DSLR for Photomicrography  (1)

I am calling on the combined knowledge of the group to help me choose what dSLR to get. Now that dSLR camera features and my pocket book have come to a meeting place. After shooting side by side with two Nikons using the image stabilized 18mm-200mm lens I found there are pictures I can't make with what I have. I know image stabilization is not of any use with a microscope or for macro work but that is not all I use a camera for.

I have a week or 10 days or a few days longer to make up my mind. So there is a lot of room for discussion. I most want to hear from those with first hand knowledge. Their ideas come from experience and are almost always best. Anyone can read spec sheets and shoot a few test photos. But the people that use a camera here really wring them out. Their comments are the ones I want to hear the most. I don't care about success stories with easy subjects. Catching an upset wasp bent on retribution is a lot more exciting.

I have worked closely with Ted Clarke as he wrung out the Olympus EVolt E330. With its live view, and 10x magnification on an articulated screen, it seems ideal for work on the microscope and macro photography. The E510 with its built in image stabilization seemed ideal until I found it came at the cost of the articulated LCD. I think I can work around the loss of the articulated screen with a mirror and the Video out when I have a monitor or computer.

Ted is a fervent Evangelical on the features of the Olympus E330. From everything I can find the E510 is a better camera for me, with the exception of the articulated screen. But, I thought the same of the coolPix 995 vs. the coolPix 990 and generated 2 years work on it:
 www.couger.com/microscope/..
and I don't want to make that mistake again.

The Olympus E510 is also easy to control remotely. This is important to me:
 www.instructables.com
a few switches do the job.
I know the lenses seem to be less extensive and about a stop slower than the best of other brands. If the anti-shake and low noise sensor does its job it may work out OK. All and all for a ten mega pixel camera the price seems OK. All this doesn't make a good camera, just a good looking one.

I haven't kept up with how Canon, Nikon and other bodies work other than hear problems with them. I know I don't have a balanced view of other camera features. I am sure they all have changed some. Probably more importantly I don't know how Olympus Zuiko lenses compare to other brands and how pictures taken with the combination turn out. There is lot more to a camera than the spec sheets and what salesman tell you.

What do others think?

www.olympusamerica.com/..

Gordon, I find that this site with its reviews and forums by camera make most helpful:
 www.steves-digicams.com

Ted

Gordon,
Don't dismiss Canon and Nikon out of hand. These two brands have the largest selection of pro quality optics and accessories. These are the modern Zeiss and Leitz of camera equipment. You cannot go wrong. They are also compatible with many older lenses with inexpensive adapters.

One can use almost any older Nikon lens on the Canon EOS in manual mode. The chips are first rate. Canon optics are considered among the finest and can be used on all their bodies.

Great reviews and discussions about Canon equipment:
 www.bobatkins.com/photography
Wonderful site about everything photographic including camera reviews:
 photo.net

Personally I use the Canon EOS 20D. Works great for Photomicrography and has the best lenses for regular photography as well. The 20D, 30D are modern classics. Read the reviews.

Canon and Nikon have cameras for all budgets.

Gordon,
Sometimes ones investment in lenses tends to dictate the camera selection. In my case the use of one camera for microscopy and general use has been frustrating.

The ideal DSLR would have PC controlled "Live view" since it allows composition, focusing, shooting, etc. from the computer. The New Canon 40D (1.6X lens multiplier) provides this but the price is around 1300USD. The Canon 1Ds MarkIII (full frame sensor) has it but the price is around 8000USD. If Canon would come out with a "full frame" version of the 40D I would switch to it immediately (larger pixels less low-light noise). I may end up buying a 40D anyway if there is not a new annoucement in the first quarter of 2008.

The Olympus E330 provides "live view" for its built-in LCD screen but not from a PC.

For photomicrography I use the point and shoot Canon A510, Canon coolpix 5700 and Coolpix 8700 with PC live view and control currently. Also from time to time I use Logitech webcams(4000 and 9000). I have a Canon 10D which is not useful in my opinion for microscopy because the viewfinder is not satisfactory. I can take micro photos with this camera but it is not convenient(PIA) to use.

