Taking photos of a coin

Hi

I want to take photos of the coins in my collection, but I have some
difficulties finding out what camera I should buy. Right now I only
have the camera in my mobile phone, and this one is not good enough. I
guess the camera has to have a certain quality; but due to the high
prices of a digital camera, I need some advice on how to choose.


Best regards


Erik

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:57:43 -0700, pindborg
wrote:

Hi

I want to take photos of the coins in my collection, but I have some
difficulties finding out what camera I should buy. Right now I only
have the camera in my mobile phone, and this one is not good enough. I
guess the camera has to have a certain quality; but due to the high
prices of a digital camera, I need some advice on how to choose.


For routine coin photography (for eBay use), a point and shoot digital
camera will work as long as it has a macro setting. Look at the
camera models in the store and select one with a little tulip icon
that indicates that this sets it to macro. See:
http://www.ebaymatters.com/2005/05/p...se-up-its.html

Nikon is considered by most reviewers to produce the best macro
pictures in the point-and-shoot cameras. You can pick up a Nikon
Coolpix for under $125 that will work very well for coin photos.
http://www.nikoncoolpix.com/main.html

All that said, there are many other decisions to be made about
choosing a camera. If you are going to use it to photograph coins
*and* for other things, there are other features you should look for.
If you are expecting to take very detailed images, you should step up
a few grades to a SLR digital with interchangeable lenses and a
dedicated macro lens.

Whatever you do, also purchase a tripod that allows you to shoot
straight down on a coin. Any movement of the camera will make a mess
of macro photography.

Something like this would be good:
http://www.tabletopstudio.com/docume...hotography.htm
Even an inexpensive camera will produce good coin shots with this.
There are similar, and less expensive, product on the market.

As long as you have a macro setting, and understand lighting
techniques, you can get good photographs with inexpensive cameras.
Expensive cameras have advantages, but there's more than the camera
itself involved in good images.










--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:57:43 -0700, pindborg wrote:

Hi

I want to take photos of the coins in my collection, but I have some
difficulties finding out what camera I should buy. Right now I only
have the camera in my mobile phone, and this one is not good enough. I
guess the camera has to have a certain quality; but due to the high
prices of a digital camera, I need some advice on how to choose.


Best regards


Erik

Probably the first thing that should be sorted out is how much are you
willing to spend for your photography setup?
--
My web pages including my forum:

http://www.k6az.com

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:06:25 -0400, Eric Tillery
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:57:43 -0700, pindborg wrote:

Hi

I want to take photos of the coins in my collection, but I have some
difficulties finding out what camera I should buy. Right now I only
have the camera in my mobile phone, and this one is not good enough. I
guess the camera has to have a certain quality; but due to the high
prices of a digital camera, I need some advice on how to choose.


Best regards


Erik

Probably the first thing that should be sorted out is how much are you
willing to spend for your photography setup?

That would seem to me to be putting the cart before the horse. The
first thing that should be sorted out is what he wants to do with the
camera.

If he's willing to spend $1,000, but wants nothing more than basic
macro photographs, why steer him to a $1,000 camera instead of a $125
camera?

That leaves him with $875 to spend on coins to photograph.


--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:39:07 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:06:25 -0400, Eric Tillery
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:57:43 -0700, pindborg wrote:

Hi

I want to take photos of the coins in my collection, but I have some
difficulties finding out what camera I should buy. Right now I only
have the camera in my mobile phone, and this one is not good enough. I
guess the camera has to have a certain quality; but due to the high
prices of a digital camera, I need some advice on how to choose.


Best regards


Erik

Probably the first thing that should be sorted out is how much are you
willing to spend for your photography setup?

That would seem to me to be putting the cart before the horse. The
first thing that should be sorted out is what he wants to do with the
camera.

If he's willing to spend $1,000, but wants nothing more than basic
macro photographs, why steer him to a $1,000 camera instead of a $125
camera?

That leaves him with $875 to spend on coins to photograph.

Do you have any examples of coins shot with a $125 camera?

