Connecting a Micro 4/3 camera to a microscope
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
- dragonblade
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 11:16 pm
Connecting a Micro 4/3 camera to a microscope
Hello, I'm new to the forum and hope to dive into the world of photomicrography. My background is in film cameras (mostly 35mm SLRs with some medium format.) Ive only recently got into digital with Panasonic G2 and G6 micro 4/3 cameras. I do not have a microscope as yet and I have to admit that I know very little about microscopes. And from my reading online, I do have the impression that connecting a camera to a microscope appears more complicated than I first thought!
My main aim is to use the Panasonic m4/3 cameras to record video footage of microscopic organisms that are found in fresh water....on a tight budget. I'm not really interested in using a lens on the camera body to do this. I would prefer to cast the microscope's image more or less directly on to the camera's sensor, with or without the microscope's eyepiece. I believe there is a choice of attaching the camera and adapter to the eyepiece or the tube where the eyepiece usually resides. Which would be the most expensive / cheapest option and also which option would give the best quality results?
I have read that T mount and C mount adapters are commonly used to connect interchangeable lens cameras to microscopes but I'm unsure as to whether the T mount (or C mount) screws on to the eyepiece itself or the tube that lies behind the eyepiece. Which actually is it? Ive been reading some contradictory information on the internet about this.
Ive also discovered online that the adapter should preferably have some kind of reducer lens inside to complement the size of the camera's sensor with the magnification of the microscope's eyepiece. Would anyone know the ideal reducer lens that would be a good match between a micro 4/3 sized sensor and a 10x eyepiece? I notice 10x eyepieces are very common on microscopes.
I know my budget is extremely tight but is it possible to get reasonably acceptable HD video footage of tiny aquatic critters with microscopes that cost under $200? Or am I being too unrealistic?
My main aim is to use the Panasonic m4/3 cameras to record video footage of microscopic organisms that are found in fresh water....on a tight budget. I'm not really interested in using a lens on the camera body to do this. I would prefer to cast the microscope's image more or less directly on to the camera's sensor, with or without the microscope's eyepiece. I believe there is a choice of attaching the camera and adapter to the eyepiece or the tube where the eyepiece usually resides. Which would be the most expensive / cheapest option and also which option would give the best quality results?
I have read that T mount and C mount adapters are commonly used to connect interchangeable lens cameras to microscopes but I'm unsure as to whether the T mount (or C mount) screws on to the eyepiece itself or the tube that lies behind the eyepiece. Which actually is it? Ive been reading some contradictory information on the internet about this.
Ive also discovered online that the adapter should preferably have some kind of reducer lens inside to complement the size of the camera's sensor with the magnification of the microscope's eyepiece. Would anyone know the ideal reducer lens that would be a good match between a micro 4/3 sized sensor and a 10x eyepiece? I notice 10x eyepieces are very common on microscopes.
I know my budget is extremely tight but is it possible to get reasonably acceptable HD video footage of tiny aquatic critters with microscopes that cost under $200? Or am I being too unrealistic?
- enricosavazzi
- Posts: 1475
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
- Location: Västerås, Sweden
- Contact:
With a tight budget, the best option is probably an afocal setup with a lens mounted on the camera and "looking" into an eyepiece of the microscope. Since you already have a G2 and G6, the logical choice is using either one of these. The G6 would probably be the best bet, but also the G2 should work.
If you have a lens with a focal length of approximately 30 mm, this would be the best bet to try first, assuming that the microscope has 10x eyepiece(s). Zoom lenses often have an unfavorable placement of their entry pupil, but if you have a zoom it does not hurt to try it first. Set the zoom focal length to 30 mm. Set the camera to manual focus and the lens focus at infinity. Use the A exposure mode of the camera and open the lens aperture all the way.
It may help to make a small hole (just a little larger than the eyepiece lens) in a black paper/cardboard sheet some 5-10 cm wide, center the hole on the eyepiece lens and temporarily attach the sheet at the top of the eyepiece with tape (e.g. from underneath the sheet). This should prevent most of the ambient light from entering the camera lens.
Frame and focus a subject in the microscope by looking through the eyepiece(s).
Hold the front lens element of the camera lens as close as possible to the eyepiece and pointed straight into the eyepiece, without actually touching it with the camera.
If you can see an image of the subject on the rear LCD, you are on to something. The microscope focus may need to be adjusted slightly. If there is severe vignetting (i.e. the image occupies only the center of the image), the camera lens may be unsuitable. If the vignetting is moderate (half or more of the sensor area is actually receiving an image), it might be acceptable to crop the image in post-processing.
If the above test seems to work reasonably well, you can start thinking about how to attach the camera to the eyepiece (or how to mount the camera in the right position using a tripod etc.). If there is too much vignetting and you have done all the above (including the correct camera settings), then the camera lens is probably not suitable.
In principle, you could do the above test with a microscope in a store, before actually buying it. This would give you an idea of whether you already have a suitable lens and adjust your budget accordingly. If the above works with a microscope, it will probably work also on another microscope model. If your current lens is not suitable, I would recommend a Sigma 30 mm f/2.8, which worked well for me on Micro 4/3 cameras.
I will leave it to others to suggest a low-cost microscope or an alternative, more home-made solution. This depends largely on what magnification you intend to reach, so it would help if you provide more information on this point.
If you have a lens with a focal length of approximately 30 mm, this would be the best bet to try first, assuming that the microscope has 10x eyepiece(s). Zoom lenses often have an unfavorable placement of their entry pupil, but if you have a zoom it does not hurt to try it first. Set the zoom focal length to 30 mm. Set the camera to manual focus and the lens focus at infinity. Use the A exposure mode of the camera and open the lens aperture all the way.
It may help to make a small hole (just a little larger than the eyepiece lens) in a black paper/cardboard sheet some 5-10 cm wide, center the hole on the eyepiece lens and temporarily attach the sheet at the top of the eyepiece with tape (e.g. from underneath the sheet). This should prevent most of the ambient light from entering the camera lens.
Frame and focus a subject in the microscope by looking through the eyepiece(s).
Hold the front lens element of the camera lens as close as possible to the eyepiece and pointed straight into the eyepiece, without actually touching it with the camera.
If you can see an image of the subject on the rear LCD, you are on to something. The microscope focus may need to be adjusted slightly. If there is severe vignetting (i.e. the image occupies only the center of the image), the camera lens may be unsuitable. If the vignetting is moderate (half or more of the sensor area is actually receiving an image), it might be acceptable to crop the image in post-processing.
If the above test seems to work reasonably well, you can start thinking about how to attach the camera to the eyepiece (or how to mount the camera in the right position using a tripod etc.). If there is too much vignetting and you have done all the above (including the correct camera settings), then the camera lens is probably not suitable.
In principle, you could do the above test with a microscope in a store, before actually buying it. This would give you an idea of whether you already have a suitable lens and adjust your budget accordingly. If the above works with a microscope, it will probably work also on another microscope model. If your current lens is not suitable, I would recommend a Sigma 30 mm f/2.8, which worked well for me on Micro 4/3 cameras.
I will leave it to others to suggest a low-cost microscope or an alternative, more home-made solution. This depends largely on what magnification you intend to reach, so it would help if you provide more information on this point.
--ES
- dragonblade
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 11:16 pm
Thanks for the reply!
Does it matter if the lenses focus a little bit past infinity? I think some of the lenses may tend to do that slightly with the adapter. I'm pretty sure the Canon macro lens doesn't have that issue.
Is it actually possible to get reasonably good images with afocal photography, or in my case, afocal videography? I did watch one particular youtube microscope video recently where a camcorder was hand held so I assume that was afocal and I have to say that the quality looked quite impressive to me. However, tonight I searched specifically for afocal microscope videos on youtube and the results generally seemed pretty average quality at best.
I do have the 14-45mm zoom but it's painfuly slow. I'm actually more keen on trying my Canon FD primes on the scope (I use these lenses a lot for time lapse with an adapter.) I have a Canon FD 50mm f1.8, a Canon macro 50mm f3.5 and a Canon FD 24mm f2.8. I guess the 24mm would be the closest to 30mm. At one stage, I was very close to getting a Canon FD 35mm. If none of those lenses turn out to be ideal, I could grab the Sigma you recommended.enricosavazzi wrote: If you have a lens with a focal length of approximately 30 mm, this would be the best bet to try first, assuming that the microscope has 10x eyepiece(s). Zoom lenses often have an unfavorable placement of their entry pupil, but if you have a zoom it does not hurt to try it first.
Does it matter if the lenses focus a little bit past infinity? I think some of the lenses may tend to do that slightly with the adapter. I'm pretty sure the Canon macro lens doesn't have that issue.
