the tubes were only about 10 bucks. I'm too stingy to spend real money on coin photography equipment, I don't want to clutter my relatively small home office space with a clunky copystand etc., and I am satisfied enough with my results. Below is a picture of my camera setup: Below are some coin pictures that I've taken with this setup. Settings: AV-mode, ISO 200, f16, exposure time automatic. The photography pros on this board would have achieved better results, but in my eyes, these images are fair enough. It's up to you to like them or not. Edited June 3 by Ursus 9 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Posted June 3 · Supporter Share Posted June 3 Thank you, @Kaleun96 Magnification is a significant, even a primary consideration! My coins are tremisses/semisses/solidi, so 13-20 mm, and I want to see/show fine details, potentially down to the level of individual letters. In contrast, high relief is not an issue. I have similar concerns about the 0.5x magnification, but the reasoning is taking advantage of the higher depth of field - the lens allows x0.5 at 200mm and using the native x2 Teleconverter lens. It is unpredictable if it will work, but reviews of this combination in other applications seem positive. Do you think Sony 90mm 1x macro would be a more senseble lens to go for? Laowa 100mm 2x macro is a Plan B option for higher resolution. Thank you for the white balance suggestion! I will explore - will likely need a lot of exprementing. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaleun96 Posted June 3 · Member Share Posted June 3 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Rand said: Thank you, @Kaleun96 Magnification is a significant, even a primary consideration! My coins are tremisses/semisses/solidi, so 13-20 mm, and I want to see/show fine details, potentially down to the level of individual letters. In contrast, high relief is not an issue. I have similar concerns about the 0.5x magnification, but the reasoning is taking advantage of the higher depth of field - the lens allows x0.5 at 200mm and using the native x2 Teleconverter lens. It is unpredictable if it will work, but reviews of this combination in other applications seem positive. Do you think Sony 90mm 1x macro would be a more senseble lens to go for? Laowa 100mm 2x macro is a Plan B option for higher resolution. Thank you for the white balance suggestion! I will explore - will likely need a lot of exprementing. If you really need the working distance, that combination might be worthwhile. Apparently the minimum focusing distance at 200mm for the 70-200 lens is 42cm, so with a 2x teleconverter you would essentially have a 200mm 1x macro lens with the field of view of a 400mm lens, allowing you to keep that massive focusing distance while doubling your magnification from 0.5x to 1x. Though there is perhaps such a thing as too much focusing distance for a macro lens and 42cm is a lot. I think for the 100mm Laowa lens, it's more like 15cm at 1x, which is plenty in my experience. The downsides of the teleconverter are that you would take a hit in terms of sharpness and possibly introduce more optical defects (e.g. chromatic aberrations), and also that you would lose 2 stops of light. So if you're at 200mm and f/8, with the teleconverter you're effectively at 400mm and f/16, which is likely diffraction territory, affecting sharpness even more. You could theoretically drop down to, say, f/4 or f/5.6 and then you'll be at f/8 or f/11, which might provide enough depth of field but I'm not sure if the depth of field would be the same as a native 1x 200mm macro. The other consideration is if you wanted to use the lens for things other than macro, in which case it might make more sense than buying a dedicated macro lens. But if the goal is to get a dedicated macro lens, I'd go for the Sony, Sigma, or Laowa. The Sony is definitely excellent but I've heard that the Sigma is even better. The Laowa has better optical quality than the Sony but without autofocus. Supposedly the Sigma has the best optical quality of the three plus autofocus. I do like the Laowa for <20mm coins though due to the 2x ability. This one is about 15mm at its widest and I shot it at about 1.5x I think. That did require focus stacking though. Edited June 3 by Kaleun96 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Posted June 3 · Supporter Share Posted June 3 Thank you again, @Kaleun96. May need to reconsider. Nice photos! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severus Alexander Posted June 3 · Supporter Share Posted June 3 Like Ursus and you, I've aimed to keep the photo budget low (more money for coins!! 😁), and so I haven't moved from an extension tube to a macro lens. Here are some easy-to-implement suggestions which total less than a hundred bucks. 1) Probably obvious, but are you using a remote release for the camera shutter? It makes a big difference not touching the camera during the shot. 2) The biggest savings: build your own copy stand with two by fours and a few screws: The holes in the 20-inch upright (cut to suit your setup) are for a long bolt to attach the camera with. Just add wooden spacers between the upright and camera to get the camera the right distance out. The holes are just for major adjustments, eg when changing lenses. For minor height adjustments, use: 3) A cheap but sturdy lab jack like this one: This thing makes it easy to switch from a hemiobol to a denarius to a sestertius while still getting the coin to fill the frame, getting as much detail as possible. 4) For lighting, I've found this sort of thing to be perfectly acceptable: Bright, adjustable, moveable. Make sure you've got something white or grey in the shot so you can adjust the white balance in software. This makes a big difference to colour accuracy. 5) You said you're dissatisfied with your blacks. Maybe try using black velvet for your background (with the coin raised above it, of course). Absorbs more light, so a minor software adjustment to the blackpoint is usually enough to get a pure black. (These days I'm preferring a light pad as the background though... less fiddly. And easier to use with my cheapo axial lighting setup, which does a much better job of capturing toning, including iridescence. It means ditching the @dougsmit style black backgrounds though, unfortunately. 😞 I can provide further details about this setup if you are contemplating using axial lighting. Many thanks to @Kaleun96!) That's it. The only other thing I did to improve my photos was to update my dSLR camera-back from an ancient Canon Rebel with inadequate resolution to a used Canon 70D (20 megapixels). That was a more significant expense, but your 4/3 camera is surely already good enough. (I've found the Canon software to be very helpful, incidentally. Changing every photo to "fine detail" mode really does improve detail, and the white balance adjustment is a snap.) I'm no photographer, but hopefully at least one of these "for dummies on a budget" tips is useful. Two of my earliest shots with the above setup (not axial), when I was still using a black background: (These images have somewhat reduced detail due to compression. I think I used a ring light for the denarius, in addition to the lights illustrated above.) 