If you're going to go to the trouble of photographing your coins and can
afford to spend the money you may as well get something that is going to do
a good job. Just because a camera has a macro setting does not mean it's
going to take nice clear shots at the range needed to do coins.
--
My web pages including my forum:

http://www.k6az.com

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:49:57 -0400, Eric Tillery
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:39:07 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:06:25 -0400, Eric Tillery
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:57:43 -0700, pindborg wrote:

Hi

I want to take photos of the coins in my collection, but I have some
difficulties finding out what camera I should buy. Right now I only
have the camera in my mobile phone, and this one is not good enough. I
guess the camera has to have a certain quality; but due to the high
prices of a digital camera, I need some advice on how to choose.


Best regards


Erik

Probably the first thing that should be sorted out is how much are you
willing to spend for your photography setup?

That would seem to me to be putting the cart before the horse. The
first thing that should be sorted out is what he wants to do with the
camera.

If he's willing to spend $1,000, but wants nothing more than basic
macro photographs, why steer him to a $1,000 camera instead of a $125
camera?

That leaves him with $875 to spend on coins to photograph.

Do you have any examples of coins shot with a $125 camera?

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2.../180-1911a.jpg

All of my eBay photos are taken with a Nikon Coolpix P2. It
originally sold for about $300, but can be purchased now at
Overstock.com for $159. I don't think this particular model is
special in any way, but the Coolpix series offers some good, basic
cameras with macro ability.

The Nikon Coolpix L10 retails for $119.95. The same lenses are in the
L10 that are in the P2. The price difference is based on other
features in the P2 not available in the L10. The other features have
nothing to do with coin photography.

If you're going to go to the trouble of photographing your coins and can
afford to spend the money you may as well get something that is going to do
a good job.

I made the point that "good" is wholly dependant on what the job is.
The OP says he wants to photograph coins. If the "job" is to present
images of the type of coins normally sold on eBay, an inexpensive P&S
like the ones in the Nikon Coolpix series is quite adequate.

However, if the "job" is to present coins like Ira is offering, a
different camera would be required. If the OP wants to present
extreme close-ups of double dies, mint marks, or other features of a
high-ticket coin, I presume he would have stated that in his post.

The only reasons to photograph coins are (1) to provide an record of
inventory for personal or insurance purposes, or (2) to provide an
image of the coin in order to show someone not present what that
coin's appearance and condition is. Unless the coins are in the
category that Ira's links are in, an inexpensive camera is sufficient
to do either job.

Just because a camera has a macro setting does not mean it's
going to take nice clear shots at the range needed to do coins.

When you see "bad" images of coins on the web, the problem is seldom
caused by not using a good camera or an expensive camera. The problem
is usually due to lack of technique on the part of the person holding
the camera.

The problems are poor lighting, use of flash and the resulting
reflection and glare, camera shake because the camera was held rather
than used on a tripod, and color problems due to mismatching WB to
light source. They are also caused by poor presentation because the
image is not cropped correctly, poor composition, and extraneous
matter in the view.

Good technique and an inexpensive camera will produce superior results
over bad technique and a very expensive camera. No camera has the
ability to over-ride bad technique no matter how much you pay for it.

--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:24:45 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:49:57 -0400, Eric Tillery
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:39:07 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:06:25 -0400, Eric Tillery
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:57:43 -0700, pindborg wrote:

Hi

I want to take photos of the coins in my collection, but I have some
difficulties finding out what camera I should buy. Right now I only
have the camera in my mobile phone, and this one is not good enough. I
guess the camera has to have a certain quality; but due to the high
prices of a digital camera, I need some advice on how to choose.


Best regards


Erik

Probably the first thing that should be sorted out is how much are you
willing to spend for your photography setup?

That would seem to me to be putting the cart before the horse. The
first thing that should be sorted out is what he wants to do with the
camera.

If he's willing to spend $1,000, but wants nothing more than basic
macro photographs, why steer him to a $1,000 camera instead of a $125
camera?

That leaves him with $875 to spend on coins to photograph.

Do you have any examples of coins shot with a $125 camera?

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2.../180-1911a.jpg

All of my eBay photos are taken with a Nikon Coolpix P2. It
originally sold for about $300, but can be purchased now at
Overstock.com for $159. I don't think this particular model is
special in any way, but the Coolpix series offers some good, basic
cameras with macro ability.

The Nikon Coolpix L10 retails for $119.95. The same lenses are in the
L10 that are in the P2. The price difference is based on other
features in the P2 not available in the L10. The other features have
nothing to do with coin photography.

