New here, from Wyoming in USA, love lookin' in my scope
New here, from Wyoming in USA, love lookin' in my scope
Hi!
Love the YouTube channel! I've learned a lot.
About 5 weeks ago I got a AmScope B120C-E1 Siedentopf Binocular Compound Microscope.
I love it!
I also have an endoscope, and a macro lens for macro pix with my DSLR.
I've taken some pictures of my little microscopic friends with my scope, but not happy with the pic quality. I'm looking to spend about 250 USD for a good USB camera (or a DSLR adapter, I have a Canon T4i Rebel).
I bought an 18 dollar adapter for my phone, it's insanely hard to use. I bought a 30 dollar DSLR adapter, it didn't take good pics with my camera. Actually the best pic I've taken was just holding my phone up to the lens, but had lots of vignetting and distortion, also is hard to do the same way twice.
My microscope came with a 1 MP USB camera that just pops in the eyepiece tube, that would be perfect if it were higher quality.
I see some 5, 8, and 10 MP AmScope and cameras of that type on Amazon in my range but the 10 MP one is only USB2, some reviews said it has a 2 second latency, even on stills. Should I get the AmScope 5 MP USB 3.0 camera? There are also ones like that from Swift Cam.
I'd obviously rather have a 5 MP camera with good optics than a 10 MP one with poor optics.
If this doesn't belong in my intro here, I tried to make a post about this, but maybe have to be here a while first?
I'm gonna buy this camera soon. If someone can give me the right answer, I'll even happily use your affiliate link.
Anyway, if anyone has first hand experience and can make a suggestion, please let me know. Thank you for being here, everyone.
Michael
Love the YouTube channel! I've learned a lot.
About 5 weeks ago I got a AmScope B120C-E1 Siedentopf Binocular Compound Microscope.
I love it!
I also have an endoscope, and a macro lens for macro pix with my DSLR.
I've taken some pictures of my little microscopic friends with my scope, but not happy with the pic quality. I'm looking to spend about 250 USD for a good USB camera (or a DSLR adapter, I have a Canon T4i Rebel).
I bought an 18 dollar adapter for my phone, it's insanely hard to use. I bought a 30 dollar DSLR adapter, it didn't take good pics with my camera. Actually the best pic I've taken was just holding my phone up to the lens, but had lots of vignetting and distortion, also is hard to do the same way twice.
My microscope came with a 1 MP USB camera that just pops in the eyepiece tube, that would be perfect if it were higher quality.
I see some 5, 8, and 10 MP AmScope and cameras of that type on Amazon in my range but the 10 MP one is only USB2, some reviews said it has a 2 second latency, even on stills. Should I get the AmScope 5 MP USB 3.0 camera? There are also ones like that from Swift Cam.
I'd obviously rather have a 5 MP camera with good optics than a 10 MP one with poor optics.
If this doesn't belong in my intro here, I tried to make a post about this, but maybe have to be here a while first?
I'm gonna buy this camera soon. If someone can give me the right answer, I'll even happily use your affiliate link.
Anyway, if anyone has first hand experience and can make a suggestion, please let me know. Thank you for being here, everyone.
Michael
Re: New here, from Wyoming in USA, love lookin' in my scope
Hi and welcome,
(1) These two links may provide some info from my personal experience.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7145
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5518
I modified the phone adapter, by adding magnets. Otherwise it was practically unusable.
Please remember, that the eyepiece camera probably needs a 0.5X lens (it is often bundled with the camera). And is fitted onto the photo tube without eyepiece.
If an eyepiece is needed to compensate for aberrations that originate in the objectives, such compensations are specific to the microscope optics, so the third-party camera does not provide them.
That said, the eyepiece camera can yield fairly decent images. Mine does, on the old Zeiss microscope, in spite of the mentioned above.
(2) Fairly similar concerns and questions have been raised in the past on this forum, for example in regards to Bresser microscopes.
Solutions were found, and apparently the raised problems were solved.
You might locate those posts by searching "Bresser" in the forum. I think those from September-October 2019 are fairly relevant.
(1) These two links may provide some info from my personal experience.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7145
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5518
I modified the phone adapter, by adding magnets. Otherwise it was practically unusable.
Please remember, that the eyepiece camera probably needs a 0.5X lens (it is often bundled with the camera). And is fitted onto the photo tube without eyepiece.
If an eyepiece is needed to compensate for aberrations that originate in the objectives, such compensations are specific to the microscope optics, so the third-party camera does not provide them.
That said, the eyepiece camera can yield fairly decent images. Mine does, on the old Zeiss microscope, in spite of the mentioned above.
(2) Fairly similar concerns and questions have been raised in the past on this forum, for example in regards to Bresser microscopes.
Solutions were found, and apparently the raised problems were solved.
You might locate those posts by searching "Bresser" in the forum. I think those from September-October 2019 are fairly relevant.
Re: New here, from Wyoming in USA, love lookin' in my scope
Here is the thread hobbyist was talking about. I have to warn you it is very long BUT very interesting.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7628
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7628
Re: New here, from Wyoming in USA, love lookin' in my scope
Hobbyst46 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 8:41 amHi and welcome,
(1) These two links may provide some info from my personal experience.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7145
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5518
I modified the phone adapter, by adding magnets. Otherwise it was practically unusable.
Please remember, that the eyepiece camera probably needs a 0.5X lens (it is often bundled with the camera). And is fitted onto the photo tube without eyepiece.
If an eyepiece is needed to compensate for aberrations that originate in the objectives, such compensations are specific to the microscope optics, so the third-party camera does not provide them.
That said, the eyepiece camera can yield fairly decent images. Mine does, on the old Zeiss microscope, in spite of the mentioned above.
(2) Fairly similar concerns and questions have been raised in the past on this forum, for example in regards to Bresser microscopes.
Solutions were found, and apparently the raised problems were solved.
You might locate those posts by searching "Bresser" in the forum. I think those from September-October 2019 are fairly relevant.
Thank you so very much!
I probably won't do the phone adapter, I just hate trying to use the phone.
I just ordered the same 5 MP camera you describe, at least I think it's the same one. If not, it's a dead ringer for the stated specs:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/5-0-MP-HD-Micr ... 4451148967
Your diatom pic is lovely.
You can do fringe removal in Adobe Lightroom Classic. I tried it on yours and couldn't, but I'm new to it, and that's probably not the highest version of that image. (it's 0.1 MP. lol.)
Here's a video on doing that in Photoshop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nVPUNWIhtY
Re: New here, from Wyoming in USA, love lookin' in my scope
I have one of those, this one:
FYI, I don't care about video as much as getting decent stills. so the eBay camera might be fine. One of my big fears with my DSLR is that one of my 3 active kitties will knock the scope and camera on the floor and break something. Since my scope had 45 degree angle eyepieces, there is some weight issue there.
Thank you for your service!
Re: New here, from Wyoming in USA, love lookin' in my scope
@biptunia
Most welcome!
Thanks for the link to the Lightroom software. Can the fringes be removed from JPG files, or only from RAW ,
Most welcome!
Thanks for the link to the Lightroom software. Can the fringes be removed from JPG files, or only from RAW ,
Re: New here, from Wyoming in USA, love lookin' in my scope
Yes in JPG, but better in RAW.
Isn't if you have a BMP, I think that's uncompressed. If that won't work, can convert to uncompressed TIFF and work with that.
Also, there are free things like lightroom. Not as good, but designed to work like it. They have this feature.
https://havecamerawilltravel.com/photog ... ernatives/
Photoshop can also do that. but it's more straightforward in Lightroom.