As far as Nikon is concerned I think they dropped the ball a few years ago. I have not kept up with them since I switched to Canon and now have a huge investment in Canon lenses.

Ted

Hi Gordon,
I agree with Norman. Myself using the Cp990, my lab partner is using a Canon EOS 20D directly coupled to the photoport of the inverted Olympus IMT-2. He doesn't even use mirror lock-up and the images are breathtaking. He's a well known nature photographer, has very fine lenses for the Canon, also other makro-makes (Oly-Zuiko I believe) with adapters for the Canon.

Best, René

Ted,
Have you tried making your 10D parfocal with viewing lenses so you don't have to focus through camera viewfinder? I would think critical focusing through camera viewfinder or computer monitor would be challenging.
[Procedure described here: ]  www.krebsmicro.com

Hi Gordon:
FWIW I have worked with a Nikon D200 and an Olympus 510 and E3 for photomicrography, and general photography, and found that for general photography I really have no preference on which camera body I use. All do a good job and for my purposes their lenses are comparable. I have the Olympus 11-22, 50mm macro, and their 50-200 mm zoom and this is equivalent to a 35 mm system with a 22-44mm zoom 100mm macro, and a 100-400mm zoom. This covers a wide range and all of these lenses have a max aperture of 2.8 or better--so these lenses are not too slow for general photography.

For photomicrography I have a strong preference for the E3--this is Olympus' latest dSLR and it has an articulated LCD screen and this works very well for photomicrography. Image stabilization(IS) will not help when the camera is mounted on the microscope or, for that matter, on a tripod. As an aside, image stabilization only works on the latest digital Zuiko lenses--if you mount an older macro lens on the E510, E410, or E3 IS cannot be enabled. With Nikon the stabilization is not present in the body, but in the lens.

The live preview LCD is handy--but it does have its limits. For example, it is not the most sensitive and if you are doing fluorescent microscope work, it may not preview the dimmest samples. In fact, when I worked on an E510 with an Ortholux, Heine condenser setup and phase contrast, I could not get enough light through the system to focus or image the specimen with the preview. This is a special situation, my Ortholux eats up a lot of light with the Heine. The 510 worked very well with phase contrast on a Zeiss with its phase system. Also, you do not want to leave the live preview on constantly--the sensor heats from continued use and this will increase noise.

As you probably know, mirror slap can cause vibration which will destroy image sharpness. Both Nikon and Olympus have a mirror pre-release that helps--it fires the mirror, waits a few seconds, then fires the shutter. Of course the shutter can cause some vibration and you will want to select a speed where this is minimal. Oddly enough, longer exposures (i.e. a second or so) may be superior to shorter speeds. Ted, I believe, anchors his camera on a stand and this massive arrangement does not allow ANY vibration to intrude on his photography.

I have experimented with electronic flash. You might find the Nikon better than the Olympus for this work. You can buy cables that will allow you to fire the flash remotely and achieve automatic through the lens flash exposure with the Nikon. I do not have such cables for the Olympus.

Just as an aside, the Nikon D300 has live preview--not articulated.

Oh yes, one other thing. The lens-body dimension of the Olympus digital is narrower than Nikon or Canon. So if you have some older lenses from those manufacturers, you can mount them on the Olympus and achieve infinity focus.
The adapters can be purchases from this web site, http://www.cameraquest.com/ or you may find some cheap knock offs on eBay.
If you have the older Zuiko lenses for their film cameras, you have to buy a Zuiko lens adapter from Olympus ($100) or from Cameraquest ($175). I bring this up because some of the microscope manufacturers have adapters for their scopes that were designed for the film camera bodies and not the digital.

Hopefully this was helpful, Brian

Thanks Brian, Norman, Rene, Ted, & I hope I didn't miss anyone.

I plan to edit and archive this tread with permission of & attribution to the contributors. I am condensing today's response in to one email. I doubt I will do that again.

Norman,
I am not dismissing anything out of hand. That's why I am asking here. I just haven't worked with a champion for anything but an Olympus Evolt E330. It worked well for Ted and I see some feature I like he didn't use. The SPST switch on the shutter for one.

Brian,
Your post is very helpful having used a 510 and other cameras your comments are of real interest to me. Looking at the spec sheet to the E3 and E-510 the E3 is obviously the better camera. But is it worth twice as much to me at a time when cameras seem to last 3 or 4 years? If it had the life of my Honeywell Pentax it wouldn't be a problem. But before I pay 2 for 1 for it I have to experiment more with a mirror on a camera to see how much less trouble an articulated screen really is. I am sure there are other features where the E3 out shines the E-510. If you would, what were the ones you liked on the E3.

I realize that the image in LCD is not the answer to all problems but it is to lot of them.

Thinking a little I realize f2.8 and even f 6.3 lens are fast enough when your not using ISO 25, ISO 60 & ISO 100 film. I have even shot some Litho film that had an ISO of about 6. I shot a lot of available light foot ball at night with 135mm 2.8 lens and T Max 3200 developed to what ever it took to get a good image. So the aperture isn't everything.

If I want image stabilization I have to abandon the lens stable I have. It is not that extensive or that good. Can you compare Olympus' image stabilization with the image stabilization in the Nikon 18 - 200 mm lens. It is the only one I have really used and it seems to be one of the best. My son was shooting available light street shot at night in small towns and getting a height ratio of good images. much better than I ever did with T-Max 3200 and 50 mm 1.4 lens and he had a full rage of zoom. I know the Zuiko 18-180 f3.5-6.3 isn't the equal to the 18-200 f3.5 -5.6. But the Zuiko with 0.5x wide angle attachment and some software to fix the distortion will give what wold be 18 mm on at 35 mm which is wide enough for me to shoot in the street and fairly close quarters. Zuiko lenses seem to be slower and have a bit less range than Nikon's offerings. But I know Nikon is stretching the envelope a lot on some of their lenses.

All books on photography start out in the first chapter emphasizing how deleterious vibration is on the image. For some reason we seem to over look this. One of the things I like about the Olympus E3 & E510 is that simple SPST switches can be used to fire the shutter so making a sequencer to press a button that turns off the light, opens the shutter, waits until the shaking stops, turns on the light for the time needed to expose the image, turns of the light and close the shutter is easy to make.

I haven't taken a good enough look at the Canon D40 or Nikon line yet. But when I start adding up the price of choices other than the E-510 and Zuiko lenses the price doubles or triples to get the functions on the camera and range of lenses I want. They all have nice unique features such as one Nikon recording GPS coordinates that are nice for some things I do. But I need to distill down the set of features I want for the price I am willing to pay. In the past I have been to niggardly with the money and cheated myself out what I should have bought. I don't want to do that again but I don't what to throw money away either as all but the lenses will be near worthless in 4 years. I don't have a problem paying more money if the value is there for me. That's why I am asking people that use them. Hopefully some that have used the 510 and one of the other choices. That's what make this group such a worthwhile resource.

I am trying not to use the group to validate a decision I have already made. That really annoys me when some one does it.

Thank all y'all, Gordon

Although I am a relative newbie in applying digital cameras to microscopy (my main tool used to be 4x5 sheet film, which is excellent for image stacking .... ;-), I have found

a) P&S are very difficult to focus using the TV out - it's just not clean or detailed enuf. I would guess that video outputs, unless considerably higher rez than NTSC/PAL, would be pretty useless for many critical apps.

b) An indispensible tool for focusing a DSLR is a magnifying angle finder attachment (which also helps in not making you stand tall to look down through the camera/scope rig). I use the Canon angle finder C (2.5X), and get consistently sharp pix, even with low power objectives. I don't trust parfocality all that much, and periodically do a check and adjust. The use of magnifying attachments would seem to require a good optical focusing-screen camera viewfinder (vs. electronic).

John

Hi Gordon:
One of the nice things about today's digital cameras is that they are sturdy enough that they will last--my old Nikon D100 is still going strong. It was gifted to a friend who uses it extensively and roughly out in the field taking animal shots.

