DSLR for Photomicrography  (2)

Matt,
The Canon EOS mount has a shorter flange to film/sensor distance than the Nikon mount. As a result it is possible to get an adapter that will allow you to put Nikon lenses on a Canon EOS body and still focus out to "infinity". But the lens will be completely "manual"... no auto-focus, no auto-diaphragm. I have a couple of Nikon lenses I will use on my EOS bodies, but they are manual focus lenses that are generally not stopped down much in use.

Image stabilization should be turned off when the camera is tripod (or otherwise rigidly) mounted.

The LCD display on the back of most DSLRs (without the "live view" capability) is useless for microscope focusing. I have not used a "live view" body yet on a microscope so I do not know how useful that would be as far as focusing off of the rear LCD is concerned.

I am not familiar with other manufacturers, but both Nikon and Canon have software that will enable you to control the cameras with a computer. For Canon there is also a "third party" solution called DSLR Remote Pro (Breezesystems) that is very nice.

Realize that the LCD screen on the back of most DSLRs is of fairly low resolution (the new Nikons are better). Before the arrival of the "live view" capability the LCDs were used for menus, and to review an image that had already been taken. The information that the back displays can be sent to a TV monitor with the "video out" connection. This makes is very useful for reviewing shots taken on a microscope, and adjusting exposure and composition accordingly for the next image. But the resolution remains the same... pretty low. And again, you can only view things after the picture is taken.

The fairly new "live view" capability changes things. While the LCD resolution is still fairly low, you can see, in "real time" the image that is being directed onto the sensor. Having never used one, I do not know if these cameras have "magnification" settings for live view on the LCD view that makes focusing possible.

But I have seen "live view" used in conjunction with remote capture software on a computer. This is very different from viewing the LCD on the back of the camera (or viewing the same low res information on a TV monitor via the video out connection). The view using the remote capture software and a camera with "live view" capability is of much higher resolution and it is possible to "magnify" a section, allowing the microscope focus to be easily determined by watching the computer monitor.

If you have some much loved older Nikon glass (non-AF) than you should consider Nikon bodies from the D200 on up. The lower priced bodies will "work" with the lenses but you will have no metering at all.

While it is possible to use the "afocal" method (a lens on the camera and a regular eyepiece on the microscope) I prefer using a projection photo-eyepiece (Olympus NFKs in my case)to place the image directly on the camera sensor. One difficulty here is that the sensors on most (but not all) DSLRs is significantly smaller than a 35mm film frame. (And of course 35mm itself was one of the smallest film formats that were commonly used on microscopes). As a result there are very few projection style photo-eyepieces that have low enough power for these smaller sensors. The 2.5X that was fairly common with 35mm film will work OK, but some users may find the magnification too great. (You record a central portion of what is seen through 10X eyepieces). This is a more vexing problem with microscopes using older finite optical systems where additional correction was provided in the eyepieces.

You might find some useful info on a few of the articles on my site:
 www.krebsmicro.com

Charlie

Hi Charlie et al,
One of the most delightful aspects of using a web camera is focusing directly on the computer screen - which in my case is a big extra Sony 21" right beside the microscope. I also have a second mouse and keyboard which can be pulled out for use. It is an easy matter to fit the web camera to one of the eyepiece tubes and the DSLR to the vertical tube of the trinocular. After a little time spent checking parfocalness (that might not be a word) all your troubles are over and you can make videos at the same time. For this purpose a small web camera is good. I've put it together and posted a picture in the don williams Photo album. The camera in the picture is a film body because I needed the *ist D to take the picture. Using a web camera this way solves the live image problem very simply. I don't try to use the Pentax remote control and the web camera program at the same time. I use a cable release, or an IR remote, and the 'mirror-up-delay' setting and long exposures or flash.

Don W

Hi
Why not a specilized Microscope Camera in range 3-5 MPIX and with Software for microscopy ??

Regards, Pär Lundqvist

This has been a very useful thread. It will take me a while to digest all the information and suggestions it contains.