As an alternative, I guess I could drape a black cloth over the gap between camera lens and eyepiece just like when viewing with a large format view camera?enricosavazzi wrote:It may help to make a small hole (just a little larger than the eyepiece lens) in a black paper/cardboard sheet some 5-10 cm wide, center the hole on the eyepiece lens and temporarily attach the sheet at the top of the eyepiece with tape (e.g. from underneath the sheet). This should prevent most of the ambient light from entering the camera lens.
Is it actually possible to get reasonably good images with afocal photography, or in my case, afocal videography? I did watch one particular youtube microscope video recently where a camcorder was hand held so I assume that was afocal and I have to say that the quality looked quite impressive to me. However, tonight I searched specifically for afocal microscope videos on youtube and the results generally seemed pretty average quality at best.
I think the tricky thing would be to actually find a microscope in a store locally. They're definitely not a common item in my local city.enricosavazzi wrote: In principle, you could do the above test with a microscope in a store, before actually buying it.
Like I mentioned earlier, I'm mainly planning to use the microscope to view mico creatures in fresh water. Though as to what sort of magnification I need for that subject matter, I really have no idea what would be suitable for my needs. I do like the sort of views that I can see in this video if it's of any help http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PU1ng4DSwgenricosavazzi wrote:I will leave it to others to suggest a low-cost microscope or an alternative, more home-made solution. This depends largely on what magnification you intend to reach, so it would help if you provide more information on this point.
Last edited by dragonblade on Sun Oct 19, 2014 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- enricosavazzi
- Posts: 1475
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
- Location: Västerås, Sweden
- Contact:
The Canon FD 24 mm f/2.8 is a retrofocus design for 24x36 mm film SLRs. I am not familiar with this lens, but probably it is not a good choice for use as a "relay lens". It will vignette in the corners in any case because the focal length is just a bit too short, but likely it will vignette even more because it will not be possible to place the eyepiece sufficiently close to the entrance pupil of the lens.
The other Canon lenses are a bit too long. They would record only a relatively small area at the center of the image, only about half as wide as the field of view of the eyepiece. This is not optimal, but the image may nonetheless be usable. My best bet would be the 50 mm f/1.8, but it does not hurt to test the macro as well.
It should not matter if the lens is focused slightly on either side of infinity, instead of exactly at infinity.
Yes, the black cloth would also work, but you should always check the actual distance between front lens element and eyepiece, to be sure not to damage the lens coatings. This may not be easy to see if the lens is completely enveloped in a black cloth. This is a test only, so it does not really matter if there is a little flare because of off-axis illumination entering the lens. Afterwards, of course, the connection should be made light-tight.
Afocal imaging tends to give very good results. Direct projection with only a microscope objective and no eyepiece will not give an optimal image quality if the eyepiece is designed to remove some aberrations not corrected by the objective. Using an ordinary eyepiece designed for visual observation to project the image on a small sensor (without a "relay" lens) is not likely to work optimally, either.
All these tests presuppose that you have a microscope or equivalent equipment available. If there are no microscope shops, perhaps a local university institute, school or medical laboratory may be convinced to let you try. Alternatively, perhaps some member who happens to have access to the same lens models and to a microscope may be able to confirm their usability for this purpose.
I would not discard the idea of using the 14-45 mm zoom without trying, however. Lens speed is not the real problem here. I actually think this is the alternative you should try first.
The other Canon lenses are a bit too long. They would record only a relatively small area at the center of the image, only about half as wide as the field of view of the eyepiece. This is not optimal, but the image may nonetheless be usable. My best bet would be the 50 mm f/1.8, but it does not hurt to test the macro as well.
It should not matter if the lens is focused slightly on either side of infinity, instead of exactly at infinity.
Yes, the black cloth would also work, but you should always check the actual distance between front lens element and eyepiece, to be sure not to damage the lens coatings. This may not be easy to see if the lens is completely enveloped in a black cloth. This is a test only, so it does not really matter if there is a little flare because of off-axis illumination entering the lens. Afterwards, of course, the connection should be made light-tight.
Afocal imaging tends to give very good results. Direct projection with only a microscope objective and no eyepiece will not give an optimal image quality if the eyepiece is designed to remove some aberrations not corrected by the objective. Using an ordinary eyepiece designed for visual observation to project the image on a small sensor (without a "relay" lens) is not likely to work optimally, either.
All these tests presuppose that you have a microscope or equivalent equipment available. If there are no microscope shops, perhaps a local university institute, school or medical laboratory may be convinced to let you try. Alternatively, perhaps some member who happens to have access to the same lens models and to a microscope may be able to confirm their usability for this purpose.