10 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenfool Posted June 3 · Member Share Posted June 3 (edited) I can't help you on the finer details of coin photography as I took a cheap and easy way out. I bought this thing for £30 from Amazon. Obviously the photos are nowhere near as good as those that members can achieve with their expensive and sophisticated set ups, but it is a great starter IMO and provides a lot of satisfaction for minimal investment. Now this looks like cheap trash, and I did have to buy a better stand as the included one was awful. But, I am amazed by the images I get from this little piece of kit, and it's compatible with the PhotoBooth application on my Macbook, and has a built in torch, so it's literally plug-in and take photos. Here's some of them: The only issues I've found is firstly, that on the preview screen the image is mirrored horizontally, but it fixes itself when taken. Apparently this can be fixed by using the official app from the devices manufacturers but I didn't want to. Secondly, because it is microscope rather than a camera, the largest coin it can handle is a larger Nummus of Diocletian's money reform. Edited June 3 by Steppenfool 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanB Posted June 4 · Member Author Share Posted June 4 (edited) 22 hours ago, rasiel said: Pic of your setup? My first advice is to forget the ancient coin. Go and get a penny to do your test shots with. That's a coin everyone can relate to. - On camera flash is useless. The subject is too close to the lens. - Extension tubes and close up filters are cumbersome to handle, degrade image quality, complicate setup and might cost more than getting a macro lens anyway - Off camera flash is too difficult to set up anyway. Opt for a continuous light solution which is far cheaper, easier and can deliver great shots. - Do get a macro lens if you can afford it. ~100mm is the sweet spot in terms of working distance and cost. - A 30 year old lens can outperform a brand new one and be much cheaper - Don't worry about the background being too black in-shot. This is best done in post processing. - For sharpness there is no better alternative than a good lens and a tripod. None. Rasiel Thank you so much for responding, Rasiel. Regarding the penny, I have only a very few hidden away somewhere in a closet, and in my country they no longer circulate. But I have ancient bronze coins sitting right out beside my computer. 🙂 I appreciate all of your remarks, and especially those about continuous lighting vs. flash. One small clarification, though: extension tubes and close-up filters are quite cheap. I think either can be had for $20-$30. Regarding a macro lens, one thing I don't understand at present is what the numbers mean (e.g. 30 mm, 60 mm, or 100 mm). As for a pic of my set up, I was too lazy to take one today as I do not have a permanent set up. But I do use a tripod. I have a small wooden box that I bought for about $5 from a Winners store, and got some black felt that enclosed a few coins I won in an online auction a year or two ago. I also have a thin dowel that brings the coin above the surface of the walls of the box, and thus fairly far above the felt. Edited June 4 by NathanB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanB Posted June 4 · Member Author Share Posted June 4 21 hours ago, akeady said: I use Micro Four Thirds also - an Olympus E-M1 with the Olympus 60mm macro lens. I use a copystand and a LED panel that sits on the camera hotshoe. I recommend the 60mm macro if you want to buy a decent micro four thirds macro lens - I've had mine for more than five years and am happy with it. The copystand and the E-M1 I bought secondhand and I got the 60mm at a discount too as the box was damaged. The E-M1 is playing up a bit as the mode dial doesn't work reliably, but this isn't important for coin photographs as I control it from a 'phone. (I started with an E-M10 and wanted a macro lens for coin photos, ended up getting the E-M1, then an E-M1 Mk II and now am OM-1 and about 10 lenses, so the camera gadget addiction is nearly as bad as coin collecting 😄) This was my setup a few years ago - I haven't used the two daylight lights attached here recently and I moved the setup out of the messy room a long time ago! And this is the photo' used by the seller I got it from (his camera): I didn't do any post processing with this medal apart from cropping. The coin is raised using a imple dowel rod or CD spindle. I can do in-camera focus stacking, but rarely bother. Rasiel above takes great coin photos, all I can add is my own experience with Olympus gear. What I've found is that what's needed, in order of importance: Stable mount - I played with a tripod for a while but found it awkward to position the coin - the copystand is much better. Lighting - I stopped improving things when I got this - https://www.aputure.com/products/m9/ - there are better lighting setups, but I'm happy enough with what I get from this. Good lens - I haven't tried extension tubes, but have seen good results from them, though you probably have to start with a sharp lens anyway. The Olympus 60mm works well for me. Camera - most modern(ish) cameras are good enough - I don't know which body you have, but it's probably as good as the E-M1 I use, which was launched in 2013. ATB, Aidan. Hi Aidan! I was hoping you might chime in. I remember you posting that medallion on another forum another time. Honestly, I'm completely gobsmacked by it, and your photo of it. It just draws the viewer in deeper and deeper into the image. The effect is like walking into a building and then walking and looking deeper into it. I actually have a visceral emotional attachment to that piece of yours, but I won't ever be able to make you an offer on it! 😄 I think your remarks about having a stable mount and good lighting are probably where I need to focus my attention. Unfortunately, it seems that copy stands are quite expensive. I definitely want one, though. Regarding lenses, I have a particularly embarrassing story--possibly two! The reason I got my Panasonic 45-150 mm lens is because I thought "oh, the range of macro lenses fit right in the middle." And so of course I bought a lens I can't use for macro photography. But I kept it too long before trying to use it, and so missed my return date. 😞 If I had a lot of money, I wouldn't care, but it wasn't good stewardship of my very limited resources. I will try to sell it soon. Meanwhile, your and Rasiel's and others' remarks about a good quality lens moved me to make an impulse purchase this morning. I looked up used micro four thirds macro equipment on Craigslist and Facebook marketplace. I was not able to find anything I could afford, except an Olympus M Zuiko Digital 12-50 mm lens with a macro switch. The price seemed excellent at $150 CAD, so I went and bought it. If it turns out not to be the right lens for me, then I will have to try to sell it, too. I will be trying to sell my Panasonic 45-150 mm anyways. Now, though, I have to learn how to use it. Until now, I've never used anything other than my kit lens (14-42 mm with extension tubes). But I really can't spend any more on a lens right now. Oh yes: you asked what camera I use. I don't think it will be as good as yours, but it's not too bad. It's a Panasonic G3. I've had it for many years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanB Posted June 4 · Member Author Share Posted June 4 19 hours ago, Kaleun96 said: Some good suggestions already but I'll add my $0.02 as what's a photography question without more opinions than people giving them! 1. Close-up filters are better at longer focus lengths, probably around 70-80mm I'd look to use a close-up filter over extension tubes. I wouldn't combine it since you're already stretching the performance of the lens, you'll surely run into diffraction territory trying to use an aperture that gives you enough depth of field at that magnification. The best close-up filters are those made by Raynox, such as the DCR-250. 2. Your photos are already pretty good in terms of detail for using a 45-150 and extension tubes. I'd say lighting is the main area where you can experiment and get significantly different results. Unless you're unhappy with the sharpness and resolution, or the pain of setting up the lens and focusing it etc, I'd focus more on lighting. 3. I'd say the main problem a macro lens will solve for you is the ease of use. Unless you really want to get out every last bit of detail, which I understand myself, then you probably don't need better optical quality but it sounds like the setting up and use of your gear is what is discouraging you / making taking photos harder than it needs to be. So a macro lens can definitely help you there while also giving you better performance. A better tripod/copystand is definitely a huge improvement. Ideally you can have something you can leave out in an almost ready-to-go state. If you're short on space, that means optimising its footprint so it doesn't take up too much room or can be hidden away and easily brought out when needed. Copystands are pretty good at this but decent ones are expensive. The WeMacro vertical stand is affordable but requires some additional components. You want to be able to easily and precisely move the camera closer to or further away from the coin. Copystands often have a rack and pinion mechanism for this but cheap ones will have a lot of "play" in the mechanism and flex or move about. Copystands with a simple clamp system are a bit of a pain since you have to continuously make adjustments until you get it and right and inevitably each time you clamp it down, it moves slightly away from where you want it. You can probably make a setup using the WeMacro stand plus a macro rail like this one for less than a good copystand. Lighting is the next biggest pain. Whether you use continuous lighting or flash doesn't matter so much. Flash can "freeze" subjects in place but that's really more a function of the shutter speed and flash speed. You need a good stand either way so there's no reason continuous lighting can't work for you. I've used both at various points but I prefer flash because you have more control and a smaller body for a much higher power. The downside is that it can be hard to see what you're doing since the live preview will be underexposed so you may need a continuous light source to just let you see what you're doing. You can easily spend more on continuous lighting than a flash but continuous lighting definitely has a lower minimum price, you may just find it doesn't have enough power or it's too big or too difficult to control etc. Cheap but good camera flashes start at around $70, I use the Godox TT350 primarily and have for years. Whichever you choose, the main thing is finding a setup that is consistent and requires little adjustment. My own lighting setup is based on that principle and while it produces great photos most of the time, it may not produce the best photo for a particular coin. Some coins I will spend more time on and customise the lighting but as a baseline you want a ready-to-go setup that will get you good results every time and great results most of the time. Going back to lenses. Old lenses can definitely be had for cheap and perform better than new ones, the trick is finding the good ones. There's plenty of trash from 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago but there are some gems too. Unless you want to spend time on researching which is best, or there's already a consensus on a great old lens to buy, I'd try to stick to modern ones. The best bang-for-your-buck when it comes to old lenses are enlarger lenses. Great ones can be bought for $75-$150 and rival some modern lenses but they require fiddling around with to get the right extension or reversed-lens combination and changing magnification can be difficult. To wrap this up, my advice is to focus on the things which are stopping you from wanting to take photos first. This will probably be related to the lighting and stand/tripod to begin with. After that, the lens probably comes next. Once you've solved the initial annoyances there, you can then start focussing on other things to improve your process. In the last 3 years, I went from a tripod + manual macro rail to a specialised vertical stand, custom lighting adapters for my camera flashes, motorised linear rail for moving the camera and focus stacking, a custom controller for automated focus stacking, a motorised X axis for translating the coin platform under the camera, an optical rotation stage, an optical goniometer for tilting the coin, and an illuminated background so I can get a reliable one-click background removal in Photoshop. Each was added one step at a time in order of what aspect of taking photos for my coins was annoying me the most. After solving the main tripod and lighting issues, the gains are incremental but they add up when you take enough photos. Thank you very much, Kaleun96! That was a very thorough post and I was glad to read it. First things first, I think you identified that struggling with the set up equipment, including the lighting, is the single biggest reason that I have become discouraged with my coin photography. Now that I know that, I can try to concentrate on those two areas. Notwithstanding that, I'm a sucker for sexiness and I bought a used lens this morning hoping that it will be better than my current one! (It's an Olympus M Zuiko Digital 12-50 mm lens with a