Now regarding the prism solution on an Evolt 510. Since the camera uses its LCD to set camera functions, I found it annoying to try and read the reversed letters on the screen when I mounted a mirror to provide a right angle view. This is a minor quibble, after all, Leonardo da Vinci apparently could write with a mirror-image but I will be the first to acknowledge that I am not a da Vinci. It annoyed me no end--hence the E3. Presumably the E3's sensor is superior to that of the 510--with lower noise characteristics and greater dynamic range. However, I really can't say that the performance differential is worth the extra money. With either camera I will dial up the ISO to 400. I have exposed at ISO 800 and 1600 and with third party noise reduction I get reasonable pictures. What tipped the scale for me is that the E3's eye-level viewfinder provides a much larger view--its magnification makes it possible to focus manually and use such exotic glass as a 500 mm mirror lens. I never could do this with any of the older Olympus digital cameras. In addition, I like to check the depth of field in the viewfinder. I got more feedback with the larger E3 screen. So having that nice viewing screen is a worthwhile feature for me.

The E3 is significantly heavier than the E510 and the extra heft seems to help me hold the longer telephoto lenses steadier. Oddly enough, the image stabilization feature of the Olympus camera body did not appeal to me. Oh yes, one thing that bugged me about the E510 and E400 is that they use a proprietary USB plug for their cables. Lose it and you have to get another one from Olympus. Since the cable release uses the USB port, you will find that the cable release for the E300 will not work for the E410, E510. The cable release for the E300 will work on the E3.

If you need to compose vertical shots frequently, you will find the accessory grip to be handy. The Evolt 510 does not have such an accessory.

Now in regards to image stabilization. I really can't comment on the 18-200mm Nikon lens. I have a 80-400 mm Nikon, though, and in comparison to the Olympus 50-200, I can say that the Nikon IS seems to be better. However, there is a caveat with that statement. The Nikon IS systems allows you to see its effects through the camera eyepiece--not so the Olympus. With the Nikon lens you can see the image stabilize and you can fire when you think the image is optimum. Even with IS active, there is still some unsteadiness in hand holding and it is advantageous to be able to determine the best time to fire the shutter. With the Olympus you do not have that feedback unless you use the live Preview. FWIW, I can not hold the camera stead in this mode.

If you like long telephoto work, the Olympus lenses are significantly smaller and lighter. If you compare the Olympus 50-200mm with its 1.4 converter you will have the equivalent of the Nikon 80-400mm. The Olympus lens is significantly smaller and lighter.

I hope this helps, Brian

Gordon,
I can only talk to the Canon and Nikon bodies. (I was "wedded" to those systems long before my interest in photomicrography, so that's what I use). But I'll make a few general points and if they seem of interest to you it should not be difficult to assess the capabilities of the Olympus, Pentax, or Sony offerings in these regards. (Highly recommend www.dpreview.com for useful comparative specifications).

A mirror lock-up, or "pre-release" is very desirable, and in some cases absolutely necessary.

The ability to use the camera meter, and perhaps the "A" aperture preferred auto-metering mode is very useful for many, and I know that many consider it essential.

While I do not like being tethered and working through a computer, many people do. So the availability of software that allows for that is a consideration.

I think an easy "video out" connection is of more use than a swiveling rear screen. With the video out, you can feed the data that would be displayed on the rear screen to a video monitor of any size or location. It does not need to be "huge", but somewhat larger and better placed than the camera body is nice.

"Live view" is something I have no experience with (yet!). But obviously if implemented properly it could be a huge feature for microscopy.

If you do not feel that your microscope hardware will allow you to establish accurate parfocality (is that a real word?) between camera and eyepieces then you may want to re-prioritize certain considerations. It is nearly impossible to focus quickly and accurately through the viewfinder of nearly all DSLRs without a magnifier like John Hart recommended. And if you work with living, moving subjects, then even a magnifier can be troublesome. I've had very good results setting up my camera to be parfocal, and I actually trust it more than any focus I can achieve through the camera viewfinder. "Live view" can really effect this issue. With subjects that do not move, I have seen "remote" implementations of live view (Canon 1D Mark III) where it was very easy to focus accurately off of the computer monitor. (But, as mentioned, I have not tried it myself yet. My suspicion is that it will be wonderful for static subjects, but for live active subjects like protists it will be significantly less effective than a setup that is accurately parfocal, and where there is negligible lag time between "hitting" the release and the shutter actuation).

