Hi there,
Anyone got any experience with this one:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/OMAX-USB3-0-18M ... SwiLdV-YOg
I do belive this one will give me more details than my EOS 7D?
The pixels are smaller, sharper and more detailed images?
Maybe I´m far out here.....
Microscope Camera
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Not having experience with it, please don't take my thoughts too seriously.
- Smaller pixels don't provide more resolution, usually they provide more noise and less dynamic range (the total pixel count is the same, often excessive for photomicrography)
- I have an inferior camera of this style at work and the bundled optics are awful and the sensor not very good.
- No Raw will exclude it for me.
What you will gain is mostly easy of use (this was the only reason I bought one for classroom work)
- Smaller pixels don't provide more resolution, usually they provide more noise and less dynamic range (the total pixel count is the same, often excessive for photomicrography)
- I have an inferior camera of this style at work and the bundled optics are awful and the sensor not very good.
- No Raw will exclude it for me.
What you will gain is mostly easy of use (this was the only reason I bought one for classroom work)
Pau
Cameras are totally unintuitive in microscopy.
I've been watching the iBiology series of lectures on youtube and Nico Stuurman has a great lecture on camera, lens/resolution/pixel size, and the results are quite astounding. I worked out for a given resolution limit (about 0.37nm for a .75NA lens) to be at about the Nyquist limit I would need a pixel size of around 8µm. Absolutely massive by current standards. Scientific cameras are generally around 6.45µm, still massive compared to most sensors. An 18 megapixel small sensor camera will have minuscule pixels and be massively oversampling.
It's worked out backwards like this...
camera pixel size divided by half the lens resolving power to give 2 pixels per resolvable element. 8µm=8000, half 0.37nm=0.185nm will tell you what magnification will suit that sensor.
This ends up as 8000/185 = 43X magnification. That puts a 40x .75NA lens at about the Nyquist limit, or an almost perfect match of pixel size to resolution limit. A 60x would be over-sampled by a small amount in a good way, less than 40x would be under-sampled.
It's fascinating and enlightening stuff if you're into nerdyness
Check it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzhhGHx ... SEp65iNkBL
I've been watching the iBiology series of lectures on youtube and Nico Stuurman has a great lecture on camera, lens/resolution/pixel size, and the results are quite astounding. I worked out for a given resolution limit (about 0.37nm for a .75NA lens) to be at about the Nyquist limit I would need a pixel size of around 8µm. Absolutely massive by current standards. Scientific cameras are generally around 6.45µm, still massive compared to most sensors. An 18 megapixel small sensor camera will have minuscule pixels and be massively oversampling.
It's worked out backwards like this...
camera pixel size divided by half the lens resolving power to give 2 pixels per resolvable element. 8µm=8000, half 0.37nm=0.185nm will tell you what magnification will suit that sensor.
This ends up as 8000/185 = 43X magnification. That puts a 40x .75NA lens at about the Nyquist limit, or an almost perfect match of pixel size to resolution limit. A 60x would be over-sampled by a small amount in a good way, less than 40x would be under-sampled.
It's fascinating and enlightening stuff if you're into nerdyness
Check it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzhhGHx ... SEp65iNkBL