The bad news is that the Nikon D300 is starting to look a lot more attractive than the D200. I made it worse by looking at Ken Rockwell's review. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300.htm Those familiar with the usual Rockwell review will be amused. But this is the wrong group for that.

I would like to make sure I understand something. Correct or not correct: With the D200 one can get a real time computer screen view only of what the LCD screen would show at exactly the same resolution you would see on the LCD screen. On the D300 you can get a real time computer screen view of everything that the sensor picks up. That is, the D300 delivers to the computer screen exactly what the shot will show.

I note that the Olympus cameras are popular in this group. How do the Olympus models line up with respect to the question above?

The next question is about money. Going as far as the D300 puts us in the $1800 range. Street price on the D200 is now below $1000. The D300 is too young to have a street price. People have written in this thread about cameras designed for microphotography. What is the price range on those? Just curious.

"mattbrin" wrote:
> That is, the D300 delivers to the computer screen exactly what the
> shot will show.
My reading is that D300 live view is a feed from the sensor to the camera's (VGA) LCD panel and to the HDMI camera output (which does up to 720p and 1080i). So if you have a display panel that can accept these (not all "computer screens" will), it should be great for microscopy, especially in focusing with in-camera magnification of the feed (up to 1:1, i.e. 1 pixel of the sensor per 1 pixel in the display). Additionally live view only works with the mirror up, which is, I guess, just what one wants anyway for quick capture (where otherwise you'd have to wait for mirror slap vibrations to die out). But the camera does not return to the live view state after a shot automatically, you have to actuate it (and raise the mirror) again. And auto-exposure perhaps does not function with the mirror up (?).

The D300 (and D3) seem a remarkable accommplishment in high ISO performance and dynamic-range processing (IMO), which might be useful in certain types of microscopy too.

If I tire of my current system, this would be what I would save up for :-),

John
wwww.stereo3dgallery.net

Par,
I agree, especially, if one ends up spending 2,000USD or more on a homemade setup. I think most of us are trying get excellent images with the lowest cost and/or just love DIY and the knowledge it brings with experimentation.

Ted

Hi John,
This is a great thread due to the time so many people have put in it. We have lots of knowledge in the membership. I was hoping it would be informative when I ask. We have not had a run down on camera features for microscopy in a while. Now I have to assemble all the information and publish back to the group so it is in one place and not fractured in 35 parts so far and there will be more.

I was hoping that a Nikon or Canon had the 10x magnified Life View of the Olympus series as I am told that is an important feature for focusing. I really wanted more than one choice to look at. The reviews I read on the Zuiko lenses are not a glowing as Nikon and Canon. But the anti shake in the E 510 can be hot wired to work with any lens on the Olympus 510 so I can work around that with fixed focus manual focus and aperture lenses and I am still used to working that way.

The computer control the Canon and Nikon have is a feature that is important enough to me to consider the added price and trading off for the 10x magnification. I may end up with 2 brands of cameras after all.

The $500 street price and feature set that most closely meets most my wants weighs heavily in the Olympus' E510's favor. I would like the computer interface of the newer Canon and Nikon cameras and I may be willing to pay 3 or 4 times as much for it. It's a shame there isn't a lab to try all the combinations out side by side. Or some with the fire and budget to try them all out and write it up. The compressed time time to market of new models doesn't give use much time to evaluate a camera to see if it works before it is obsolete. Some companies, not camera companies, can't find the bugs in the stuff they release as well as their customers the rush to market is so fast. Camera companies do a good deal better than most software that may have weekly updates to fix bugs.

Better is truly the enemy of good when there is no solid comparison as there isn't with many Internet camera reviews. I think many camera reviewers are like audiophiles that claim to be able to hear the difference in gold plated speaker wire. I think are some that see things that aren't there at least they aren't to me.

Regards, Gordon

Par and Ted,
I suspect the interest in adapting DSLRs to the microscope is because many of us are interested in a wide variety of photographic subject matter, but are unfortunately limited in budget. It's possible to take your DSLR off of the microscope and take great shots of your family gathering or your trip to Mexico. Can't do that with a dedicated microscope camera. While my postings on-line are mostly related to photomicrography, the bulk of my photography requires something other than a specialized microscope camera. I think this may be the situation for many other people as well.

I'd love to have a dedicated microscope camera, but the ones I like are either far more than $2K, and/or not readily compatible with the electronic flash lighting I love to use. Many utilize sensors that are so small it would be a challenge for me to set up the proper corrective relay optics needed for my older objectives.

Charlie

Hi John,
My understanding is that all the current DSLR "live view" modes are accomplished with the mirror "up", but require the mirror to go back down at the beginning of the exposure sequence. So the issue of "mirror slap" may still require attention in some way.

But I have no experience with any implementation (Olympus, Canon, or Nikon)

Charlie

"gcouger" wrote:
> I was hoping that a Nikon or Canon had the 10x magnified Life View
> of the Olympus series as I am told that is an important feature for focusing. Nikon's D300/D3 1:1 magnification mapping (to the display), should be more than adequate, since if you have a 2 megapixel display (like a full HD panel), and a 12MP sensor as in the D300, that gives effectively a 6X magnification.

I'm guessing Canon's remote live view is less dramatic (in size and speed) than Nikon's (though I confess to have seen neither in action, sorry for just speculating :-). Canon is stuck with the USB2 interface, which is 10X (or more) slower than HDMI. Only HDMI can pump out a full 2MP color image at 30 or 60 Hz.

Which brings up a most interesting idea! I wonder if one could use an HDMI capture card like:
 www.blackmagic-design.com
to record 1080i video out of the Nikon? That might be very impressive!!

John

Dear Par,
I am buying a camera for more than one use. I want to use it for many things as well a microscopy. Most of the people on the group do the same. If I could justify a camera full time on a microscopy I would buy a dedicated camera for it.

A dSLR or SLR that uses film is not a very good camera for a microscope. The vibration from the shutter is always a problem that has to be dealt with, the view port is in the wrong plane and the cameras are a lot heaver than they need to be. If you didn't use them for something else they would be a poor choice to go on a microscope.

The fact that the camera companies are putting some of their best and newest work out in dSLRs is one thing that makes them attractive. The makers of dedicated scopes can't spend the R&D money on their cameras Nikon, Canon, Olympus & the other big names can spend on consumer cameras. Of course the specialized camera makers can make a better product with a lot less R&D when they only have one target use in mind.

Best Regards, Gordon

"Par Lundqvist" wrote:
> Why not a specilized Microscope Camera
> in range 3-5 MPIX and with Software for microscopy ??

Matt,
With the D200 there is no "real time" view of anything on the rear LCD. After you take a picture, it will be displayed on the rear LCD with a variety of information choices (if desired)... such as a histogram or file info.

The "live view" mode of the D300 (and that on some Olympus bodies, the new Canon bodies) is fundamentally different, and offers far more possibilities in regard to viewing on a screen.

Charlie

Gordon, One of your posts stated:
"I was hoping that a Nikon or Canon had the 10x magnified Life View of the Olympus series as I am told that is an important feature for focusing. I really wanted more than one choice to look at. The reviews I read on the Zuiko lenses are not a glowing as Nikon and Canon. But the anti shake in the E 510 can be hot wired to work with any lens on the Olympus 510 so I can work around that with fixed focus manual focus and aperture lenses and I am still used to working that way."

Checking Steves-digicams review below:
 www.steves-digicams.com/2007
It addresses the issue of Live View magnification and vibration.
It states the following:
"Previously available only on the 1D Mark III, the Live View function now gives EOS 40D users the ability to set up shots using the LCD screen instead of the viewfinder and a 100% preview. A new Custom Function allows autofocus during Live View by pressing the camera's AF-ON button. Releasing the AF-ON button resumes Live View functions. Also, in the Live View shooting mode, you can magnify the image by 5 or 10x in order to ensure optimal focus. Live View helps reduce vibration by lifting the mirror out of the optical path in advance of the exposure, improving image quality at slow shutter speeds. A new electronic 1st-curtain shutter function in Live View mode reduces release time lag and operational noise even further and the release time lag is miniscule."

Ted

Hi John:
I noticed Charlie replied to your message and his reply is correct--mirror slap is still an issue.