If you're going to go to the trouble of photographing your coins and can
afford to spend the money you may as well get something that is going to do
a good job.

I made the point that "good" is wholly dependant on what the job is.
The OP says he wants to photograph coins. If the "job" is to present
images of the type of coins normally sold on eBay, an inexpensive P&S
like the ones in the Nikon Coolpix series is quite adequate.

However, if the "job" is to present coins like Ira is offering, a
different camera would be required. If the OP wants to present
extreme close-ups of double dies, mint marks, or other features of a
high-ticket coin, I presume he would have stated that in his post.

The only reasons to photograph coins are (1) to provide an record of
inventory for personal or insurance purposes, or (2) to provide an
image of the coin in order to show someone not present what that
coin's appearance and condition is. Unless the coins are in the
category that Ira's links are in, an inexpensive camera is sufficient
to do either job.

Just because a camera has a macro setting does not mean it's
going to take nice clear shots at the range needed to do coins.

When you see "bad" images of coins on the web, the problem is seldom
caused by not using a good camera or an expensive camera. The problem
is usually due to lack of technique on the part of the person holding
the camera.

The problems are poor lighting, use of flash and the resulting
reflection and glare, camera shake because the camera was held rather
than used on a tripod, and color problems due to mismatching WB to
light source. They are also caused by poor presentation because the
image is not cropped correctly, poor composition, and extraneous
matter in the view.

Good technique and an inexpensive camera will produce superior results
over bad technique and a very expensive camera. No camera has the
ability to over-ride bad technique no matter how much you pay for it.

Gold is easy to photograph. For example:

http://www.k6az.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=84

The coin that you posted is not that much of a problem with a point and
shoot camera such as what you are suggesting. However, the major problem
with P&S cameras is that in macro mode they need to be a few inches away
from the coin to get a decent image. This interferes with lighting. This is
a crucial issue with small silver coins with luster. We had a discussion
about this here last year in photographing Mercury dimes. Here's one of
mine:

http://www.k6az.com/temp/1940_merc_obv.jpg

I don't think asking how much the person is willing to spend is "putting
the cart before the horse". I'm sure he has some idea, knowing what he
wants to spend will make it much easier to come up with suggestions.
--
My web pages including my forum:

http://www.k6az.com

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:02:59 -0400, Eric Tillery
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:24:45 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:49:57 -0400, Eric Tillery
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:39:07 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:06:25 -0400, Eric Tillery
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:57:43 -0700, pindborg wrote:

Hi

I want to take photos of the coins in my collection, but I have some
difficulties finding out what camera I should buy. Right now I only
have the camera in my mobile phone, and this one is not good enough. I
guess the camera has to have a certain quality; but due to the high
prices of a digital camera, I need some advice on how to choose.


Best regards


Erik

Probably the first thing that should be sorted out is how much are you
willing to spend for your photography setup?

That would seem to me to be putting the cart before the horse. The
first thing that should be sorted out is what he wants to do with the
camera.

If he's willing to spend $1,000, but wants nothing more than basic
macro photographs, why steer him to a $1,000 camera instead of a $125
camera?

That leaves him with $875 to spend on coins to photograph.

Do you have any examples of coins shot with a $125 camera?

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2.../180-1911a.jpg

All of my eBay photos are taken with a Nikon Coolpix P2. It
originally sold for about $300, but can be purchased now at
Overstock.com for $159. I don't think this particular model is
special in any way, but the Coolpix series offers some good, basic
cameras with macro ability.

The Nikon Coolpix L10 retails for $119.95. The same lenses are in the
L10 that are in the P2. The price difference is based on other
features in the P2 not available in the L10. The other features have
nothing to do with coin photography.

If you're going to go to the trouble of photographing your coins and can
afford to spend the money you may as well get something that is going to do
a good job.

I made the point that "good" is wholly dependant on what the job is.
The OP says he wants to photograph coins. If the "job" is to present
images of the type of coins normally sold on eBay, an inexpensive P&S
like the ones in the Nikon Coolpix series is quite adequate.

However, if the "job" is to present coins like Ira is offering, a
different camera would be required. If the OP wants to present
extreme close-ups of double dies, mint marks, or other features of a
high-ticket coin, I presume he would have stated that in his post.

