Fixing to buy these but.....
(Amscope) 3.5X-90X Advanced Jewel Gem Stereo Zoom Microscope
(Amscope) 1920x1080 Full HD HDMI Microscope Camera
Heavy Duty Double-arm Boom Stand
0.01mm Precise Gliding Table - Manual Stage For Microscopes
......need your help!
Hello folks, My wife and I are brand new to your wonderful and insightful forum. Much has been learned from reading lots of threads here.
In our golden years, my wife and I have been enjoying opals and have been for some time. We look for great opportunities to buy rough from places like Ethiopia and Australia, Mexico and even Nevada. We clean them up, and sometimes market them on platforms like eBay, Amazon, Esty and Alibaba. We don't make much money, but we really haven't been into it for the money. My wife said to me the other day, "times are changing. You know, people see you coming a long way away when it comes to opals. It's time to at least see if we can break even on a parcel."
So, in order to do that, we need to get serious about the pictures we display of the ones we decide to market. We did a lot of asking around, and we come to the conclusion that we can get the photo's we need by using a microscope with a camera mounted. (we know nothing about buying a regular camera and shooting close-ups and going that route) So, that's where we are at. I am close to pulling the trigger. I first wanted to make my bride proud of me and surprise her by asking some advice from a source by it's very definition is the gold mine or resources. You folks! A forum of microscope users!
So, with that said, I listed the main items and I would like to know your thoughts. I would be buying direct from the company.
The microscope comes with a stand. I would switch and use the one I'd buy so I can use my mini turntable. I would also use controlled lighting and an enclosed environment. But, I'm pretty much throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks after that. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I can't wait too long but I want to give this some time to see what comes of the effort.
Taking pictures of the fire and colors that move in opals is at best a challenge. Trying to capture them in a short video or a still is what my goal is. Does anybody out there have experience with exactly what I'm trying to do?
Thanks folks, I await replies.
god Bless
George
New folks asking advice for taking photos and video of opals
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
Theopalfox
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:16 pm
Welcome George! 
Please don't be offended, but we're going to shift your post!
This is the part of the forum for sales and wants of specific items.
I think you'd sit happier in Beginners' Macro, or Beginners' Micro.
That's the first question. I've seen some amazing Opals in Australia, but not in Alaska where you are. Surely they're mostly too big for a microscope?
The specifications of the 'scope you mention
(Amscope) 3.5X-90X Advanced Jewel Gem Stereo Zoom Microscope
are confusing. How can the field of view be 2 1/2" / 60mm! Perhaps that’s just how big a thing you can put on the stage and manoeuvre it under the lens.
3.5x to me means a field of view, in a single image, around 4 to 6mm wide.
You may be able to use the Barlow 0.5x, I don't know, but I'd have thought that would be small a field for what you want. For looking at inclusions in diamonds, sure, use a microscope.
So, how big of a field do you need? Certainly, to show opals, carefully controlled lighting and movement would be great, but a microscope would be limiting.
I'd just use a camera. "Just" hides a lot, but it's not too hard.
On a technical note, 1920x1080 is only 2 Megapixels. Most cameras now are 12MP to 24MP. Many do video too.
If you use a camera, you can trade-off the resolution you don't need (because the video can't show it) to give you more Depth of Field - more in focus, which is what you can use.
And the camera gives you the option of good big stills.
If you look at mineralogy and gemmology forums, you'll find a lot of people using cameras.
We can help with that, but
how big are your specimens??!
Please don't be offended, but we're going to shift your post!
This is the part of the forum for sales and wants of specific items.
I think you'd sit happier in Beginners' Macro, or Beginners' Micro.
That's the first question. I've seen some amazing Opals in Australia, but not in Alaska where you are. Surely they're mostly too big for a microscope?
The specifications of the 'scope you mention
(Amscope) 3.5X-90X Advanced Jewel Gem Stereo Zoom Microscope
are confusing. How can the field of view be 2 1/2" / 60mm! Perhaps that’s just how big a thing you can put on the stage and manoeuvre it under the lens.
3.5x to me means a field of view, in a single image, around 4 to 6mm wide.
