A Sound And Tested Method For Looking Through Lots Of Coins.

Hi again!
I just tried out my new camera, and 'm astounded! here's why:

This is a picture of the old setup.

A closer view of the viewing.

This has a coin in place,on the slanted base, with a rotating support.

the last, a view of the coin. I made three "ramps for the coins: 10 degrees, 15 degrees, and 20 degrees. some angles give better results than others, depending on what you are looking for. IMHO.
I have never had a picture cout like these, before! the picture of the coin was from several inches away, and free support, (only hand-held)!
I just found out the order I select my photos n the "bucket", is the reverse in which they are shown. Please excuse my ignorance, and the "out of order" of the comments. These pictures sure made my day!
Does my neck get tired? Yes, even tho I use an adjustable chair for viewing. Like Chuck says, "take a break"!
Dick

I wouldn't spend that kind of money to get 1.3 megapixel. You'll be highly dissatisfied with the resolution.

CHUCK, I am awaiting an usb microscope with a 1.3 mp camera built in, this type of microscope uses the computer screen you already have and I know some people on this site have something like the one I ordered and they find( so they tell me)it works well.The pictures are very sharp and very clear.
I will let you know when I receive it, BE WELL, MIKE
PS: ALL FOR UNDER $100.00

QX-whatevers...lighting is completely wrong for imaging coins. You cannot make them take good images. End of story. I have seen them carefully dissected, played with, adjusted, melted, bent, broken, changed, warped...and they still produce images that are marginal at best.

1.3 megapixels is what cameras of 1995-1999 had. We are now in the 4 to 6 megapixel range for $150, and the quality is far better. I've seen 10 mpx cameras for under $500. I guarantee that 1.3 mpx is not going to produce very satisfactory results, no matter what you do with it.

Duplicating my setup would take about $900, and that's going with the cheapest possible reproduction. Mine cost over $1200. The lighting (the most important piece) is the most expensive. No way to craftfully and cheaply duplicate that part, and it's over $400.

Believe me...I've been at this for 10 years now - that is, ten years of trial and error at taking good photos of coins under higher magnification. I have tried just about everything out there, and have found that what I use now is best...and I've used the exact same thing for about three years now.

I've been through loupes and magnifiers of all sorts, trinocular scopes, boom scopes, biopticals, infinite zoom, four different cameras, five different lighting set-ups. All told, well over $5,000 in equipment. And what I have now is the best on the market for quality and consistency when it comes to good photos of coins under microscopes, and it's NOT the most expensive solution.

Of course I say all this with only one goal in mind - quality images that are reproducable, publishable, printable, and show VERY clearly what I want them to show. Depth, color, contrast, and quality. I can GUARANTEE you that a 1.3 mpx scope camera will NOT produce desirable results if your goal is quality images. If you're just playing around, it's fine, I guess. I wasn't just playing around from the beginning, so I knew the toy scopes wouldn't do it for me.

Man, I've got to change my set-up.

CHUCK, as you have strongly stated that you do not believe a QX WHATEVER(your term) will do the job, the lighting is w/e.I just wanted to share what I know some people on THIS SITE have used and still do and as with anything out there you will have to play with the system to get things right.I DO BELIEVE YOU ARE AN AMAZING PHOTOGRAPHER AND I BET YOU WERE NOT BORN THAT WAY.
I do believe you are , according to your words,in my opinion, getting a little ahead of where I am compared to you an, accomplished author and truthfully, a brilliant copper coin extraordinaire, and you prove this every time that you post an informative and educational column, that said,i know we have agreed to dis agree on some things in the past,however let the little people, like me, make our own mistakes, like you did and who knows, maybe the finished product some are seeking is not to be printed in a text or on a page in a book that you are writting.
I know you do all you can to assist others and I for one appreciate the expertise and talent you have come to freely give to others, I posted the message about usb microscopes to help others in my class, an avid coin collector looking to get some relief from the grind of useing a loupe and the straining of my eyes from hours and hours of doing what I love to do, HUNT FOR COINS AND ERRORS ON THOSE COINS.I am a disabled person who just keeps on trying.It would appear you are upset or at least your words seem to suggest this.I DID NOT MEAN TO BOTHER YOU AND IF THIS IS INDEED THE CASE, I APOLIGIZE AND WILL NOT "BOTHER" YOU AGAIN, BE WELL...

PS: There are many ways of doing things and I for one do things that suit me and my abilities.

rockdude, you said,:
Man, I've got to change my set-up.
I don't see anything wromg with it!
You should se mine, 99% of the time! Right now, the "decks are cleared for action", while a new setup with my new camera gets put together.
Dick

rockdude, just doin't hold your breath while you wait! I am still in the mental image of the setup, and the images are not what I want, yet! I will be doing one of two things: trying to mount the camera to shoot thru thr scope eyepieces, (and the results I have had so far ore not what I am after). It will likely be in a space all its' own, and, naturally, close to a computer. I would like it at hand, so if there is a coin that I want to show, I'll just turn to the coin mount, and check the image, then shoot. After that, it is a hop, skip, and a jump to the "Bucket", and then post on the forum. That large "box" will not be a part of it. That was a prototype, and it works, but is very awkward.A couple more night sleep, and an idea will pop into my head. Then, it will happen.
Dick