I would not discard the idea of using the 14-45 mm zoom without trying, however. Lens speed is not the real problem here. I actually think this is the alternative you should try first.
--ES
- dragonblade
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 11:16 pm
There is a handy little feature that many Panasonic micro 4/3 cameras have that may be able to compensate for this heavy vignetting. When recording in movie mode, there's some clever trick the camera can do with it's pixels which allows you to heavily crop the picture supposedly without losing image quality or perhaps very minimal loss. I believe it's called 'ez zoom' or something like that. Regardless, I'll try the 14-45mm lens first.enricosavazzi wrote:The Canon FD 24 mm f/2.8 is a retrofocus design for 24x36 mm film SLRs. I am not familiar with this lens, but probably it is not a good choice for use as a "relay lens". It will vignette in the corners in any case because the focal length is just a bit too short, but likely it will vignette even more because it will not be possible to place the eyepiece sufficiently close to the entrance pupil of the lens.
Last edited by dragonblade on Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- dragonblade
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 11:16 pm
I notice the Amscope microscopes are popular in the budget range. Several models under $200 have caught my eye but I'm not sure how much quality I would be sacrificing with these. I guess more expensive Amscope models would employ higher quality objectives? With the under $200 models, they appear to have DIN achromatic objectives (4x, 10x and 40x.) Are these likely to produce a uniformly sharp and flat image across the field of view? Or would there be some softness and curviness near the corners?
Another thing I note is the lighting system: "The microscope has lower (diascopic) Brightfield illumination that transmits light up through the specimen for enhanced visibility of translucent and transparent objects. Brightfield (BF) illumination allows the specimen to absorb light, resulting in a dark image on a light background. LED illumination provides bright, cool light for working with temperature-sensitive or live specimens."
Would this so called 'brightfield illumination' be an advantage or disadvantage when viewing microscopic organisms in fresh water?
Another thing I note is the lighting system: "The microscope has lower (diascopic) Brightfield illumination that transmits light up through the specimen for enhanced visibility of translucent and transparent objects. Brightfield (BF) illumination allows the specimen to absorb light, resulting in a dark image on a light background. LED illumination provides bright, cool light for working with temperature-sensitive or live specimens."
Would this so called 'brightfield illumination' be an advantage or disadvantage when viewing microscopic organisms in fresh water?
- enricosavazzi
- Posts: 1475
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
- Location: Västerås, Sweden
- Contact:
Transmitted illumination is a generic term that indicates the subject is illuminated by light coming from a direction roughly opposite the objective. An empty background looks white, and the subject is darker in the areas that absorb or scatter more light. Think more or less like viewing a color film slide against a light source.dragonblade wrote: Would this so called 'brightfield illumination' be an advantage or disadvantage when viewing microscopic organisms in fresh water?
This is the simplest type of illumination for microscopy use, and is suitable for subjects that transmit some light. This includes many small organisms (very roughly from a few hundred microns and downward) found in pond water. It does not work on opaque subjects. Once you start reading about microscopes, you will need to learn about the different types of hardware for brightfield illumination and other types of illumination.
I would say that the majority of the most striking photomicrographs you see on this site are not produced with brightfield illumination, but with far more complex and expensive systems. Brightfield illumination looks rather "plain" in comparison. Nonetheless, almost everybody starts out with brightfield.
I think I saw an ostracod in the movie you linked to (in addition to other arthropods), but I did not really have time to check it carefully. The majority of ostracods are probably between 1mm and 200 microns. They are usually observed at anything between 10x and 40x. Most of the other organisms in pond water are probably smaller.
--ES
dragonblade,
My thread may give you an idea how much improvement a quality microscope system can bring:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 105#154105
I thought about buying Amscope before, but I eneded up buying an used Nikon off a local eBay'er. My past 3 purchase from Amscope did not impress me with image quality.
My thread may give you an idea how much improvement a quality microscope system can bring:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 105#154105
I thought about buying Amscope before, but I eneded up buying an used Nikon off a local eBay'er. My past 3 purchase from Amscope did not impress me with image quality.
- dragonblade
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 11:16 pm
Zzffnn, I have been reading your thread with interest. I admit that Ive seen mixed results with photographic samples taken via Amscope equipment. Some images looked impressively good while others were substandard with various optical defects. I think the hunt for a microscope suitable for my needs is going to take a long time with many options to consider. My father was a scientist and he used Zeiss microscopes....a pity that his company came to an end and all the equipment was sent away.