You may be able to use the Barlow 0.5x, I don't know, but I'd have thought that would be small a field for what you want. For looking at inclusions in diamonds, sure, use a microscope.
So, how big of a field do you need? Certainly, to show opals, carefully controlled lighting and movement would be great, but a microscope would be limiting.
I'd just use a camera. "Just" hides a lot, but it's not too hard.
On a technical note, 1920x1080 is only 2 Megapixels. Most cameras now are 12MP to 24MP. Many do video too.
If you use a camera, you can trade-off the resolution you don't need (because the video can't show it) to give you more Depth of Field - more in focus, which is what you can use.
And the camera gives you the option of good big stills.
If you look at mineralogy and gemmology forums, you'll find a lot of people using cameras.
We can help with that, but
how big are your specimens??!
Chris R
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
George, welcome aboard!
First, to address the issue of magnification versus subject size...
The point here is that the word "magnification" means different things to different people. By specifying the size of the subject, you can avoid some ambiguity.
If I wanted to do your task myself, I would set up my DSLR & macro lenses and press the "record video" button. But that's given my own background and set of equipment.
Given where you are, I think the Amscope equipment is a reasonable choice, except that I'd suggest looking at a higher resolution camera that can shoot say 8-10 megapixel stills in addition to HD video. Be aware, however, that cameras with higher resolution often cannot record video as quickly as cameras with lower resolution, even when the video resolution is the same. With a static subject, this can be worked around in post-processing, to provide for say 2X faster playback of video that was shot at a slower speed.
One thing to watch with Amscope is that they frequently put their equipment on sale for about "half off". Of course that really means that the rest of the time they're just selling it for twice what it's actually worth.
At this moment, they're offering that microscope with a 9 MB camera for $699, http://www.amscope.com/stereo-microscop ... amera.html . That seems like a reasonable price, and a good way to proceed in your situation. You'll be sacrificing some potential quality compared to a DSLR & macro lens solution, but the microscope with USB camera will be much simpler to get working well.
--Rik
First, to address the issue of magnification versus subject size...
Amscope is quoting magnification in terms of "compared to what you'd see with naked eye at standard viewing distance". Roughly speaking, that means a 10" virtual field, divided by whatever the physical field or magnification is. The 10" virtual field divided by 3.5X gives about 2.5" physical field. At 90X, it would be 10"/90, about 0.11" physical field. (This is the same method that causes a 10X objective plus 10X eyepiece to be quoted as 100X, even though when used with a DSLR the same objective would deliver only 10X.)ChrisR wrote:The specifications of the 'scope you mention
(Amscope) 3.5X-90X Advanced Jewel Gem Stereo Zoom Microscope
are confusing. How can the field of view be 2 1/2" / 60mm!
This comes from a photographer's viewpoint, assuming direct projection onto an APS-C sensor: 22mm/3.5 ~= 6mm.3.5x to me means a field of view, in a single image, around 4 to 6mm wide.
The point here is that the word "magnification" means different things to different people. By specifying the size of the subject, you can avoid some ambiguity.
Video definitely sounds like a good idea. Still photos never do a good job of showing off colors that change with angle.Taking pictures of the fire and colors that move in opals is at best a challenge. Trying to capture them in a short video or a still is what my goal is.
If I wanted to do your task myself, I would set up my DSLR & macro lenses and press the "record video" button. But that's given my own background and set of equipment.
Given where you are, I think the Amscope equipment is a reasonable choice, except that I'd suggest looking at a higher resolution camera that can shoot say 8-10 megapixel stills in addition to HD video. Be aware, however, that cameras with higher resolution often cannot record video as quickly as cameras with lower resolution, even when the video resolution is the same. With a static subject, this can be worked around in post-processing, to provide for say 2X faster playback of video that was shot at a slower speed.
One thing to watch with Amscope is that they frequently put their equipment on sale for about "half off". Of course that really means that the rest of the time they're just selling it for twice what it's actually worth.
At this moment, they're offering that microscope with a 9 MB camera for $699, http://www.amscope.com/stereo-microscop ... amera.html . That seems like a reasonable price, and a good way to proceed in your situation. You'll be sacrificing some potential quality compared to a DSLR & macro lens solution, but the microscope with USB camera will be much simpler to get working well.
