| Author |
 Replies: 23 / Views: 4,648 |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
8938 Posts |
Currently using the typical Plugable 2.0. I want to upgrade to something with a bit higher res and that can take full body shots on coins large dollar size with good quality. Trying to budget below $200, but willing to consider higher. Any recommendations?
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
34425 Posts |
I want to hear what folks say about this as I too could stand with an update to my Celestron...
"If you climb a good tree, you get a push."
-----Ghanaian proverb
"The danger we all now face is distinguishing between what is authentic and what is performed."
-----King Adz
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
9395 Posts |
The usual CCF recommendation is the "less than $400 setup", described in the epic thread in this subforum. http://goccf.com/t/158182Edited by pepactonius
12/02/2019 9:02 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
34425 Posts |
Ah yes ok yep. Thx @pep!
"If you climb a good tree, you get a push."
-----Ghanaian proverb
"The danger we all now face is distinguishing between what is authentic and what is performed."
-----King Adz
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4038 Posts |
I have purchased quite a few USB scopes over the years, trying to make one work well for coins. I have come "close" on functionality but never really acceptable level on any of the inexpensive offerings. The best I have used was a 16MP type, but unfortunately although it has a USB connection, it can't capture full 16MP image while connected. While on USB it is limited to 1920x1080. There are some newer ones which have USB3.0 and supposedly can transfer full resolution over USB, but I have not evaluated any of them. They are all pretty expensive, much more than the Rebel XS recommended in the <$400 thread. You can get a used XS for <$100 now, and the lens and extensions and such for <$100 as well, so the whole "<$400" setup is now really <$200 if you are only going for full-coin photos. Add another $75 if you want to have higher magnifications.
Contact me for photographic equipment or visit my home page at: http://macrocoins.com |
|
Valued Member
Russian Federation
172 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4038 Posts |
It is these results that keep me interested in USB/C-mount cameras. The result is good, but a fair amount of work to take and stitch the 6 images. The prospect of running at lower magnification to achieve good DOF is very appealing for high magnification work, though it is generally not needed for full coin shots. A few coins such as ancients and other high relief types would for sure benefit from the better DOF.
Contact me for photographic equipment or visit my home page at: http://macrocoins.com |
|
Valued Member
Russian Federation
172 Posts |
Yes, but of course it can shoot lower Mag without HDMI. 1080 is enough to see the correct focus on the computer monitor and save big 16mp photos oh hard drive via USB 2.0 In this case, the white balance process, etc. is not controlled by a cheap camera.
The HDMI input is now available on any modern TV, and viewing at 30 frames per second without delay helps you work with the light on a shiny object and immediately see what you get and control anything what you need. Even you do not need a computer during the photo shoot. Just sort your coins by size and shine, adjust the light and you can take hundreds of shots per hour. And forget abot focus forever. Any coin will be there :)
Edited by Justwalking
12/04/2019 03:00 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
9395 Posts |
Quote:
It is these results that keep me interested in USB/C-mount cameras. The result is good, but a fair amount of work to take and stitch the 6 images. The prospect of running at lower magnification to achieve good DOF is very appealing for high magnification work, though it is generally not needed for full coin shots. A few coins such as ancients and other high relief types would for sure benefit from the better DOF. How much better is the DOF with a small sensor, when measured in pixel pitch units? For example, if a 16MP USB microscope sensor has 1 micron pixels, and a 16MP (or maybe 24MP rectangular) DSLR sensor has 4 micron pixels, does the microscope have better DOF as viewed at the sensor? I'm guessing the DSLR could tolerate 2 microns of out-of-focusness, and the microscope could tolerate only 0.5 microns? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4038 Posts |
Quote:
Yes, but of course it can shoot lower Mag without HDMI. 1080 is enough to see the correct focus on the computer monitor and save big 16mp photos oh hard drive via USB 2.0 In this case, the white balance process, etc. is not controlled by a cheap camera.