macro switch. It seems to be fully functional. That is to say, a copy stand is not as sexy as a lens, I guess, so this may have been a bad decision on my part. But I think that at $150 CAD (about $110 USD), the price was right. But I am definitely on board with going the copystand route, and I can see that that is actually what I should be focusing on (pun unintended!) right now. About lenses, my original post may have led you astray. For my coin photography, I only use my kit lens (14-45 mm) with extension tubes. I have not found a way to get my 45-150 mm lens to work at all for coin photography. Part of the problem there is that I really don't understand the theory of photography, including what those numbers in millimeters even mean. I've tried in the past but somehow never seem to "get" it. I will have to try again. I have also not understood the difference between a non-macro lens and a macro lens with those designations. (For instance, Aidan uses a 60 mm macro lens. I have non-macro lens with 45-150 mm, but can't seem to make it work for macro work at all.) So I have a lot of learning to do. Back to the copystand, I appreciate your suggestions. The cost of the (incomplete) copystand and the macro rail that you mentioned is still too much for me right now, but I will make them a medium-term goal to work towards. I will have to think about lighting, still. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanB Posted June 4 · Member Author Share Posted June 4 17 hours ago, Ursus said: I don't have any experiences with macro filters, but I take coin pictures with macro tubes (no-name China stuff from eBay) using a Canon EOS Rebel T6s and a Canon EFS 18–135mm lens mounted on a tripod. As said above, a copystand and a real macro lens would certainly be better. Yet, the tubes were only about 10 bucks. I'm too stingy to spend real money on coin photography equipment, I don't want to clutter my relatively small home office space with a clunky copystand etc., and I am satisfied enough with my results. Below is a picture of my camera setup: Below are some coin pictures that I've taken with this setup. Settings: AV-mode, ISO 200, f16, exposure time automatic. The photography pros on this board would have achieved better results, but in my eyes, these images are fair enough. It's up to you to like them or not. Thank you very much, Ursus! I would say you are getting a lot of bang for very little buck! 🙂 Also: nice educational image of your setup. Your setup is actually similar to mine, except that I added an LED light (until it broke) and one or two Coleman battery-powered lanterns. I have shot in both daylight and in darkness (except for those lights). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanB Posted June 4 · Member Author Share Posted June 4 10 hours ago, Severus Alexander said: Like Ursus and you, I've aimed to keep the photo budget low (more money for coins!! 😁), and so I haven't moved from an extension tube to a macro lens. Here are some easy-to-implement suggestions which total less than a hundred bucks. 1) Probably obvious, but are you using a remote release for the camera shutter? It makes a big difference not touching the camera during the shot. 2) The biggest savings: build your own copy stand with two by fours and a few screws: The holes in the 20-inch upright (cut to suit your setup) are for a long bolt to attach the camera with. Just add wooden spacers between the upright and camera to get the camera the right distance out. The holes are just for major adjustments, eg when changing lenses. For minor height adjustments, use: 3) A cheap but sturdy lab jack like this one: This thing makes it easy to switch from a hemiobol to a denarius to a sestertius while still getting the coin to fill the frame, getting as much detail as possible. 4) For lighting, I've found this sort of thing to be perfectly acceptable: Bright, adjustable, moveable. Make sure you've got something white or grey in the shot so you can adjust the white balance in software. This makes a big difference to colour accuracy. 5) You said you're dissatisfied with your blacks. Maybe try using black velvet for your background (with the coin raised above it, of course). Absorbs more light, so a minor software adjustment to the blackpoint is usually enough to get a pure black. (These days I'm preferring a light pad as the background though... less fiddly. And easier to use with my cheapo axial lighting setup, which does a much better job of capturing toning, including iridescence. It means ditching the @dougsmit style black backgrounds though, unfortunately. 😞 I can provide further details about this setup if you are contemplating using axial lighting. Many thanks to @Kaleun96!) That's it. The only other thing I did to improve my photos was to update my dSLR camera-back from an ancient Canon Rebel with inadequate resolution to a used Canon 70D (20 megapixels). That was a more significant expense, but your 4/3 camera is surely already good enough. (I've found the Canon software to be very helpful, incidentally. Changing every photo to "fine detail" mode really does improve detail, and the white balance adjustment is a snap.) I'm no photographer, but hopefully at least one of these "for dummies on a budget" tips is useful. Two of my earliest shots with the above setup (not axial), when I was still using a black background: (These images have somewhat reduced detail due to compression. I think I used a ring light for the denarius, in addition to the lights illustrated above.) Thank you, Severus Alexander! I like your idea of the homemade wooden copystand. Unfortunately, I'm not much of a wood worker, and have no tools apart from a hammer and screwdriver. That said, my dad has quite a bit of material. The only thing I don't "get" about your copystand suggestion is how to attach the camera to the bolts that go in the holes. Thank you also for the lighting and jack suggestions. I regularly need to elevate the coin stand--and also the Coleman battery-operated camping lights I used. I've been using books and cardboard boxes. It's a very cumbersome process and not easy to remember in a way. I feel like each time I set up things, I'm starting from scratch. Nice photos, by the way. I noticed that you put up black ones. I like the "Doug Smit"-style black background. (Doug's got a background effect named after him now! 🙂) I think I want to stick with black right now--it's what I know, and I like the look--but someday I might be interested in going to white. Can you post a few coin pictures photographed using your new setup? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanB Posted June 4 · Member Author Share Posted June 4 (edited) 9 hours ago, Steppenfool said: I can't help you on the finer details of coin photography as I took a cheap and easy way out. I bought this thing for £30 from Amazon. Obviously the photos are nowhere near as good as those that members can achieve with their expensive and sophisticated set ups, but it is a great starter IMO and provides a lot of satisfaction for minimal investment. Now this looks like cheap trash, and I did have to buy a better stand as the included one was awful. But, I am amazed by the images I get from this little piece of kit, and it's compatible with the PhotoBooth application on my Macbook, and has a built in torch, so it's literally plug-in and take photos. Here's some of them: The only issues I've found is firstly, that on the preview screen the image is mirrored horizontally, but it fixes itself when taken. Apparently this can be fixed by using the official app from the devices manufacturers but I didn't want to. Secondly, because it is microscope rather than a camera, the largest coin it can handle is a larger Nummus of Diocletian's money reform. Steppenfool, those are great photos! I used to very occasionally use a microscope camera when I worked in a coin shop years ago. Normally, there was a more senior colleague who used it, and neither he nor I were even remotely happy with it. Yours produces far superior results. I didn't know that they had gotten that good! I'm curious how you got the black background on the last coin, by the way. Was it with the microscope camera, or did you add it later with software editing? Edited June 4 by NathanB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaleun96 Posted June 4 · Member Share Posted June 4 (edited) 7 hours ago, NathanB said: Thank you very much, Kaleun96! That was a very thorough post and I was glad to read it. First things first, I think you identified that struggling with the set up equipment, including the lighting, is the single biggest reason that I have become discouraged with my coin photography. Now that I know that, I can try to concentrate on those two areas. Notwithstanding that, I'm a sucker for sexiness and I bought a used lens this morning hoping that it will be better than my current one! (It's an Olympus M Zuiko Digital 12-50 mm lens with a macro switch. It seems to be fully functional. That is to say, a copy stand is not as sexy as a lens, I guess, so this may have been a bad decision on my part. But I think that at $150 CAD (about $110 USD), the price was right. But I am definitely on board with going the copystand route, and I can see that that is actually what I should be focusing on (pun unintended!) right now. About lenses, my original post may have led you astray. For my coin photography, I only use my kit lens (14-45 mm) with extension tubes. I have not found a way to get my 45-150 mm lens to work at all for coin photography. Part of the problem there is that I really don't understand the theory of photography, including what those numbers in millimeters even mean. I've tried in the past but somehow never seem to "get" it. I will have to try again. I have also not understood the difference between a non-macro lens and a macro lens with those designations. (For instance, Aidan uses a 60 mm macro lens. I have non-macro lens with 45-150 mm, but can't seem to make it work for macro work at all.) So I have a lot of learning to do. Back to the copystand, I appreciate your suggestions. The cost of the (incomplete) copystand and the macro rail that you mentioned is still too much for me right now, but I will make them a medium-term goal to work towards. I will have to think about lighting, still. The theory and physics behind photography can definitely be daunting but for the most part you can ignore it and stick to the general principles. So for example, a 12-50mm focal length lens would be considered "wide"/"short" at the 12mm end and "standard" at the 50mm end. A wide/short focal length is typically not ideal for macro photography because the working distance is often very short. The working distance is the distance from the front of the lens to the subject when you're focussed on the subject at a given magnification. For a 1x macro lens, this can sometimes be as little as an inch or two if the lens has a wide/short focal length. For a macro lens with a "long" focal length like 100mm, the working distance may be 5 or 6 inches. The working distance is important for coins because the bigger the space between the lens and the coin, the easier it is to get your lights in there at the right angle. If there's only an inch or two, your lights would have to be lighting the coin from a very low angle to get around the lens that's in the way. There are two main differences between a macro lens and non-macro lens: the magnification ratio and the minimum focusing distance. The magnification ratio is the relationship between how big an object appears on the camera's sensor versus its actual size in real life. So you have a micro four-thirds camera, this means the camera sensor has a dimension of 18 mm wide × 13.5 mm high. Let's now take a coin with a diameter of 13.5mm and using your camera and lens, try to get as close to the coin so that when it is in-focus, the coin fills the height of the image. So now the coin is perfectly filling the height of the image and since we know the height of the sensor is 13.5mm and the diameter of the coin is 13.5mm, that means the magnification is 1x (13.5 / 13.5). If the coin was 18mm in diameter but still filling the height of the image, the magnification ratio would be 13.5/18 = 0.75x. But you might be wondering, why doesn't every lens just focus on the coin so that it fills the frame of the image? That's where the minimum focusing distance plays a role. Like the human eye, a lens can't focus on an object that is extremely close to it, it will just be impossible to get an in-focus image. The minimum distance at which an object can be focused for a given lens is called the minimum focus distance. Macro lens are built specifically to have smaller minimum focusing distances, meaning they can get closer to the object and still be in-focus. Your 45-150mm lens likely can't focus as closely as Aidan's 60mm macro lens. Say you set your lens to 60mm and compare it against Aidan's, Aidan can likely have his lens closer to the coin than you can with your lens, even though you're both using the same focal length. You will have to move your camera further away from the coin to get the coin in-focus and when you move your camera further away, the coin takes up a smaller part of the image. For Aidan, the 13.5mm coin may fill the frame but for you, the 13.5mm coin may be only half of the frame, which would make your magnification ratio 6.75/13.5 = 0.5x. The 6.75mm is because we know the coin is taking up half the height of the frame, and the sensor is 13.5mm high, so 13.5/2 = 6.75mm. Here's a diagram that might explain this better. The red frame is a representation of the image sensor, which is also what you would see through your camera's viewfinder / LCD screen. Aidan can get the 13.5mm diameter hemidrachm in-focus when the lens is 80mm from the coin but when you try