I have no big preference for either Nikon or Canon. But be aware that some of the lower priced Nikon bodies will not meter without a Nikon lens attached. Also, some of the lower priced Nikon bodies do not offer a mirror lock-up either. So if these are features you desire, with Nikon you really want to look at bodies from the D200 on up. All Canon bodies meter without a lens, and have, through a "custom function" setting, a provision for mirror-lockup.

Charlie

Charlie,
I have decided to get divorced from Pentax. I have resisted the counsidble urge to buy a dSLR until now becuase they lacked the functions I felt I needed. For what I did I could make do with point an shoots that are a lot easier to set up than dSLRs.

Everyone I have talked to that have used live view on a microscope found it very helpful. I don't always work in an environment I can control. I like the EVolt 510 feature set a lot. But I haven't kept up on dSLR features the 18 months or so.

I have been tethered to a computer for 29 years one reason I want to get more into photgrapy is to break the tether a little. I am sure I will find ways to computer control the camera and at least the Z axis. I always have before.

Looking at portable DVD recorders with 10 inch LCD screen or a video to USB 2 coverther might be a better than an articulated screen for some things.

Thanks for the time for you insight.

Gordon

Gordon
When I investigated Nikon DSLRs about a year ago, I found that some of the less expensive bodies would not interface with Nikon's PC or Mac software which allows you to control and view what is coming through your camera.

But, I'm not up on the most recent bodies and software

Steven Born

Hi Brian,
Making propitiatory connectors is a cash cow. But the bright side is they will be on eBay from Hong Kong for .99˘ & $9.99 postage in a month or two:)
Reading reversed letters isn't a problem for me if I know what I am looking for. I learned to read that way in print shop doing corrections on hand set and hot type. Just another obsolete profession. I don't think I would want to set up a camera in a mirror. I might use two to get the image back right. I have enough very thin front surface mirror to build a viewer. I would be hard to set up but making one to go on the back of a camera facing straight down on a scope isn't hard.

Thank you for the comarison. Sounds like I need to call my camera store and see if they have the two in stock and have a look and see if we can make a deal. I hate to use them to try out something and then buy mail order. I am willing to pay them more to mess with me. From what you say my budget may need transfusion before it gets off the ground.

I have heard the comment that image stabizaton is best done in the lens. That's part of the compormize I have made so far for the magnified live view and simple SPST switches.

I think smaller light lenses translate to slower lenses with less zoom range and probably not as sharp and may have other problems as well. I will bet I can put an adapter on a Pentax 2.8 135mm lens and have a hard time finding anything with a better image other than a better fixed focal length 135 f 2.8 lens.

Thanks, Gordon

Hey Gordon-
If you look around a bit, I'll bet you can find a camera supplier with rentals. Spend a week with each model of interest and most questions will surely be answered. Been there ... done that ... ended up with an E330, just no time to do anything much with it :-(

Regards/Roger, in Bangkok

Roger,

The E330 would do fine if I could get an image stablized lens for it. A Nikon or Canon would be fine if they had magnified live view and simple switching on the shutter. With simple switching I can built a very simple timer to turn off the lights open the shutter, sort of sync the flash or use the incandescent to LED to expose the image then close the shutter. I can also use it for time lapse and such. It doesn't even need computer ripple counters with jumpers will do. The chips an 20 jumper pins and 4 or 5 jumper blocks will beak up 16 minuets in 1/1000 piece for time for 10 bucks worth of stuff. I would use commuter as it easier to writ soft ware thay move jumpers and keep them streight. I would have most of the control I wan over the Carma. So I can set at my desk, line up he shot take a shot move to the the next spot and so on. adjsuing Z has t goes.

Gordon

> One can use almost any older Nikon lens on the Canon EOS
> in manual mode.

Is this an error? I have never known any compatibility between Nikon and Canon since the Leica screwmount days. That is: no compatibility in over 50 years.