--Rik
I'll take your word for it Rik.
There's certainly confusion then if they're relating to the 10" standard viewing distance of 10".
Which isn't the same thing at all as Field of View!
"Field of View: 2-1/2" (65mm)"
They aren't using "Physical field", here.
http://www.amscope.com/3-5x-90x-advance ... scope.html
I didn't query the word Magnification.
Anyway George - scope for sonfusion.. You probably have a camera now. Perhaps we can help you to try it with an add-on or so, to see if the results are interesting to you.
EDIT
I have to backtrack some on this. I'm not a microscopist, I've only used the odd few dozen. But I hadn't come across one with a 60mm field of view, and they DO exist.
I have about 3 low power "scopes" ; going from those, the way the specifications of other types are written is alien.
Having discussed it with Rik, what the Amscope appears to give is an "objective" of 0.7 to 4.5x, with the optional use of supplementary"Barlow") lenses of 0.5x and 2x, then a 10 ocular. These combine to give a very wide magnification range.
There's certainly confusion then if they're relating to the 10" standard viewing distance of 10".
Which isn't the same thing at all as Field of View!
"Field of View: 2-1/2" (65mm)"
They aren't using "Physical field", here.
http://www.amscope.com/3-5x-90x-advance ... scope.html
I didn't query the word Magnification.
Actually it comes from what you'd see when you look down a microscope - which of course depends on the microscope.Quote:
3.5x to me means a field of view, in a single image, around 4 to 6mm wide.
This comes from a photographer's viewpoint, assuming direct projection onto an APS-C sensor: 22mm/3.5 ~= 6mm.
Anyway George - scope for sonfusion.. You probably have a camera now. Perhaps we can help you to try it with an add-on or so, to see if the results are interesting to you.
EDIT
I have to backtrack some on this. I'm not a microscopist, I've only used the odd few dozen. But I hadn't come across one with a 60mm field of view, and they DO exist.
I have about 3 low power "scopes" ; going from those, the way the specifications of other types are written is alien.
Having discussed it with Rik, what the Amscope appears to give is an "objective" of 0.7 to 4.5x, with the optional use of supplementary"Barlow") lenses of 0.5x and 2x, then a 10 ocular. These combine to give a very wide magnification range.
Last edited by ChrisR on Sat Jan 28, 2017 11:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Chris R
I have at the lab a very very similar stereo (binocular version and without the dark field attachment) and it's not bad for visual work and would be useful to take images at low magnification but I couldn't recommend it for quality photography.
Don't be fooled by the propagandist specifications, for example
This is contradictory: resolution plays against depth of focus and ...This microscope offers high resolution and good depth within a broad field of view
20mm is not by any means super wide field, only the tube is 30mm wide...and soEyepiece: 30mm super wide field high-eyepoint WF10X/20
At magnification over 50X resolution will be so limited that it will be of no utility
Pau
To take macro pictures of opals you would be much better served by a a camera with macro capability even if it is "only" a point and shoot.
Before I would buy an AmScope I would search ebay for a used GIA Gemolite. Even shooting pictures through the ocular of that , using a relatively recent smartphone would give much better pictures than the AmsScope item you mentioned, which I generally recommend that people NOT buy. There are other budget scopes that are the same price and better.
Search for the Gem Oro line of scopes from Sy Kessler .com in Dallas.
But get a macro cam to take better pix. If you want some help you can send me a PM. I am a gemologist and I know what you are trying to do.
The scope that they call a gemscope has an illuminator that is UNSUITABLE for gemology. They have been selling that turkey from the far east for decades (originally from Japan then Taiwan and now china) . The design that like a bad coin keeps coming back and won't go away. You will not be satisfied with it.
My smartphone (Samsung S6 is relatively recent but not the latest by anymeans and you could shoot full frame rate HD video through the eyepiece with it. The new cameras can shoot 4K video (mirrorless ones anyway)
The standard field number considered WF with 30mm oculars is at least 21 mm and really more like 23 mm. SWF is 25 or 27mm. The latter are found on expensive research grade stereos.