The only reasons to photograph coins are (1) to provide an record of
inventory for personal or insurance purposes, or (2) to provide an
image of the coin in order to show someone not present what that
coin's appearance and condition is. Unless the coins are in the
category that Ira's links are in, an inexpensive camera is sufficient
to do either job.

Just because a camera has a macro setting does not mean it's
going to take nice clear shots at the range needed to do coins.

When you see "bad" images of coins on the web, the problem is seldom
caused by not using a good camera or an expensive camera. The problem
is usually due to lack of technique on the part of the person holding
the camera.

The problems are poor lighting, use of flash and the resulting
reflection and glare, camera shake because the camera was held rather
than used on a tripod, and color problems due to mismatching WB to
light source. They are also caused by poor presentation because the
image is not cropped correctly, poor composition, and extraneous
matter in the view.

Good technique and an inexpensive camera will produce superior results
over bad technique and a very expensive camera. No camera has the
ability to over-ride bad technique no matter how much you pay for it.

Gold is easy to photograph. For example:

http://www.k6az.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=84

The coin that you posted is not that much of a problem with a point and
shoot camera such as what you are suggesting. However, the major problem
with P&S cameras is that in macro mode they need to be a few inches away
from the coin to get a decent image. This interferes with lighting.

Not really. The shot I provided, and this one:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...r213/merc2.jpg
was shot in daylight on my front (covered) porch without any
supplemental external lighting. The lens was 1.5" away from the coin
and the camera was on a tripod-like device that I built. The image
was cropped to 400 x 400.

I've shot indoors with external lighting, but the porch shots take no
set-up time; just attach the camera to the tripod device and shoot.

I don't have a silver coin with any luster since all I have is gold.
I had to root through the junk box to find *any* Mercury dime. The
face of this coin is so corroded that you can't make out Mercury.

This is a crucial issue with small silver coins with luster.

This gets to the point "What is the job?" in the decision about which
camera to purchase. If the job is going to entail special aspects,
you tailor the camera to the job.

We had a discussion
about this here last year in photographing Mercury dimes. Here's one of
mine:

http://www.k6az.com/temp/1940_merc_obv.jpg

It's a fine image, but larger than I would use unless I wanted to
highlight some feature of the coin like the luster. I seldom go
larger than 400 px x 400 px for one face. There would have to be a
reason to go larger since I want my ad to be viewable without
scrolling.

I don't think asking how much the person is willing to spend is "putting
the cart before the horse". I'm sure he has some idea, knowing what he
wants to spend will make it much easier to come up with suggestions.

The OP has asked a general question about making a decision about what
to look for in a camera. I think it's reasonable to infer that he's
looking for a camera that will take basic coin photographs and that
he's interested in investing the least amount of money possible for
basic images.

To try to pin him down on budget, when he has no camera knowledge
other that what he knows his phone camera will do, is not what I would
consider to be the first step. If he's willing to spend $500, I see
no reason to advise him to spend $500 when he can do the job he wants
for less.

I do think it's rather amusing that you think that photographing gold
coins is easier than photographing silver coins. Both subjects
present their own hurdles. Getting the gold color right is a bitch.
The Indian image that I provided is more difficult to work with than
the Saint G because of the incused design. Light reflects off the
cuts. Gold can be as reflective as silver.

--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

"Eric Tillery" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:24:45 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:49:57 -0400, Eric Tillery
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:39:07 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:06:25 -0400, Eric Tillery
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:57:43 -0700, pindborg
wrote:

Hi

I want to take photos of the coins in my collection, but I have some
difficulties finding out what camera I should buy. Right now I only
have the camera in my mobile phone, and this one is not good enough. I
guess the camera has to have a certain quality; but due to the high
prices of a digital camera, I need some advice on how to choose.


Best regards


Erik

Probably the first thing that should be sorted out is how much are you
willing to spend for your photography setup?

That would seem to me to be putting the cart before the horse. The
first thing that should be sorted out is what he wants to do with the
camera.

If he's willing to spend $1,000, but wants nothing more than basic
macro photographs, why steer him to a $1,000 camera instead of a $125
camera?

That leaves him with $875 to spend on coins to photograph.

Do you have any examples of coins shot with a $125 camera?