I am very interested in this thread. I am very familiar with photo equipment for ordinary photography, but not as much for microphotography. (Or is it photomicrography?)

I have accumulated some impressions from this thread and some other sources, and wonder whether they are correct. I also have some specific questions for the knowledgeable. (brn_matsumoto and sberk5 take note)
1. Image stabilization is useless or worse on a rigidly held camera. Correct or not?
2. The lcd display is useless for microscope focusing. Correct or not?
3. Some cameras will give real time display on a computer. Correct or not? If so which? If so, is it a useful focusing aid?
4. Some cameras will allow some level of control through a PC. Correct or not? Which models and which controls? focus? exposure? Are these controls useful?
5. The names to consider are canon, nikon and olympus. Correct or not? If not, which other names, or which of the three are not worth considering.
6. I am most interested in the Nikon D200. The reason is the Nikon lenses that I already own and worship. The D200 will work with them all to some extent as far as I can tell. Correct or not?
I have taken a few pictures through a microscope with both polaroid and 35mm film. The results have been reasonable. The process excruciating. I would like to streamline things and thus the interest in digital and the coupling with a PC.
My experience is also that direct projection to the film by some sort of intermediate lens works out best. The AO 10 has available a leaf shutter assembly with intermediate lenses that will throw a large enough image to fill a standard polaroid. This intermediate lens replaces the eyepiece and no lens is used on the camera. I have also tried using the eyepiece with a lens on the camera focused at infinity. This gives a reasonably large image if a long lens is used on the camera. Any comments on the two techniques?
Thanks for any feedback.

As I understand it, Nikon RAW files are not quite Raw files,they are some what altered in some way,where as the Canon Raw files are not.

David

"mattbrin" wrote:
> 4. Some cameras will allow some level of control through a PC.
> Correct or not? Which models and which controls? focus? exposure?
> Are these controls useful?

Hi Matt
For the Nikon DSLR range their 'Camera Control Pro 2' software controls all their DSLRs and a wide range of functions. I use this software with my Nikon D50 and in past loaned D40, D80 for photomicroscopy and never need to touch the camera. The image transfer to PC is so quick I do critical focus on the PC screen for inaminate subjects.
For the new D3 and D300 it will apparently (see link below) also support Nikon's new live view mode on screen.
 http://nikonimaging.com/

regards, David

Hi David,
As when I was farming ever time bought something that wasn't John Deere it almost always turned out to cost more in the long run and be poorer choice. In the past not buying Nikon or Canon tended to be the same. The old Nikon F's were great cameras that still hold their value better than any other 35 mm body. Of course digital camera don't hold their value very well. I worry turning away from Nikon and Cannon for the same reasons. I have a Sony W7. It takes great pictures but the contorls and features are poor substitute for Nikon's. Olympus' history with scientific attchemts for SLR does sooth my fears some.

I feel it is a shame that you can't completly control a camera remotely form a PC, Cell phone or remote running a Virtual Terminal. There has to be one for development why they didn't polish up and sell it beats me. Every embedded divice I ever saw or built had a PC interface to exercise and test it. But I have seen too many good feature get lost between engineering an marketing in worries over competing with other higher priced products in the line.

Using a Macintosh I have given up most hope of computer control form a PC.

Gordon

Hi:
Below are some of my answers to your questions.

>1. Image stabilization is useless or worse on a rigidly held camera.
>Correct or not?
Correct--tripod mounting is not recommended by Nikon or Olympus o for their IS cameras: however, the steadier you can hand hold the camera, the better the results. You just can't have the camera absolutely still.

>2. The lcd display is useless for microscope focusing. Correct or not?
Not correct. It is an improvement, but it is not as good as using a dedicated microscope camera that is tethered to the computer. For example, I can use the latter to focus on the stria or the dots of A. pellucida. However, the stria and dots were not visible on my LCD preview of the E550. Also, for very low light work the LCD preview may not be sensitive enough to provide an image. But for stained slides, brightfield work, phase or DIC work the LCD preview screen works well enough.

>3. Some cameras will give real time display on a computer. Correct or not? If so which? If so, is it a useful focusing aid?
Correct. Canon is supposed to work off a tethered computer; however, I have not studied the particulars of this camera and will defer a detailed response to a more experienced person who has used this camera.