In fact, you can take the Olympus camera out of automatic mode, setting the camera to manual focus, manual exposure and when you fire the shutter, the mirror will be up in Live preview mode, then it will drop down, then flip back up and then the shutter fires. It is not doing a blessed thing at this point but creating camera vibrations. It seems to be a design characteristic of all the "live preview" digital SLRs.

This is one reason why dedicated digital photomicrography cameras are so popular in the lab--they are vibration free and you have the giant preview screen of the computer to hit precise focus. Pars made succinctly noted that this the preferred solution. But it will be more expensive. Lumenera has some "c" mount cameras of about 2 megapixel capacity that run off the USB port of a Windows machine. I believe--I will look this up if anyone is interested--they cost about a thousand dollars.

Brian

Gordon,
Here is a review of the 40D in the studio with tethered control.
 www.popphoto.com

Ted

Obviously the "Live View" feature in some of the new DSLRs is intriguing for us here. If anyone is fortunate enough to have one of the cameras with that capability it would be great to have some real "hands on" feedback. My impression that the mirror cycles with each exposure in all "Live View" DSLR cameras was not correct. The shutter does close and cycle on all. But at least on the Canon implementation there are "modes" where only the shutter cycles but the mirror remains up.

So there are questions that need to be explore and answered. (Heat build-up in the cameras electronics is one issue that is mentioned briefly in both Nikon and Canon instruction manuals, but there is no clarification if this potential issue can be avoided if an external screen is used instead of the camera LCD).

So for now it looks very useful, but there are details that need to be explored to determine how well it will fit into photomicrography.

Charlie

Hi Gordon!
Yes it might be so - but its not optimal

Regards, Pär

Hi Charles!
Yes agree with that, but i have some Nikon and Canon before that i adapt to microscope - but it was a fiddling every time - so from my point of View , its better to have a camera mounted permanent to the microscope

But, natruly money make diffrence to

Regards, Pär Lundqvist

Hi
Absolutley , have spend les than $1000 on photo setup to My Leitz Ortholux II POL BK

Its consist of:
3 Mpix Microscope camera with software (have tryed the 5 MPix to - but it was to slow and quality is perfect with 3 Mpix)

Leica Photozoom 5X - 12X Magnification

Adapter to C-mount

Also have a Canon G7 with adapters, but microsope camre work better and give better pict

Regards, Pär Lundqvist

"Charlie" wrote:

> My understanding is that all the current DSLR "live view" modes are
> accomplished with the mirror "up", but require the mirror to go back
> down at the beginning of the exposure sequence. So the issue of
> "mirror slap" may still require attention in some way.
> But I have no experience with any implementation (Olympus, Canon, or Nikon)

Unfortunately I don't either. I was under the impression that the Nikon shoots with the mirror up then it drops down. Then you have to reset the LV mode and the mirror pops up again. People wanted to use this for "stealth (e.g. quiet) shooting" at concerts and stuff, but there obviously will be some mirror noise. Before or after the shot (or both) is a key question. Anyone going to the local camera store...?

Anyway, my idea about uncompressed capture of the HDMI fullHD (1080i) output would circumvent all vibration issues. It would also make doing an image stack (like in 100 frames in 3 seconds) a piece of cake. I looked at the compressed (jpg) samples of the HD output on dpreview, and they looked really sharp - easily sharp enuf for modest to high power microscopy, and maybe even lowpower too.

John

Matt,
I don't know how popular Olympus cameras are with the people in this group. Some members have them. I am sure Nikon and Cannon make up most of the dSLR's out there.

It looks Ken is adding a corollary, "If your pictures aren't good enough your camera isn't new enough". to Bob Cappa's observation made while covering the Spanish Civil War "if your pictures aren't good enough your not close enough".

The Nikon D300 with 18-200 will only cost $2,539.95 for January delivery from B&H if catch it when it comes in or $2,506.95 from Amazon wile the Olympus E-510 costs & 18-80mm costs $1,021 or 14-42mm & 40 -150mm cost $654 from B&H. The Zuiko 18-180 isn't the lens the Nikon 18-200 is but good deal. Nor can the Olympus E510 really be compared to the Nikon D300. They aren't the same kind of camera.