to do this, the coin won't focus. You then move the lens back so it's 160mm from the coin and now you can get the coin in focus, but the coin only takes up half of the image frame's height (6.75mm). Since the coin, which is 13.5mm in diameter, only takes up half of the sensor's height (6.75mm), the magnification ratio is 6.75/13.5 = 0.5x, while it's 1x for Aidan. Every lens has a magnification ratio but for non-macro lenses it's typically below 0.5x, meaning you can never get the lens to focus on an object that is the same size as the camera's sensor and have it fill the image frame. Extension tubes can fix this and allow you to focus on objects that are closer to the lens, which increases the magnification ratio of the lens. Edited June 4 by Kaleun96 4 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akeady Posted June 4 · Supporter Share Posted June 4 (edited) 16 hours ago, NathanB said: Hi Aidan! I was hoping you might chime in. I remember you posting that medallion on another forum another time. Honestly, I'm completely gobsmacked by it, and your photo of it. It just draws the viewer in deeper and deeper into the image. The effect is like walking into a building and then walking and looking deeper into it. I actually have a visceral emotional attachment to that piece of yours, but I won't ever be able to make you an offer on it! 😄 I think your remarks about having a stable mount and good lighting are probably where I need to focus my attention. Unfortunately, it seems that copy stands are quite expensive. I definitely want one, though. Regarding lenses, I have a particularly embarrassing story--possibly two! The reason I got my Panasonic 45-150 mm lens is because I thought "oh, the range of macro lenses fit right in the middle." And so of course I bought a lens I can't use for macro photography. But I kept it too long before trying to use it, and so missed my return date. 😞 If I had a lot of money, I wouldn't care, but it wasn't good stewardship of my very limited resources. I will try to sell it soon. Meanwhile, your and Rasiel's and others' remarks about a good quality lens moved me to make an impulse purchase this morning. I looked up used micro four thirds macro equipment on Craigslist and Facebook marketplace. I was not able to find anything I could afford, except an Olympus M Zuiko Digital 12-50 mm lens with a macro switch. The price seemed excellent at $150 CAD, so I went and bought it. If it turns out not to be the right lens for me, then I will have to try to sell it, too. I will be trying to sell my Panasonic 45-150 mm anyways. Now, though, I have to learn how to use it. Until now, I've never used anything other than my kit lens (14-42 mm with extension tubes). But I really can't spend any more on a lens right now. Oh yes: you asked what camera I use. I don't think it will be as good as yours, but it's not too bad. It's a Panasonic G3. I've had it for many years. Hi Nathan, I like that photo' myself and am amazed by the detail Giuseppe Bianchi got into the medal. I went to see the church (Basilica of San Lorenzo) a couple of years ago just because of the medal and it's a very good representation of the church. The damage visible especially to the columns is from a 1943 air raid. Bianchi actually made several other annual medals with a similar 3D effect - I've bid on a few but not won one yet - there's one in an upcoming Artemide auction featuring a view of the Basilica of St. Paul: https://www.deamoneta.com/auctions/view/948/994 Anyway, I haven't tried the 12-50mm lens but I have read good things about it, so I think it's worth a shot. Kaleun has covered the technical aspects 😄 I'm not familiar with the G3 either - I've stuck with the Olympus/OM System side of MFT, but I'm sure it will be suitable. Coins aren't the most difficult things to photograph - we can get close to them without their running or flying away 🙂 ATB, Aidan. Edited June 4 by akeady 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maridvnvm Posted June 4 · Member Share Posted June 4 I created a thread which evolved into a discussion on my photography setup relatively recently. Rather than duplicate anything from that thread here I will link to it below. It started with some results from a change in my camera and resulted in more description of my overall setup. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severus Alexander Posted June 5 · Supporter Share Posted June 5 17 hours ago, NathanB said: Thank you, Severus Alexander! I like your idea of the homemade wooden copystand. Unfortunately, I'm not much of a wood worker, and have no tools apart from a hammer and screwdriver. Oh, believe you me, I ain't no woodworker!! The only other tool you need is a drill. If you were to provide him with the dimensions, I expect your dad could knock it up in half an hour. 17 hours ago, NathanB said: The only thing I don't "get" about your copystand suggestion is how to attach the camera to the bolts that go in the holes. There should be a hole in the bottom of your camera for screwing it into a tripod. I use a long bolt, stick it through the back of the hole on the upright, through some bits of wood that also have holes drilled (spacers), and into the base of the camera so the lens is pointing straight down. I also use a level on the camera to get it perfectly straight. A little wrench serves to get it super tight. (Oops, one more tool!) If I get a chance I'll insert a pic into this comment later. You asked for some samples from my new setup, with white background. These required very little in the way of adjustment to the basic setup - it's basically stick the coin on its little support (I use wide nuts covered in waxy film for softness), adjust the lights a bit, and take the photo. It's easy for me to insert or remove my half-silvered axial lighting filter, as it's just attached to a flexible arm with a clip on the end. (Some people use a fixed 45 degree angle for the filter, and rotate the coin a bit to get the iridescence to show. I rotate the filter instead.) Here's another old black one, but it demonstrates one advantage of the axial lighting (which I use in addition to diffuse lighting). See the dark definition around the "prince" on the reverse? That's from getting the light directed vertically onto the surface of the coin, even in the centre (not possible with a ring light): The slight reflectivity (shininess) is also due to this lighting, although you can also get reflectivity with a ring light. I find the reflectivity to be a good thing on some coins, but not others. (Definitely a taste thing. My buddy @zumbly likes his silver photographed purely matte.) So... you can do my "new setup" with a black background, it's just that I find it way too fiddly. Someone with better mobility (my cancer affects this pretty significantly) would manage better. Reflectivity on AE, which helped make the obverse details visible: No axial lighting on this one