^ As you may have seen, I was on the exact same quest as you.
I did research on this topic for a month and the following is my suggestion to you. You would like to buy a microscope with:
1) smooth/precise fine focus adjustment and
2) teaching heads or trinocular heads. Videotaping pond lives needs constant adjustment of focus, which is not easy to do with monocular or binocular scopes. If you are considering trinocular head, ask the seller if the trinocular head can take a 10x viewing eyepiece for afocal imaging.
3) a decent condenser (light concentrator glass). Without it, 400x would be difficult.
4) a condenser with slots for darkfield or oblique sliders. That way, you can learn to DIY darkfield or oblique stops in the future and don't have to change your scope or swap out entire condenser. Pond lives look great under darkfield or oblique lighting.
Enrico's advice is golden. Afocal is the best way for you.
You can ask around and see if any of your local university/hospital has a used microscope for demo/sale. Check local medical equipment auction too. $300 would be easier but you may try offering labor in exchange.
If you buy new, make sure you can get refund if needed. Don't buy those cheap USB cameras. >=1000x magnification is not quite usable at a budget of $200 retail - that needs oil immersion and is not easy for beginners.
For pond lives, you mostly need 40x-400x anyway (10x eyepiece with 4x-40x objectives).
I did research on this topic for a month and the following is my suggestion to you. You would like to buy a microscope with:
1) smooth/precise fine focus adjustment and
2) teaching heads or trinocular heads. Videotaping pond lives needs constant adjustment of focus, which is not easy to do with monocular or binocular scopes. If you are considering trinocular head, ask the seller if the trinocular head can take a 10x viewing eyepiece for afocal imaging.
3) a decent condenser (light concentrator glass). Without it, 400x would be difficult.
4) a condenser with slots for darkfield or oblique sliders. That way, you can learn to DIY darkfield or oblique stops in the future and don't have to change your scope or swap out entire condenser. Pond lives look great under darkfield or oblique lighting.
Enrico's advice is golden. Afocal is the best way for you.
You can ask around and see if any of your local university/hospital has a used microscope for demo/sale. Check local medical equipment auction too. $300 would be easier but you may try offering labor in exchange.
If you buy new, make sure you can get refund if needed. Don't buy those cheap USB cameras. >=1000x magnification is not quite usable at a budget of $200 retail - that needs oil immersion and is not easy for beginners.
For pond lives, you mostly need 40x-400x anyway (10x eyepiece with 4x-40x objectives).
- dragonblade
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 11:16 pm
Zzffnn, great suggestions there. Yea, I always check if a microscope has options for both fine focus and coarse focus. Also - another feature I would really like is an adjustable stage (moveable backwards and forwards as well as sideways) though I'm not sure if this is a common feature or not.
Yea, I'm not really interested in those USB cameras. I note that some individuals give pleasing reviews of a particular microscope and then say how rubbish the bundled USB camera is. I'll definitely stick to my Panasonic G6 micro 4/3 camera which offers full manual exposure control during video shooting.
With regards to microscope heads, I had the impression that viewing and focusing would likely be done via the camera's LCD screen rather than the scope's eyepiece. I suppose I'd have more options with a trinocular arrangement thought I'd have to think of some way to hold the camera up vertically above the scope. With a binocular set up, the camera body would probably obscure the other eyepiece. And with a monocular, I would think it would be impossible to use the eyepiece with the camera in place. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Ah and good recommendation on the magnification I need for these tiny aquatic creatures. So you think a 100x objective is unnecessary (combined with a 10x eyepiece)? Some of the scopes Ive been looking at don't come with 100x objectives.
Yea, I'm not really interested in those USB cameras. I note that some individuals give pleasing reviews of a particular microscope and then say how rubbish the bundled USB camera is. I'll definitely stick to my Panasonic G6 micro 4/3 camera which offers full manual exposure control during video shooting.
With regards to microscope heads, I had the impression that viewing and focusing would likely be done via the camera's LCD screen rather than the scope's eyepiece. I suppose I'd have more options with a trinocular arrangement thought I'd have to think of some way to hold the camera up vertically above the scope. With a binocular set up, the camera body would probably obscure the other eyepiece. And with a monocular, I would think it would be impossible to use the eyepiece with the camera in place. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Ah and good recommendation on the magnification I need for these tiny aquatic creatures. So you think a 100x objective is unnecessary (combined with a 10x eyepiece)? Some of the scopes Ive been looking at don't come with 100x objectives.