Gordon

Dear Par,
I have been making capital purchasing decisions for over 50 years now and I can only think of only a very few that didn't require a compromise cost vs. preformance. The index for weighing the various functions and features for a digital camera right are one of the more complex I have faced mainly because of incomplete knowledge of what is availible and what the functions and features I do know are out there do.

This thread is filling in the blanks in my knowledge. Now I have to make a trip to the camera store. On the dismal plain I live on it is 60 mile trip to even look at a camera. Then I have to find something I need priced so I can aford it so I don't waste the salesmans time. If just use him to look at stuff and buy mail oder he won't be much help the next time. Since he spent 5 years on the road working for Olympus his knowledge I worth something. He recomends Nikon or Cannon as he has no real experience with EVolt line.

Gordon

Well, a little maybe.

I just checked it out at the local watering hole. When taking a pix out of live view the mirror does flop down for about 1/10 sec (you can see the subject flash in the optical viewfinder), flops up, snaps, then flops down. Then you have to press the shutter to get it to flop up again and go into live view.

A lot of vibration will happen if shooting out of live view, as speculated by others. I did not have time to see if you could activate the mirror lock-up mode and have it operate directly out of live view. The alternative would be to exit liveview and go to a mirror lockup mode. Clearly not a design for quick shots of moving material, or quickly going back and forth a lot between the two modes.

Also, the live-view update rate is only about 2 frames per second. So forget my idea of using it as a video camera, or a rapid stack- acquirer, unless 2fps is your gig. Although it still could be used for focusing, you'll have to rack the stage back and forth slowly.

But the image quality is awesome, probably better than most anything else out there at the moment at high ISO.

HTH, John

Has anyone mounted a dSLR on a front reflex housing? That gets around the live view problem well enough for most things. I wonder what kind of optics would need to be added to reduce the projected image by 5/8 or 1/2 for the 1.6 or 2 crop factor cameras.

If the front reflex housing could be made to have no optical length to at all, a lens on each end to make the light ray parallel inside the housing, it would be very useful to both macro micro photographers.

Below is the work Ted Clarke www.science-info.net/pages/Ted_Clarke has published on the Olympus EVolt E330. This is one of members that carries on an active private correspondence on subjects that interest him. I started working with Ted when I found he built the microscope he uses on a lathe he built. Ted is one of several professionals in microscopy that follow the list at times but don't get openly involved. Being caught up in a squabble on line is not really good for ones career and often hard on the the digestion as well. I really wish there was a way we could get those that are put off by wild and rowdy ways of the internet to post here. But I can sure understand their reluctance to get involved posting where they have no control how what they say will be used or what will be said in reply to them.

I held these back as I didn't want to appear as I had made up my mind on a camera. I really haven't. I do know a lot more about the Olympus E330 and E510 than the rest from correspondence with Ted. Ted is a strong proponent of the E330.

"Olympus E330 DSLR for Photomicrography with Older Design Microscopes" Ted Clarke, Microcopy Today, Vol: 14 # 5 - Sep 06 - PDF File
www.science-info.net/pages/Ted_Clarke/E330Microscope.pdf
www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artjan07/dw-nikon-d80.html
www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artfeb07/tc-meiji.html

This thread is turning out to be what I hoped for. I am getting the information I need. I hope that others are as well. I was in the dark about the software that lets a computer run the camera. That adds a new dimension to the problem for me. It has long been a major annoyance to me that I couldn't connect the computer on the camera to the computer on my desk top. With computers shirking in size and price it offers up some really exciting possibilities.

I suppose I should look at cameras as I do computers, they have a 3 to 5 year life. If it wasn't for the lenses costing as much as the camera I would.

It is a shame the camera companies don't make camera simulators that run on the web or could be downloaded so the potential customer could try out all the cameras first in the virtual world. I expect it would take as much work to keep the simulator in sync with the camera as the software on the camera. They would be nice as complex as cameras are to learn how use the camera.