though, the reflectivity is from the diffused directional lights: i.e. the axial lighting is an optional addition. Capturing coppery highlights: Tiny and difficult to photograph, but it came out fine (this is a very rare Constantine V half follis from Constantinople): A glossy green-black, notoriously difficult to capture, came out fine: Dullish silver with surface texture and horn silver: Another hard one, partially silvered, with iridescent purple (axial is the only way I've managed to consistently capture iridescence, though @Curtisimo somehow manages brilliantly with natural light): Complex green patination: Capturing iridescence (with the axial lighting) works fine with a black background too (though there's some whitening around the "XXXX" here because I hadn't yet quite got the hang of the filter): Hopefully that gives you a good idea of the range of possibilities. I emphasize again that this is done with a minimum of fussing with the apparatus... basically just moving the lights, and I also tend to lower the exposure a stop or two for AE. That's it! 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanB Posted June 5 · Member Author Share Posted June 5 18 hours ago, Kaleun96 said: The theory and physics behind photography can definitely be daunting but for the most part you can ignore it and stick to the general principles. So for example, a 12-50mm focal length lens would be considered "wide"/"short" at the 12mm end and "standard" at the 50mm end. A wide/short focal length is typically not ideal for macro photography because the working distance is often very short. The working distance is the distance from the front of the lens to the subject when you're focussed on the subject at a given magnification. For a 1x macro lens, this can sometimes be as little as an inch or two if the lens has a wide/short focal length. For a macro lens with a "long" focal length like 100mm, the working distance may be 5 or 6 inches. The working distance is important for coins because the bigger the space between the lens and the coin, the easier it is to get your lights in there at the right angle. If there's only an inch or two, your lights would have to be lighting the coin from a very low angle to get around the lens that's in the way. There are two main differences between a macro lens and non-macro lens: the magnification ratio and the minimum focusing distance. The magnification ratio is the relationship between how big an object appears on the camera's sensor versus its actual size in real life. So you have a micro four-thirds camera, this means the camera sensor has a dimension of 18 mm wide × 13.5 mm high. Let's now take a coin with a diameter of 13.5mm and using your camera and lens, try to get as close to the coin so that when it is in-focus, the coin fills the height of the image. So now the coin is perfectly filling the height of the image and since we know the height of the sensor is 13.5mm and the diameter of the coin is 13.5mm, that means the magnification is 1x (13.5 / 13.5). If the coin was 18mm in diameter but still filling the height of the image, the magnification ratio would be 13.5/18 = 0.75x. But you might be wondering, why doesn't every lens just focus on the coin so that it fills the frame of the image? That's where the minimum focusing distance plays a role. Like the human eye, a lens can't focus on an object that is extremely close to it, it will just be impossible to get an in-focus image. The minimum distance at which an object can be focused for a given lens is called the minimum focus distance. Macro lens are built specifically to have smaller minimum focusing distances, meaning they can get closer to the object and still be in-focus. Your 45-150mm lens likely can't focus as closely as Aidan's 60mm macro lens. Say you set your lens to 60mm and compare it against Aidan's, Aidan can likely have his lens closer to the coin than you can with your lens, even though you're both using the same focal length. You will have to move your camera further away from the coin to get the coin in-focus and when you move your camera further away, the coin takes up a smaller part of the image. For Aidan, the 13.5mm coin may fill the frame but for you, the 13.5mm coin may be only half of the frame, which would make your magnification ratio 6.75/13.5 = 0.5x. The 6.75mm is because we know the coin is taking up half the height of the frame, and the sensor is 13.5mm high, so 13.5/2 = 6.75mm. Here's a diagram that might explain this better. The red frame is a representation of the image sensor, which is also what you would see through your camera's viewfinder / LCD screen. Aidan can get the 13.5mm diameter hemidrachm in-focus when the lens is 80mm from the coin but when you try to do this, the coin won't focus. You then move the lens back so it's 160mm from the coin and now you can get the coin in focus, but the coin only takes up half of the image frame's height (6.75mm). Since the coin, which is 13.5mm in diameter, only takes up half of the sensor's height (6.75mm), the magnification ratio is 6.75/13.5 = 0.5x, while it's 1x for Aidan. Every lens has a magnification ratio but for non-macro lenses it's typically below 0.5x, meaning you can never get the lens to focus on an object that is the same size as the camera's sensor and have it fill the image frame. Extension tubes can fix this and allow you to focus on objects that are closer to the lens, which increases the magnification ratio of the lens. Thank you very much, @Kaleun96! You are a good teacher and explainer! I think I got most of what you were saying, and I'm going to reread it a number of times. I feel like this is my best chance to understand this stuff! About the magnification ratio, you helped me to understand something I hadn't understood before when I saw it popping up in various places online. The working distance and minimum focusing distance is a little trickier for me to understand how they operate in tandem. I think I understood you to say that a macro lens that has a longer focal length can see the object even when it is farther away--as opposed to a regular lens which would have trouble seeing it farther away. On the other hand, a macro lens also can get closer to the object, making lighting easier. In terms of getting closer to the object, I think that's called increasing the depth of field (or is it decreasing?). In my own photography with my 14-42 mm lens, I like go get as close to the coin as possible (as long as there is adequate lighting) because the magnification ratio is so very low. But often I find that I can't get close enough because the camera can't focus on the coin when it's too close. The extension coins definitely helped that a lot, but I want more. So now, once I can motivate myself to set everything up again, I will try my "new" cheap used Olympus M. Zuiko 12-50 mm lens that I just got. At first, I was worried--50 mm is only 5 mm larger than my maximum of 45 mm on my kit lens. I am hoping that because it can be a macro lens, that I will get more than a 10% larger image. (Unless perhaps it's not a true macro lens? I see that there is a button on it for a macro setting, but there are also settings on it for other things.) One other thing I am still confused about is focal length. A macro lens at 60 mm and a non-macro lens at 60 mm are so different--like the proverbial apples and oranges. So how is the focal length of the lens useful to a photographer when it means two such very different things? Feel free not to answer--I don't want to abuse your generosity. But if you are willing, I'm definitely all ears! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanB Posted June 5 · Member Author Share Posted June 5 (edited) 4 hours ago, Severus Alexander said: Oh, believe you me, I ain't no woodworker!! The only other tool you need is a drill. If you were to provide him with the dimensions, I expect your dad could knock it up in half an hour. There should be a hole in the bottom of your camera for screwing it into a tripod. I use a long bolt, stick it through the back of the hole on the upright, through some bits of wood that also have holes drilled (spacers), and into the base of the camera so the lens is pointing straight down. I also use a level on the camera to get it perfectly straight. A little wrench serves to get it super tight. (Oops, one more tool!) If I get a chance I'll insert a pic into this comment later. You asked for some samples from my new setup, with white background. These required very little in the way of adjustment to the basic setup - it's basically stick the coin on its little support (I use wide nuts covered in waxy film for softness), adjust the lights a bit, and take the photo. It's easy for me to insert or remove my half-silvered axial lighting filter, as it's just attached to a flexible arm with a clip on the end. (Some people use a fixed 45 degree angle for the filter, and rotate the coin a bit to get the iridescence to show. I rotate the filter instead.) Here's another old black one, but it demonstrates one advantage of the axial lighting (which I use in addition to diffuse lighting). See the dark definition around the "prince" on the reverse? That's from getting the light directed vertically onto the surface of the coin, even in the centre (not possible with a ring light): The slight reflectivity (shininess) is also due to this lighting, although you can also get reflectivity with a ring light. I find the reflectivity to be a good thing on some coins, but not others. (Definitely a taste thing. My buddy @zumbly likes his silver photographed purely matte.) So... you can do my "new setup" with a black background, it's just that I find it way too fiddly. Someone with better mobility (my cancer affects this pretty significantly) would manage better. Reflectivity on AE, which helped make the obverse details visible: No axial lighting on this one though, the reflectivity is from the diffused directional lights: i.e. the axial lighting is an optional addition. Capturing coppery highlights: Tiny and difficult to photograph, but it came out fine (this is a very rare Constantine V half follis from Constantinople): A glossy green-black, notoriously difficult to capture, came out fine: Dullish silver with surface texture and horn silver: Another hard one, partially silvered, with iridescent purple (axial is the only way I've managed to consistently capture iridescence, though @Curtisimo somehow manages brilliantly with natural light): Complex green patination: Capturing iridescence (with the axial lighting) works fine with a black background too (though there's some whitening around the "XXXX" here because I hadn't yet quite got the hang of the filter): Hopefully that gives you a good idea of the range of possibilities. I emphasize again that this is done with a minimum of fussing with the apparatus... basically just moving the lights, and I also tend to lower the exposure a stop or two for AE. That's it! Thank you, @Severus Alexander! I appreciated your remarks regarding the design of the wooden copystand. I think I can roughly picture it now. One thing I still don't understand is how you connect the camera to the bolt. Will this be the same size bolt as the kind on the tripod that goes into the camera bottom? I also read with interest your note about a waxed nut supporting the coin. I have a very thin wooden dowel that elevates my coin above the black velvet. But the coin will either wobble, not be level, or fall off. So I use some sort of putty-like substance that someone recommended back on Coin Talk. Unfortunately, when I was learning in the beginning, I was working a lot with a Julia Domna denarius--taking it off, putting it on, and so on--for many days. After a while, I noticed that the surface of my coin in one place was not as nice. So now I barely press the coin into the putty-like stuff (I forget what it's called), but I have a residual dislike for it. Can I ask how you get your coins level on the nut with so many of them have (compared to modern coins), such a high relief? Oh yes--you asked about a remote shutter release. I don't have that, but I do use a timer. You take really beautiful photos! I love the first one, in particular. I guess I really like that soft, matte look!. The image has a kind of painterly quality to it. That said, in real life, we see metal reflecting light a lot, so I think the reflectivity is more realistic. It would be nice to learn how to do your methods of lighting. I saw your comment about cancer. I'm so sorry, my online numismatic friend! I remember before when you announced you had it, and then after a while, it seemed like it was gone or all better. I hope you stay as healthy as possible for as long as possible--from a selfish perspective, I would miss you if you weren't here. Your cheerful spirit is very well communicated through your writing, and you are a pleasure to read. And in person, I'm sure, to be around. Anyway, please feel free to either address this, or not, as you prefer. Edited June 5 by NathanB 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
friedberg Posted June 5 · Member Share Posted June 5 15 hours ago, NathanB said: One other thing I am still confused about is focal length. A macro lens at 60 mm and a non-macro lens at 60 mm are so different--like the proverbial apples and oranges. So how is the focal length of the lens useful to a photographer when it means two such very different things? Hello, the focal length primarily determines the image section. Here is a good explanation: https://www.canon.ge/pro/infobank/understanding-focal-length/ I also use the MFT system, among other things. The 60 macro is recommended. The lens is available used “relatively” cheaply. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.d11204a96a2eb54c0a09b85f5316c72d.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.