>4. Some cameras will allow some level of control through a PC. Correct or not? Which models and which controls? focus? exposure? Are these controls useful?
I believe the Canon will do so. However, when I use computer controled cameras I generally use a camera that is designed to do so--the controls on these dedicated cameras are so much more useful that it does not pay to use a DSLR for this purpose.

>5. The names to consider are canon, nikon and olympus. Correct or not? If not, which other names, or which of the three are not worth considering.

LCD preview cameras are made by Canon, Nikon, Olympus--as well as Panasonic and Leica. I only have used Live Preview on the Olympus E330, E410, E510 and E3.

>6. I am most interested in the Nikon D200. The reason is the Nikon lenses that I already own and worship. The D200 will work with them all to some extent as far as I can tell. Correct or not?
Correct--unless you have some of the specialized lenses which require a mirror lockup, i.e. certain wide angle lenses. In fact, for macro work I prefer the older manual focus only lenses on the D200. By the way, the D200 does not have live preview--its replacement model the D300 does.

>I have taken a few pictures through a microscope with both polaroid and 35mm film. The results have been reasonable. The process excruciating. I would like to streamline things and thus the interest in digital and the coupling with a PC.
Film photography with a SLR should be almost as convenient as using a digital SLR--if you find the former excruciating, then I suspect you will find the latter inconvenient as well. I am ignoring the convenience of instantly reviewing your work. For image capture the main difference in the live Preview camera is a more convenient and accurate focusing system. However, some of this convenience is lost if the LCD is not articulated. If it is fixed, you will have to stand and look down on the back of the camera to focus. As for using a computer controlled camera--I don't have experience with the DSLRs operated in that mode. When I use a computer, I use the dedicated microscopy cameras such as an Optronics MicroFire. These cameras will streamline your operation and make life more convenient. I use the dSLRs when workspace around the microscope is at a premium and I need something that occupies minimum desk space. An annoyance with the Olympus cameras is that if you use live LCD preview on the E3, E410, and E510, the mirror drops down (for autofocusing) and then flips backup for the shutter to fire. This takes about a half second of time. I do not know if the Canon or Nikon D300 does this--but it is one reason I use a dedicated photomicrography camera for much of my work.

My experience is also that direct projection to the film by some sort of intermediate lens works out best. The AO 10 has available a leaf shutter assembly with intermediate lenses that will throw a large enough image to fill a standard polaroid. This intermediate lens replaces the eyepiece and no lens is used on the camera. I have also tried using the eyepiece with a lens on the camera focused at infinity. This gives a reasonably large image if a long lens is used on the camera. Any comments on the two techniques?

I prefer direct projection to the sensor without an intervening camera lens. For much of my work I use an Olympus BX51--it has infinity tube length objectives and you simply mount the camera on the trinocular head and the objective projects an image to the sensor without an head. If I use one of my older stands with compensating eyepieces, I have to select a low enough power eyepiece to ensure that I do not project too high of magnification to my camera. Using the camera lens mounted over an eyepiece works--and it may work very well indeed. There are photomicrogaphgers who have done excellent work the Nikon Coolpix cameras mounted over an eypepiece. But if you have a DSLR this is not needed and it is more difficult to accomplish. The wider diameter lenses on a dSLR tend to vignette when mounted over a microscope eyepiece. Hope this helps.

Brian

Hi Gordon:
Nothing beats holding the camera in your hand and seeing how it works. I used to sell cameras and appreciate how differently one camera feels and how important that feel can be for photography.

FWIW, the digital sensors on these dSLRs are pretty small. In fact, they are about half the size of a 35 mm frame. So if you have a 135 mm f2.8 lens, only the center part of that lens will be used for the image and it will have the field of view (if you use an Olympus) of a 270 mm f2.8. This may or may not be a good thing for you--if you like having a super telephoto in a small package--it will be great news! However, you have to rely on the viewing screen to focus. Hence, this is why I kept my Nikon D200--its eyepiece screen was magnified sufficiently so that I can focus the lens manually. The Olympus screens were not magnified sufficiently to do this. But now that I have the E3 . . . Oh yes, on the Olympus cameras, you do not have focus confirmation when you manually focus a non digital Zuiko lens. So you are totally dependent on the screen.