Gordon

Hello I just got a sony A700 DSLR. Tried it out with my microscopes- Nikon Labophot and Leica GZ12.5. Photos exposures are way off and so is color. Tried adjusting in photoshop and using raw software but they are to bad. What am i doing wrong? I photographed with both sccopes using a minolta film slr with no problems but this digital thing has really tricked me. I can post some photos if needed.

Thank you, John

"John" wrote:
> Hello I just got a sony A700 DSLR....

Hi,
Are your photos over- or underexposed? What is wrong with the color? What is your subject?

I don't know anything about your camera, but my experience has been that most consumer digicams are not optimized to take photos of emitted (vs. reflected) light and vrey contrasty, richly hued subjects. Good film is much better at handling this. In my case I am usually photographing minerals in crossed polarized light, which usually gives contrasty bright colors in conjunction with black areas; the automatic functions of digicams do not handle this well.

One of the first things you should do is grab the instructions for your camera and find out how to set manual exposure and white balance. Once you have those things under control, it should be much easier to balance the color. But before we discuss the color control you must first get the exposure and white-balance where they need to be.

Hope this helps, Don

"gcouger" wrote:
> Has anyone mounted a dSLR on a front reflex housing?
I mentioned that in a recent post.

> Ted is one of several professionals in microscopy
Ted is retired.

> Being caught up in a squabble on line is not really good for ones career
Not an excuse if you are retired (or even if you are not).

David

"John Fungi" wrote:
> What am i doing wrong?
Not reading the User Manual cover-to-cover :-)

Set camera on manual, adjust exposure and check histogram so highlights not saturated.
Adjust white-balance so that your deliberately-underexposed white areas are neutral in colour.

David

An extensive thread on a very interesting subject:
http://www.kscitech.com/MicGroup/Msg_12/ [This webpage.]
that contains a lot of useful information.

Nothing fancy, just an unedited summary as generated semi-automatically with a software program that I have been hacking at since working some with Gordon (way back!) on a message archiving system.
The summary will be complete, but I have not invested any time with proof-reading...
It is primarily intended to assist a group member with an overview of this particular Topic.

It could easily be converted to a PDF file and posted wherever, if there is any interest.

Later, Keith

"gordon.couger" wrote:
> I am calling on the combined knowledge of the group to help me choose what dSLR to get....

Hi Gordon!
Don't think of how much stuff cost, always going for stuff i like and that i know is working - not so much Compromises to cost. But that's me - others do other way

But when you talked dSLR cameras in range + $1000 i do not agree that that is best Solution for taking photos on Microscope - it is not
A dedicated USB Microscope camera is better
I tried both solutions
Also believed this group is about Microscopy - not a Photo Group?

If everything is about less expensive stuff - buy a toy Microscope with built in camera, then you save money to build your homemade DIC set

Pär Lundqvist

the photo stuff and microscopes go hand in hand.

ed: > Also belived this group is about Microscopy - not a Photo Group ?

Hello,
I am a new hobbyist working on a very limited budget my total set up cost about 400 euros. However I still like to read the kit discussions as perhaps one day the present state of the art will be available to me second hand. Even with my limited finances I think I can play a role in the group even if it is only one of an attentive listener.

I have now been taking microscope pictures for a few weeks and I am delighted with the results (Canon G2 bought for 100 euro on E bay). I have posted a photograph of a rotifer. I know it is not perfect but I like it. Is this a toy?

This group is excellent and should not be hijacked by the wealthy.

Jon

Pär (and anyone else familiar with the microscope cameras),
Everyone has certain things they want in a camera. Sometimes people need very different things. Just look at the myriad choices that manufacturers – both scientific and consumer -- provide for us.

Let me outline my personal criteria for the camera I want for my microscope. I would genuinely like to hear any suggestions as to a specific model dedicated microscope camera that meets these needs as good as, or better than the DSLRs I now use.

Here's a summary of my equipment, and my thoughts when looking for a camera.
-- Olympus BHS stand. Trinocular head. 4X, 10X, 20X, 40X, S-Plan Apo objectives.
    (These are the LB series. Finite, 160mm tube length).
-- DIC is frequently used with the 10X-100X objectives.
-- Desire to record field size of about 16mm.