Before I would buy an AmScope I would search ebay for a used GIA Gemolite. Even shooting pictures through the ocular of that , using a relatively recent smartphone would give much better pictures than the AmsScope item you mentioned, which I generally recommend that people NOT buy. There are other budget scopes that are the same price and better.
Search for the Gem Oro line of scopes from Sy Kessler .com in Dallas.
But get a macro cam to take better pix. If you want some help you can send me a PM. I am a gemologist and I know what you are trying to do.
The scope that they call a gemscope has an illuminator that is UNSUITABLE for gemology. They have been selling that turkey from the far east for decades (originally from Japan then Taiwan and now china) . The design that like a bad coin keeps coming back and won't go away. You will not be satisfied with it.
My smartphone (Samsung S6 is relatively recent but not the latest by anymeans and you could shoot full frame rate HD video through the eyepiece with it. The new cameras can shoot 4K video (mirrorless ones anyway)
The standard field number considered WF with 30mm oculars is at least 21 mm and really more like 23 mm. SWF is 25 or 27mm. The latter are found on expensive research grade stereos.
-
Theopalfox
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:16 pm
WOW
You folks sure haven't let me down! Unbelievable.
First off, apologies for my carelessness in putting my post in an area not suited for it's content. Thank you for moving it to where you felt it would get the most attention.
You folks are a wealth of knowledge. Way far and above my intelligence level in this arena, and to be honest, you've already blown way past my expectations. I'd like to ask you folks to be patient with me as I do my level best to participate intelligently wherever and whenever I can here.
g4lab, I do thank you for your input. I have been thinking very long and hard bouncing back and forth between a microscope and a camera now. The reason I even entertained a microscope was , I see some big business's using short videos through a microscope on selling platforms and every single one is very successful. I wish to duplicate them. I have a very large supply of smaller stones I wish to sell. I have all the equipment to clean them up, shape, cut and polish them if needed. They all have fire and good color. Maybe putting it this way would help. The size of the stones I'm talking about I'd safely say were the circumference of a dime and a safe bet on thickness would be about half that! That would be a real good starting point for conversation of what I want to photograph. I have a lot that's larger. I was thinking the microscope would be adequate for those also since I was planning on taking the microscope head and mounting it on the heavy boom stand I listed.
This whole idea of microscope photography is so interesting to me and my wife that I really thought that I'd kill two birds with one stone by jumping right in and buying this unit. But.... now that I read your words of experience and wisdom, and those of Pau's and ChrisR's, and rjlittlefield's, I think I will change my thinking. Let me ask you all this ..
Let's just say I take suggestions and decide to buy a camera, and the appropriate extras so I can take those short videos and stills I need. I don't want to sacrifice in any area if I can help it. Even if it means a separate camera for stills and videos each. May I lean on all you kind folk's experience and expertise on equipment needs? What camera and lenses would any of you folks suggest for my particular applications. I'm not sure if this will be enough but I do have a photo fund allocated and it's set at $2500. Can it be done for that?
If I can put a camera package together for under $2500 which will give me the crisp clarity and high resolution needed for stills and videos, I would do it in a heartbeat. Then I could back away from the canned package deal of a microscope that's being pushed my way and we can start properly looking around for a microscope for what we really want it for. If I can get some of these opals sold, I can get her a real nice one based on some of your folks experiences and ideas. Anyways, thanks so much for your help with this.
George
ChrisR, rjlittlefield, Pau, I really want to thank you all for your taking the time to really get in there and break down and answer and suggest options and ideas. But I got to stop you and everyone else for a minute. I am a very ignorant soul when it comes to microscopes, and even the terminology used as well as even the pieces that comprise a complete unit. I'm not that much smarter with cameras. Some, but not much. I am familiar and had hands on but not in any kind of knowledgeable or professional manner. I have some light experience with point and shoot cameras, even with a canon with a macro lense. So, give it your best shot. I will get to the meat of what you folks tell me. I have to do this. So, if you folks can help, wonderful. Otherwise, I'll have to throw big handfuls at the barn walls and see what sticks out of my own ideas. That's sounding like a real messy way to go. I'd rather lean on you folks.
You folks sure haven't let me down! Unbelievable.
First off, apologies for my carelessness in putting my post in an area not suited for it's content. Thank you for moving it to where you felt it would get the most attention.
You folks are a wealth of knowledge. Way far and above my intelligence level in this arena, and to be honest, you've already blown way past my expectations. I'd like to ask you folks to be patient with me as I do my level best to participate intelligently wherever and whenever I can here.
g4lab, I do thank you for your input. I have been thinking very long and hard bouncing back and forth between a microscope and a camera now. The reason I even entertained a microscope was , I see some big business's using short videos through a microscope on selling platforms and every single one is very successful. I wish to duplicate them. I have a very large supply of smaller stones I wish to sell. I have all the equipment to clean them up, shape, cut and polish them if needed. They all have fire and good color. Maybe putting it this way would help. The size of the stones I'm talking about I'd safely say were the circumference of a dime and a safe bet on thickness would be about half that! That would be a real good starting point for conversation of what I want to photograph. I have a lot that's larger. I was thinking the microscope would be adequate for those also since I was planning on taking the microscope head and mounting it on the heavy boom stand I listed.
This whole idea of microscope photography is so interesting to me and my wife that I really thought that I'd kill two birds with one stone by jumping right in and buying this unit. But.... now that I read your words of experience and wisdom, and those of Pau's and ChrisR's, and rjlittlefield's, I think I will change my thinking. Let me ask you all this ..
Let's just say I take suggestions and decide to buy a camera, and the appropriate extras so I can take those short videos and stills I need. I don't want to sacrifice in any area if I can help it. Even if it means a separate camera for stills and videos each. May I lean on all you kind folk's experience and expertise on equipment needs? What camera and lenses would any of you folks suggest for my particular applications. I'm not sure if this will be enough but I do have a photo fund allocated and it's set at $2500. Can it be done for that?
If I can put a camera package together for under $2500 which will give me the crisp clarity and high resolution needed for stills and videos, I would do it in a heartbeat. Then I could back away from the canned package deal of a microscope that's being pushed my way and we can start properly looking around for a microscope for what we really want it for. If I can get some of these opals sold, I can get her a real nice one based on some of your folks experiences and ideas. Anyways, thanks so much for your help with this.
George
ChrisR, rjlittlefield, Pau, I really want to thank you all for your taking the time to really get in there and break down and answer and suggest options and ideas. But I got to stop you and everyone else for a minute. I am a very ignorant soul when it comes to microscopes, and even the terminology used as well as even the pieces that comprise a complete unit. I'm not that much smarter with cameras. Some, but not much. I am familiar and had hands on but not in any kind of knowledgeable or professional manner. I have some light experience with point and shoot cameras, even with a canon with a macro lense. So, give it your best shot. I will get to the meat of what you folks tell me. I have to do this. So, if you folks can help, wonderful. Otherwise, I'll have to throw big handfuls at the barn walls and see what sticks out of my own ideas. That's sounding like a real messy way to go. I'd rather lean on you folks.
George
#1 - thanks for introducing me to a type of microscope I knew nothing about! I edited my post above.
One of that type of scopes (listen to g4lab!) may give you most convenience in some respects.
Where you could do better, could be one or more of:
You budget DOES allow you to venture into better optics than that Amscope.
Whatever camera you have, tell us, and we can let you know where you could go from there. If you hit limits, then that would be useful!
#1 - thanks for introducing me to a type of microscope I knew nothing about! I edited my post above.
One of that type of scopes (listen to g4lab!) may give you most convenience in some respects.
Where you could do better, could be one or more of:
- Resolution/sharpness. Whether this would be necessary or even notice on a video, I don't know. On a big print, it would show.
Depth of field. I see the Amscope comes with a diaphragm, but you could get more or (creatively) less, with other arrangements.
Access for lighting. If you look into the large thread "photo pf Ploum" here http://photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25139
You'll see how he attacks minerals. There are pictures of his lighting arrangement, which is very adaptable and unique for each subject.
You budget DOES allow you to venture into better optics than that Amscope.
Whatever camera you have, tell us, and we can let you know where you could go from there. If you hit limits, then that would be useful!
Chris R