Brian

Hi Matt,
Here are the best answers I have. I don't have all the dope on all the brands of cameras.

> One can use almost any older Nikon lens on the Canon EOS
> in manual mode.
;Is this an error? I have never known any compatibility between Nikon and Canon since the Leica screwmount days. That is: no compatibility in over 50 years.
I don't know.

>I am very interested in this thread. I am very familiar with photo equipment for ordinary photography, but not as much for microphotography. (Or is it photomicrography?) I have accumulated some impressions from this thread and some other sources, and wonder whether they are correct. I also have some specific questions for the knowledgeable. (brn_matsumoto and sberk5 take note)
I don't know.

;1. Image stabilization is useless or worse on a rigidly held camera. Correct or not?
I expect that the image will degrade using stabilization if isn't needed. I would think the software will hunt to imove the image that doesn't need it.

;2. The lcd display is useless for microscope focusing. Correct or not?
I expect that the image will degrade using stabilization if isn't needed. I would think the software will hunt to imove the image that doesn't need it.

;3. Some cameras will give real time display on a computer. Correct or not? If so which? If so, is it a useful focusing aid?
The Cannon EVolt E330, E510, E3, & I believe a Canon D40, Nikon D200 and a Pentax model. With out a magnified view I think they are of limited use in focusing. Even on a monitor the low resolution miss the fine detail needed to get the best focus. A magnifier on the otical view is better with out a magnified view on the LCD. But on top of my Zeiss WL with tinocular head, Optivar and Pol insert I need a stepladder or 90 degree viewer to use see in the view finder or mount the scope so low it hurts me back to look though the eyepieces. That's one reason I find the Olympus EVolts Magnified Live View attractive.

;4. Some cameras will allow some level of control through a PC. Correct or not? Which models and which controls? focus? exposure? Are these controls useful?
They would be very useful for some things and not for others. A remote control is alway useful.

;5. The names to consider are canon, nikon and olympus. Correct or not? If not, which other names, or which of the three are not worth considering.
I think the Olympus EVolt E3, E330 and E510 are worth looking into for the resons I have stated in other posts.

;6. I am most interested in the Nikon D200. The reason is the Nikon lenses that I already own and worship. The D200 will work with them all to some extent as far as I can tell. Correct or not?
I don't know.
;I have taken a few pictures through a microscope with both polaroid and 35mm film. The results have been reasonable. The process excruciating. I would like to streamline things and thus the interest in digital and the coupling with a PC.
A Nikon CoolPix 900 seems to be the easiest camera to use on a microscope. The articulated head, relative freedom from vibration make it a winner.
;My experience is also that direct projection to the film by some sort of intermediate lens works out best. The AO 10 has available a leaf shutter assembly with intermediate lenses that will throw a large enough image to fill a standard polaroid. This intermediate lens replaces the eyepiece and no lens is used on the camera. I have also tried using the eyepiece with a lens on the camera focused at infinity. This gives a reasonably large image if a long lens is used on the camera. Any comments on the two techniques?
That is considered the best way to do it. any extra lenses run the chance of adding artifacts to the image or degrading it. Finding a porjection lens to match the size of the CCD on a dSLR isn't easy. If you could mount a dSLR on a front reflex housing[in the next to the lighest pink or B1 in http://www.science-info.net/docs/zeiss/Zeiss-Photomicrographic-cameras.pdf] and get the proper sized image it would solve many of the problems we have with them.

Thanks for any feedback.
Your welcome, Gordon

Hi Gordon:
Just a crazy thought. The Panasonic L1 is based on the E330 while the L10 is based on the E410. Well, the lenses for both of these cameras are image stabilized--and reports are that they will work on Olympus digital SLRs.

Just a thought, if you want to get an image stabilized lens for the Oly.

Brian

The Leica screw mount is 39 mm dia 1.0 mm pitch. I've just made a couple of adapters for this thread.

Don W