The 4X S Plan Apo is used (typically at maximum NA) a great deal for taking pictures, not just as a "scanning" objective. There is no point in using such a fine objective for photography unless I can record the detail it produces. This requires a sensor of at least 6.5 Mp. The 10X Plan Apo would need a sensor a little over 5 Mp to record everything it is capable of imaging.

I like photographing active subjects. Sometimes the motion I want to "stop" is very rapid, such as cilia movement in rotifers and ciliates. So I get an "effective" shutter speed (with DIC) of about 1/8000 seconds through the use of electronic flash. This requires a camera with a global shutter that can synchronize with electronic flash (A synch speed of 1/200 second or shorter is desirable to avoid image ghosting). This eliminates cameras that use electronic "rolling shutters", "pixel shifting", or use three exposures for color. DIC, with its multiple polarizers, "eats up" a lot of light. To be able to "stop" such motion when using DIC by using the camera "shutter" alone would require far more light than is provided by the 100 watt halogen source, and/or the need to increase the camera gain to levels where noise becomes a problem.

(This gallery has some good examples of the type of image I am referring to above: webgal10 )

My Olympus objectives require compensating eyepieces. The lowest power corrective projection eyepiece Olympus made that I am aware of is the 1.67X NFK. (I am not aware of any "third party" manufacturers that offer any other "corrective" solutions). The Olympus Nomarski BH2-NA DIC intermediate piece adds a magnification of 1.25X. That means the intermediate image will be magnified a minimum of 2.08X. So in order to record the desired 16mm field size I need a sensor with a diagonal measurement of at least 33.4mm.

In digital I very much prefer working with the camera raw files. At the very least I want a non-compressed ("tif") image file, with a bit depth (per R, G, B) greater than 8.

So that's what I want from my microscope camera. I would welcome any suggestions of specific model dedicated microscope cameras that meet these needs.

I could always start buying lottery tickets ;-)

Charlie

Hi Charles!!
Agree to most of your point

One thing that are important is how much resolution you will need for specific objectives - agree to that to.

But - Its also important of size of the output prints (Picture) to Reach that resolution

If the resolution are Web picture on the net it dont matter so much ?

Or are we talking about making Poster ?

Regards, Pär Lundqvist

Hello Charlie,
The first dedicated microscope camera that comes to mind to address your specifics (not 100%, unfortunately) is the Optronics Macrofire. Some general specs:
a.. 2048 x 2048 CCD imager (light sensitive enough for DIC) = 4.2MP
b.. Imager size 15.2mm x 15.2mm, diagonal 21.4mm (a little undersized, I'm sorry to say)
c.. 12 bits per R, G, B = 36 bit well depth
d.. 7.4um square pixels
e.. Live on-monitor preview from 5 fps to 38 fps
f.. F-mount accepts Nikon lenses and F-mount adapters, of course.
g.. Ideal for large field and macro-imaging applications.

Charlie, you are correct that the NFK 1.67x was the lowest magnification projection eyepiece available from Olympus. However, Diagnostic Instruments makes C-mount and F-mount adapters that are instrument correction-specific, with reduction lenses which may afford you a bit larger FOV than the NFK 1.67 + 7-C555 or U-V210 Olympus C-mounts will afford you.

Oh yes, by the way - list price on the Macrofire is US$7,995.00 - not for the faint of heart (or budget!). I can send you a PDF datasheet, if you send me a note off-group.

Good luck, Gregg

When some of the photo-agencies I have worked with over the years went "digital" they wanted 45-50 meg tif files for any image they accepted. It was interesting exercise trying to explain to them that a file from a 6 MP camera (about an 18 meg tif) really contained everything a light microscope could produce!

But I'm generally an advocate of "overkill" in mechanical devices and images ;-)
...and I figure it's better to sample an image down for the web than to sample it up for a big print.

Charlie

Gregg,
Thanks for the reply and info offer. I checked and Optronics seems to have good data available from their website so I can grab it there.