Last edited by dragonblade on Mon Oct 20, 2014 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sorry, I forgot about double later stage. You would need that for 100x-400x for sure.
Afocal imaging most likely would obscure the other eyepiece of a bino. Mine did. This is because a bigger adapter is needed to hold/connect camera's lens to scope's eyepiece.
You may be able to use the other eyepiece, if you go with direct projection (w/o camera lens and w/o miscrope eyepiece). You can get, from eBay, a m 4/3 to T mount then a "T mount to microscope" adapter. Those adapters take up less space, as there are no lens/eyepiece to connect. Image quality is likely inferior to afocal, but for videotapping it may be acceptable. If you get strange light reflection in your direct projection video, you can use black cloth to dampen the uncoated eyepiece tube.
Afocal with a monucular scope is not impossible, if you have good young eyes and no desire for taking sharp photos (camera LCD is far less resolving than eyes). Taking videos does not need the very best focus, as you will be adjusting focus constantly throughout videotapping anyway (pond lives will be moving and many are too thick to resolve with only one focus adjustment - that is why for people do focus stacking for photos).
A cheap 100x objective will require oil immersion and is not very convenient to use. If you are not careful, you can easily damage the 100x objective by running it into a sample glass slide (the objective glass may break).
Afocal imaging most likely would obscure the other eyepiece of a bino. Mine did. This is because a bigger adapter is needed to hold/connect camera's lens to scope's eyepiece.
You may be able to use the other eyepiece, if you go with direct projection (w/o camera lens and w/o miscrope eyepiece). You can get, from eBay, a m 4/3 to T mount then a "T mount to microscope" adapter. Those adapters take up less space, as there are no lens/eyepiece to connect. Image quality is likely inferior to afocal, but for videotapping it may be acceptable. If you get strange light reflection in your direct projection video, you can use black cloth to dampen the uncoated eyepiece tube.
Afocal with a monucular scope is not impossible, if you have good young eyes and no desire for taking sharp photos (camera LCD is far less resolving than eyes). Taking videos does not need the very best focus, as you will be adjusting focus constantly throughout videotapping anyway (pond lives will be moving and many are too thick to resolve with only one focus adjustment - that is why for people do focus stacking for photos).
A cheap 100x objective will require oil immersion and is not very convenient to use. If you are not careful, you can easily damage the 100x objective by running it into a sample glass slide (the objective glass may break).
- dragonblade
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 11:16 pm
I admit I know very little about the adapters used for afocal imaging. I guess the end that fits on to the camera would likely have a filter thread that screws on to the lens? I'm still clear on how the other end attaches to the eyepiece of the microscope, whether that's a T-mount or something else.zzffnn wrote: Afocal imaging most likely would obscure the other eyepiece of a bino. Mine did. This is because a bigger adapter is needed to hold/connect camera's lens to scope's eyepiece.
By the way, I think I'll stick with afocal imaging. I keep reading that direct projection is not quite a straight forward process as it seems and involves a lot of problem solving and experimentation.
I guess I could have a practise run with a monocular microscope if I can find a demo model in a shop and hold the camera above the eyepiece and see how the results look on video. Though in a typical shop environment, I guess it would likely be a static subject that I'll be viewing. There is a youtube video shot with a hand held camcorder against a microscope eyepiece (the subject matter being pond life) and the results actually look quite good - acceptably sharp too.zzffnn wrote:Afocal with a monucular scope is not impossible, if you have good young eyes and no desire for taking sharp photos. Taking videos does not need the very best focus, as you will be adjusting focus constantly throughout videotapping anyway (pond lives will be moving and many are too thick to resolve with only one focus adjustment - that is why for people do focus stacking for photos).
- dragonblade
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 11:16 pm
Ah nice configuration. Can they be adjusted so that the camera's lens is parallel and central with regards to the microscope's eyepiece without too much bother?zzffnn wrote:I used an "Orion Steadypix camera mount". It has a tripod screw for camera and a clamp for microscope eyepiece. You can use it if your scope is heavy enough. Just pad the eyepiece with some paper to make it fit the clamp.
Edit: Ive just had a look at one on Amazon. Looks well designed.
Originally, I was thinking of setting up my tripod over the microscope but that would be very time consuming getting the alignment right.
Last edited by dragonblade on Mon Oct 20, 2014 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.