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2.../180-1911a.jpg

All of my eBay photos are taken with a Nikon Coolpix P2. It
originally sold for about $300, but can be purchased now at
Overstock.com for $159. I don't think this particular model is
special in any way, but the Coolpix series offers some good, basic
cameras with macro ability.

The Nikon Coolpix L10 retails for $119.95. The same lenses are in the
L10 that are in the P2. The price difference is based on other
features in the P2 not available in the L10. The other features have
nothing to do with coin photography.

If you're going to go to the trouble of photographing your coins and can
afford to spend the money you may as well get something that is going to
do
a good job.

I made the point that "good" is wholly dependant on what the job is.
The OP says he wants to photograph coins. If the "job" is to present
images of the type of coins normally sold on eBay, an inexpensive P&S
like the ones in the Nikon Coolpix series is quite adequate.

However, if the "job" is to present coins like Ira is offering, a
different camera would be required. If the OP wants to present
extreme close-ups of double dies, mint marks, or other features of a
high-ticket coin, I presume he would have stated that in his post.

The only reasons to photograph coins are (1) to provide an record of
inventory for personal or insurance purposes, or (2) to provide an
image of the coin in order to show someone not present what that
coin's appearance and condition is. Unless the coins are in the
category that Ira's links are in, an inexpensive camera is sufficient
to do either job.

Just because a camera has a macro setting does not mean it's
going to take nice clear shots at the range needed to do coins.

When you see "bad" images of coins on the web, the problem is seldom
caused by not using a good camera or an expensive camera. The problem
is usually due to lack of technique on the part of the person holding
the camera.

The problems are poor lighting, use of flash and the resulting
reflection and glare, camera shake because the camera was held rather
than used on a tripod, and color problems due to mismatching WB to
light source. They are also caused by poor presentation because the
image is not cropped correctly, poor composition, and extraneous
matter in the view.

Good technique and an inexpensive camera will produce superior results
over bad technique and a very expensive camera. No camera has the
ability to over-ride bad technique no matter how much you pay for it.

Gold is easy to photograph. For example:

http://www.k6az.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=84

The coin that you posted is not that much of a problem with a point and
shoot camera such as what you are suggesting. However, the major problem
with P&S cameras is that in macro mode they need to be a few inches away
from the coin to get a decent image. This interferes with lighting. This
is
a crucial issue with small silver coins with luster. We had a discussion
about this here last year in photographing Mercury dimes. Here's one of
mine:

http://www.k6az.com/temp/1940_merc_obv.jpg

I don't think asking how much the person is willing to spend is "putting
the cart before the horse". I'm sure he has some idea, knowing what he
wants to spend will make it much easier to come up with suggestions.
--
My web pages including my forum:

http://www.k6az.com

No matter how close I've had the lens to a coin lighting has never been a
problem, be it an SLR with a bellows attachment a few mm from the coin or a
digital camera a few cm from the coin.

The light source is always at a distance of 93,000,000 miles.

It's not necessary to be very close with a point and shoot in macro mode as
the zoom still operates, it does on mine but possibly not on all.

A proof coin taken through the sealed plastic case, hand held, not cropped.
Billy

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/2/4/5...31727667_o.jpg

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:35:10 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:02:59 -0400, Eric Tillery
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:24:45 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:49:57 -0400, Eric Tillery
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:39:07 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:06:25 -0400, Eric Tillery
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:57:43 -0700, pindborg wrote:

Hi

I want to take photos of the coins in my collection, but I have some
difficulties finding out what camera I should buy. Right now I only
have the camera in my mobile phone, and this one is not good enough. I
guess the camera has to have a certain quality; but due to the high
prices of a digital camera, I need some advice on how to choose.


Best regards


Erik

Probably the first thing that should be sorted out is how much are you
willing to spend for your photography setup?

That would seem to me to be putting the cart before the horse. The
first thing that should be sorted out is what he wants to do with the
camera.

If he's willing to spend $1,000, but wants nothing more than basic
macro photographs, why steer him to a $1,000 camera instead of a $125
camera?

That leaves him with $875 to spend on coins to photograph.

Do you have any examples of coins shot with a $125 camera?

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2.../180-1911a.jpg

All of my eBay photos are taken with a Nikon Coolpix P2. It
originally sold for about $300, but can be purchased now at
Overstock.com for $159. I don't think this particular model is
special in any way, but the Coolpix series offers some good, basic
cameras with macro ability.