But you did mention something that intrigues me. Some time ago I looked at the Diagnostic Instruments "Microscope Couplers" catalog. It is large and detailed, but I did not dig too deep when I saw the following paragraph in Appendix 4:
>Compensating Optics
>It should be noted that many older microscopes used an optical
>design called compensating optics to provide abberation correction.
>The design philosophy knowingly produced only partially
>corrected intermediate images (images produced by the objective
>alone). The design then relies on the eyepiece or photoeyepiece
>to provide the final abberation correction. Diagnostic Instruments
>optical designs rely on fully corrected intermediate images since
>we cannot predict the compensation necessary for each manufacturers
>design. Microscopes with compensating optics should use
>the manufacturers optical elements if possible, since Diagnostic
>Instruments couplers will just relay any abberation on to the final image.

So I was under the impression that while they had adapters were designed to "mechanically" fit my older BHS, they did not provide the desired optical compensation. As I mentioned, it is a very large and complex catalog, so perhaps I missed something. It would be nice to locate a lower power corrective option for my Olympus.

Do the Olympus C-mount adapters you mentioned (7-C555, U-V210) contain any "glass" or are they simply mechanical adapters that would normally be used with the NFKs?

Charlie

Hi Charles!

Then we agree about Resloution for normal use will stand in the range of 3-5 Mpix ?

I like speed before Mpix in preformance

Regards, Pär Lundqvist

Hi Charles !

Can recomended the Use of Leica Photozoom for Microscopes 5X-12.5X it gives the the USB Microscope camera zooming range from 5X - 12.5X and it works excellent
This also give you big playroom for Mag and Macro use
To this you can use the Leitz/Zeiss diffrent Macro Objectives have them from 0.4X Mag and up

Best Regards, Pär

Hello Charlie,
My pleasure, to be sure.

We use Optem and Diagnostic Instruments c-mount adapters frequently when retrofitting microscopes to add digital microscope cameras, both old and new. The results are stunning, some of which are published and / or printed at poster size for conferences. Any optical mismatch due to partial correction seems to be negligible, I'm not sure how we would qualify or quantify any compromise - photometer, or resolution target? In any regard, it does not seem to be much of a show stopper for most applications. This is not to infer that one should "settle", especially if they know better - I prefer to maintain the integrity of an instrument with original components, if they are available.

The older Olympus Catalog #7-C555 MTV-3, and the newer #U-V210, are both C-mount adapters designed for use with the NFK series eyepieces. They are essentially identical, however, the newer version allows you to adjust focus and lock for parfocality. They incorporate a 3x lens, which is multiplied by the NFK eyepiece, for the "total projection magnification" to the imager plane. So, the strange numbers NFK 1.67x, 2.5x, 3.3x, 5x, and 6.7x become 5x, 7.5x, 10x, 15x and 20x respectively. Sometimes these adapters will come up on ebay!, but they are becoming rarer and rarer.

If you wish to use the actual Olympus C-mount adapter with a Macrofire or other F-mount camera, you will need an "F-mount to C-mount" adapter. Not sure how this will tamper with your ability to parfocus the C-mount - it has some range, which may allow you to compensate for the intermediate adapter. Newer microscopes have F-mount adapters available to match their respective optical systems.

Good luck - by the way, I have followed your work for a number of years, count me in as an admirer!

Kind Regards, Gregg

Charley,
As I understand it the 50 meg file is what it takes to do an 11x17 page at 300 dots per inch on the half tone screen for wrap around covers and centerfolds with out any extra work on the part of the printer. It is a requirement that photo buyer more or less passes on from the printer that prints the image they sell. Not may 35 mm slides or negatives hold up at 11 x 17 either.

Gordon

"Charlie" wrote:
> Yes, the desired final "output" is a big part of it! Certainly the
> file needed for a 800x600 pixel image is very different from one
> needed for a large print.

"Charlie" wrote:
> When some of the photo-agencies I have worked with over the years went
> "digital" they wanted 45-50 meg tif files for any image they accepted.

I thought some, like Getty, now specify 'approved' cameras, even though they are overkill for microscopy.
How would they react to an expensive webcam ? :-)

David