The HDMI input is now available on any modern TV, and viewing at 30 frames per second without delay helps you work with the light on a shiny object and immediately see what you get and control anything what you need. Even you do not need a computer during the photo shoot. Just sort your coins by size and shine, adjust the light and you can take hundreds of shots per hour. And forget abot focus forever. Any coin will be there :) Your description is confusing. AFAIK, none of the USB 14/16/21MP cameras which use USB2.0 are able to shoot with full resolution while USB is connected. The USB must be disconnected before shooting, and the file is then saved on a flash card. When I tested the 16MP and 21MP cameras, I pulled the flash card and plugged it into a USB adapter to download. I did not try plugging the USB into the camera to see if the flash card was available as a "drive". In any case, plugging and unplugging USB for each shot, or even each shoot, will eventually wear out the USB connection, and is tedious. So until these are available such that they can both take and transfer full resolution over USB, I won't be able to recommend them. Quote:
How much better is the DOF with a small sensor, when measured in pixel pitch units? For example, if a 16MP USB microscope sensor has 1 micron pixels, and a 16MP (or maybe 24MP rectangular) DSLR sensor has 4 micron pixels, does the microscope have better DOF as viewed at the sensor? I'm guessing the DSLR could tolerate 2 microns of out-of-focusness, and the microscope could tolerate only 0.5 microns? COC does not tell the whole story regarding DOF. I prefer thinking about it in terms of output image resolution rather than sensor resolution. From that perspective only the effective aperture is involved, not the actual sensor pitch. |
|
Valued Member
Russian Federation
172 Posts |
Quote:
How much better is the DOF with a small sensor, when measured in pixel pitch units? If we confirm that for correct color sampling we need 4 pixels per subject then it will be (in terms of pixels pitch units) about 135 pixels for 4um pixels pitch and 300 pixels with 1mu pixels pitch for same Nikon 1X microscope objective; 65 pixels for 1um and 24 pixels for 4um at 4X lens according to this calc https://www.microscopyu.com/tutorials/depthoffieldEdited by Justwalking
12/04/2019 2:08 pm
|
|
Valued Member
Russian Federation
172 Posts |
Quote:
Your description is confusing. AFAIK, none of the USB 14/16/21MP cameras which use USB2.0 are able to shoot with full resolution while USB is connected. The USB must be disconnected before shooting, and the file is then saved on a flash card. Than I was lucky exception, Ray. :) None of mine pics here is via flash card in HDMI mode. All of them via USB 2.0 Quote:
In any case, plugging and unplugging USB for each shot, or even each shoot, will eventually wear out the USB connection, and is tedious. Sure. That's why I never did so. Just shoots as many shots as needed without flash card at all. Edited by Justwalking
12/04/2019 3:39 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4038 Posts |
Quote:
Than I was lucky exception, Ray. :) None of mine pics here is via flash card in HDMI mode. All of them via USB 2.0 The story is still not complete nor consistent. Your flagship photo posted on EasyZoom is only 4000x4000 pixels, and you stated it's a stitched panorama of 6 images taken over USB2.0, so you apparently did not get full HD resolution from the source images. Or did you, and then you downsized the image for presentation? Would be nice to have a full and complete picture of what you have done and why. Contact me for photographic equipment or visit my home page at: http://macrocoins.com |
|
Valued Member
Russian Federation
172 Posts |
Yes it is only 4000x4004, but it was not initial resolution. The stiched panorama was much larger but I resize it to obtain sharp picture at maximum zoom. Each one frame was to big, about 46MB with 16MP not square of course. In most cases in macro showing initial resolution just waste of space - there no new detail but more blur. Don't know why to put 208 MB pic from 1700 frames if there nothing to see at 1:1? As example https://www.easyzoom.com/image/130822/popular/8Edited by Justwalking
12/05/2019 10:23 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4038 Posts |
Well, that does not give me much confidence. I agree that the 208MB Dime photo you linked to is very poor-looking at 100%, but it does not have to be that way. Having good sharpness and detail at 100% is indeed possible. Here's an example I did recently: https://easyzoom.com/image/157586/a...?mode=manageI'm wondering what your original image looked like that it was unacceptable at 100%. Were the optics at fault, or the camera? When I bought the 16MP FHD camera, you gave input that it was similar to the one you were using, but it turns out yours is capable of transferring full resolution over USB. I don't know of any such cameras available for <$300, so I am still curious where you got that one. I guess it was on a super sale? In any case, these more expensive "professional model" cameras are not really a good match against something like the <$100 Rebel XS. Contact me for photographic equipment or visit my home page at: http://macrocoins.com |
|
Valued Member
Russian Federation
172 Posts |
I think that your pic is not just 1:1 stitched and unresized. There hundreds of stacked and stitched frames compared to mine only 6. And it looks like was used very agressive sharpening procedure. That's way it's looks far superrior compared with your attempt on single frame with very expensive lens and big camera. Clear to see the difference what you show on easyzoom:  And how it looks when not stacked and unresized  Quote:
When I bought the 16MP FHD camera, you gave input that it was similar to the one you were using, but it turns out yours is capable of transferring full resolution over USB. I don't know of any such cameras available for <$300 Ray, It was looks on your link exactly the same as mine in buttons, remote, body, even color, with same sensor and HDMI menu mode with comparable price. Do you think that the vendor somehow simplify it? Did you try to use it without flash card and save pic via USB? There in S-eye is options in menu to choose resolution for saved pics. Unfortunately I have sold this camera and far from home. (it was broken by new owner in few days after mistaken attempt to write firmware from GoPro) Can't help with software revision also. Quote:
I'm wondering what your original image looked like that it was unacceptable at 100%. Were the optics at fault, or the camera? You know already how it looks at 100% due to you have the same one. Yes, it is acceptable in macro, but better after resizing  as an any other camera regardless of sensor or pixel pitch size. Edited by Justwalking
12/05/2019 6:26 pm
|
| |
Replies: 23 / Views: 4,648 |
Posted 12/02/2019 8:47 pm