The Nikon Coolpix L10 retails for $119.95. The same lenses are in the
L10 that are in the P2. The price difference is based on other
features in the P2 not available in the L10. The other features have
nothing to do with coin photography.

If you're going to go to the trouble of photographing your coins and can
afford to spend the money you may as well get something that is going to do
a good job.

I made the point that "good" is wholly dependant on what the job is.
The OP says he wants to photograph coins. If the "job" is to present
images of the type of coins normally sold on eBay, an inexpensive P&S
like the ones in the Nikon Coolpix series is quite adequate.

However, if the "job" is to present coins like Ira is offering, a
different camera would be required. If the OP wants to present
extreme close-ups of double dies, mint marks, or other features of a
high-ticket coin, I presume he would have stated that in his post.

The only reasons to photograph coins are (1) to provide an record of
inventory for personal or insurance purposes, or (2) to provide an
image of the coin in order to show someone not present what that
coin's appearance and condition is. Unless the coins are in the
category that Ira's links are in, an inexpensive camera is sufficient
to do either job.

Just because a camera has a macro setting does not mean it's
going to take nice clear shots at the range needed to do coins.

When you see "bad" images of coins on the web, the problem is seldom
caused by not using a good camera or an expensive camera. The problem
is usually due to lack of technique on the part of the person holding
the camera.

The problems are poor lighting, use of flash and the resulting
reflection and glare, camera shake because the camera was held rather
than used on a tripod, and color problems due to mismatching WB to
light source. They are also caused by poor presentation because the
image is not cropped correctly, poor composition, and extraneous
matter in the view.

Good technique and an inexpensive camera will produce superior results
over bad technique and a very expensive camera. No camera has the
ability to over-ride bad technique no matter how much you pay for it.

Gold is easy to photograph. For example:

http://www.k6az.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=84

The coin that you posted is not that much of a problem with a point and
shoot camera such as what you are suggesting. However, the major problem
with P&S cameras is that in macro mode they need to be a few inches away
from the coin to get a decent image. This interferes with lighting.

Not really. The shot I provided, and this one:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...r213/merc2.jpg
was shot in daylight on my front (covered) porch without any
supplemental external lighting. The lens was 1.5" away from the coin
and the camera was on a tripod-like device that I built. The image
was cropped to 400 x 400.

I've shot indoors with external lighting, but the porch shots take no
set-up time; just attach the camera to the tripod device and shoot.

I don't have a silver coin with any luster since all I have is gold.
I had to root through the junk box to find *any* Mercury dime. The
face of this coin is so corroded that you can't make out Mercury.

This is a crucial issue with small silver coins with luster.

This gets to the point "What is the job?" in the decision about which
camera to purchase. If the job is going to entail special aspects,
you tailor the camera to the job.

We had a discussion
about this here last year in photographing Mercury dimes. Here's one of
mine:

http://www.k6az.com/temp/1940_merc_obv.jpg

It's a fine image, but larger than I would use unless I wanted to
highlight some feature of the coin like the luster. I seldom go
larger than 400 px x 400 px for one face. There would have to be a
reason to go larger since I want my ad to be viewable without
scrolling.

I don't think asking how much the person is willing to spend is "putting
the cart before the horse". I'm sure he has some idea, knowing what he
wants to spend will make it much easier to come up with suggestions.

The OP has asked a general question about making a decision about what
to look for in a camera. I think it's reasonable to infer that he's
looking for a camera that will take basic coin photographs and that
he's interested in investing the least amount of money possible for
basic images.

To try to pin him down on budget, when he has no camera knowledge
other that what he knows his phone camera will do, is not what I would
consider to be the first step. If he's willing to spend $500, I see
no reason to advise him to spend $500 when he can do the job he wants
for less.

I do think it's rather amusing that you think that photographing gold
coins is easier than photographing silver coins. Both subjects
present their own hurdles. Getting the gold color right is a bitch.
The Indian image that I provided is more difficult to work with than
the Saint G because of the incused design. Light reflects off the
cuts. Gold can be as reflective as silver.

I'm not sure how much of this is going to apply to the OP unless he is
selling coins. As a collector I certainly want something larger than
400x400.
--
My web pages including my forum:

http://www.k6az.com