Microscope Camera

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Harald
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 10:33 am
Location: Steinberg, Norway
Contact:

Microscope Camera

Post by Harald »

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.....
Kind Regards
Harald

Lier Fotoklubb / NSFF
AFIAP / CPS
BGF / GMV
http://www.500px.com/blender11

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 6051
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Post by 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)
Pau

Harald
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 10:33 am
Location: Steinberg, Norway
Contact:

Post by Harald »

Thanks pau,
I did see some bad reviews of the camera, so I´ll drop this one.
Have e-mailed an supplier here in Norway to ask for a demo of another camera. One with backlit cmos from Sony
Kind Regards
Harald

Lier Fotoklubb / NSFF
AFIAP / CPS
BGF / GMV
http://www.500px.com/blender11

GaryB
Posts: 521
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 12:18 pm

Post by GaryB »

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

Harald
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 10:33 am
Location: Steinberg, Norway
Contact:

Post by Harald »

Hi there Gary,
The video link you sent was a good eyeopener.
Never thought of the exposure time that much, some very good information there....
Kind Regards
Harald

Lier Fotoklubb / NSFF
AFIAP / CPS
BGF / GMV
http://www.500px.com/blender11

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic