My "Bresser" science infinity microscope

[MicroBob]

I like Peters measurements a lot. Sometimes it really helps to have some facts.

[LouiseScot]

I like Peters measurements a lot. Sometimes it really helps to have some facts.

I'm not sure exactly what he did - what does he mean 'attached via a tripod'? It's also not clear if he was tethered via usb and in liveview mode with mirror lockup and operating via Canon utilities. I don't have, or ever used, a 450d which is rather old now. But I've never had a problem with vibration using either a 550d or an 1100d.

Louise

[Scarodactyl]

You can certainly see some shutter shock with a canon--I was actually just shooting a stack with my 50x objective last night by hand while watching through the eyepieces. That said, if you're using the camera in live view all the shock comes after the exposure has ended so it is irrelevant. 2009 was a different time in digital photomicrography and a ton of things we take for granted now were not that well known in the hobby scene.

[LouiseScot]

You can certainly see some shutter shock with a canon--I was actually just shooting a stack with my 50x objective last night by hand while watching through the eyepieces. That said, if you're using the camera in live view all the shock comes after the exposure has ended so it is irrelevant. 2009 was a different time in digital photomicrography and a ton of things we take for granted now were not that well known in the hobby scene.

As I said, in liveview via Canon Utilities, and tethered via usb. Presumably wifi available on newer models these days? I also bought a Fuji X-T30 mirrorless which actually doesn't allow proper tethering (as I found out after I'd bought it :'( ) but you can get around it. You have to get the settings right to inhibit shutter shock...

Louise

[Scarodactyl]

It doesn't necessarily have to be tethered, just in live view (though for microscooy tethering is the go-to of course). The T6 and onward do have wifi which is certainly convenient.
My point is just that those neat iterferometric measurements don't reflect how the camera behaves in use if set up correctly for microscopy.

[MicroBob]

@Louise: He mounted the camera to the photo port of a trino tube of an Olympus. On one of the observation ports he mounted a light sensor. Then he focussed on a contrasty edge, probably one of the silvered test slides he made, with a strong objective. He then measured the vibration on can also see by eye. On longer exposure times it is fairly easy to see by eye when the camera introduces a shock.

@Scarodactyl:

My point is just that those neat iterferometric measurements don't reflect how the camera behaves in use if set up correctly for microscopy.

Which measurements do you mean? In my view Peter measured the Canon 450D in his last experiment just a I would use it, exposure from live view, EFSC active.


Generally I find it interesting that EFSC has so much impact in micro photography in is so little recognized in normal field photography, perhaps it plays a much smaller role. The Canons with tethering and EFCS were quite an attractive package for the microscopist.

[Roldorf]

As promised images using USB camera and Canon 4000d. If you want to see the full image taken by the cameras click on the images. That will take you to the post image website. If you then click on the image again you will see it in full size.

You can even download the original images and compare them side by side on your own monitor.

The first image is from the 5 mp USB camera that I bought along with the microscope from Bresser. As you can see by comparing the two images the field of view is a much smaller than the one taken by the Canon camera.
The second image from the Canon is only very slightly smaller than the field of view that I see when looking through the eyepieces.

Although the file size is much greater on the Canon it does not seem to have a lot more detail than the USB image (maybe due to the 10x eyepiece), however there is some.

The section that I prepared was very rough and ready and I did have to refocus a little after changing the cameras over.
You can also see the banding at the top of the Canon image cause by using the 10x eyepiece instead of the dedicated 2x, that may also influence the amount of detail due to a little blurring of the image (Bifringence).

Hope this helps. I suppose I should also get the 2x SLR camera adaptor;)



Image from 5mp USB camera as supplied by Bresser. Original file size 447 kbyte



Image from Canon 4000d. Original file size 5.94 Mbyte

[Roldorf]

By the way as you can see I don't get any vibration from the DSLR camera.

[fdupre]

Hello Rolldorf,

The 2 images are very difficult to separate.
I admit that I have no preference, they are both superbly detailed.

Thank you very much Roldorf for the comparison.

However, I have a question, with what lens of the microscope did you take the photos ?

update:
after having compared more precisely the 2 photos on PhotoShop, I must say that the photo of the Bresser camera is really not bad at all. It seems to me that you can see slightly more detail in the Bresser camera photo than in the one taken with the Canon.

Sincerely,
Frank

[Roldorf]

I used the 40x objective for both images.
You are of course correct there is not much difference between the 2 images. The Canon image can be improved I think with the 2x adaptor.

The main reason for going for the Canon was for Video. The USB camera just can not cope with video due to the speed of the USB connection.

The 4000d is very good on video. The Camera saves the video to it's internal SD card and you transfer later to the PC.