practicing with phone camera settings

[coominya]

Will be nice to get a dedicated camera one day but for basic record purposes the smart phone is fine.

Is this a stoma guard cell that went AWOL?




A rotifer that was too big to miss. Cover slip edge gives scale

[75RR]

First image is a Closterium
second as you say is a Rotifer - possibly Platyias

See links for useful Keys:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1024
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=703 Note: use second link - press print to download as pdf

Do you have a dedicated phone holder that you place on the microscope?

[Hobbyst46]

A nice photo of the Closterium.
I started with an Android phone camera. Found a relatively cheap ($40-50) phone holder for the eyepiece, but had to modify it and add magnets to make it really usable. the camera application I used is Open Camera (free app).
I Later decided that my hobby justifies a dedicated camera.

[coominya]

First image is a Closterium
second as you say is a Rotifer - possibly Platyias

Do you have a dedicated phone holder that you place on the microscope?

A Closterium, I found a good write-up and decided to post an excerpt below for anyone whose interested.
No I don't have a dedicated phone holder. If it came to it I would probably rather buy a cheap drop-in EP cam, but I'd rather wait until I buy a dedicated four thirds camera (as I was advised) for my IMT which has all the attachments bar the adapter ring. I don't spent much time filming actually and only do it to keep records of what I see for reference purposes. When I had a scope 30 years ago I used to make sketches, this is a lot easier.

Description of Closterium (http://eol.org)

Closterium is a crescent-shaped or elongate desmid...
The desmid is formed of two hemicells that are also mirror images of each other but there is only a single central nucleus. Each semicell has one or two axial, ridged chloroplasts with at least one pyrenoid. Terminal vacuoles at the cell tips contain crystals of barium or calcium sulfate that vibrate with Brownian motion...

[coominya]

A nice photo of the Closterium.

Thanks. Yes the camera is a big leap, sort of like adding a whole other hobby to the hobby. I like photography, used to do a lot in the old SLR days, and still have a bag of (worthless) bodies and lenses and power-winders in the hall cupboard. Hopefully the technology curve is starting to flatten out so whatever I buy wont be obsolete in 3 years.

I was looking at this Olympus camera. Any opinions would be welcome.
Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II Mirrorless Micro Four Thirds
https://tinyurl.com/y8xlyor6

[Hobbyst46]

Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II Mirrorless Micro Four Thirds

I do not know this camera. The only issues that I see in any mirrorless camera on a microscope are:

1. If tethering the camera to a desktop or laptop computer, such that you can operate the shutter (shoot pics) from the computer, is important -
VERIFY that the camera supports this live view mode. It is not the same as wifi connectivity and computer connectivity, which allows file transfer.
I looked at this Olympus camera manual and I do not see such possibility. Maybe it is just me...

2. Mirrorless cameras eat battery power much faster than SLRs and other cameras. You will either want a second battery, charged and ready (and a separate charger, not just the camera as charger), or an AC adapter such that the camera can be used without battery (for me the last option works well).

[zzffnn]

I was looking at this Olympus camera. Any opinions would be welcome.
Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II Mirrorless Micro Four Thirds
https://tinyurl.com/y8xlyor6

I like my E-M10 II for microscopy. Its silent electronic shutter is truly motionless and allows you to connect it directly to microscope. I bought mine used at $340 USD shipped. My few complaint include: 1) its in-camera focus bracketing does not go very deep, unless you use a m4/3 auto macro lens; and 2) good m4/3 auto lenses are not cheap and used lens selection is not as big as Canon or Nikon.

Depending on your microscope eyepiece, that Olympus kit zoom 14-42 lens that is sold with the camera sometimes, set at 30mm, maybe good enough for afocal imaging, when connect to eyepiece via step down rings. But a Sigma 30mm F/2.8 works better.

But considering general photography, I think getting a used E-M1 Mark I at around $400 USD would be a better deal. Because E-M1 offers almost everything that M10 II offers, plus ability to auto focus on cheaper but excellent 4/3 lenses. I would have bought an E-M1 instead, if I were to do it again.

Edit:
I don't use computer tethering. E-M5 II or E-M1 II offers that, I think.

I only have two batteries and shave not run out both at the same time. But then, I don't use the camera for longer than 2 hrs each time.

[coominya]

its in-camera focus bracketing does not go very deep, unless you use a m4/3 auto macro lens; and 2) good m4/3 auto lenses are not cheap and used lens selection is not as big as Canon or Nikon.

I wasn't planning on using a lens? I have a MTV adapter and NFK 3.3 photo EP and will connect the body directly to the side of the microscope.

[coominya]

Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II Mirrorless Micro Four Thirds

2. Mirrorless cameras eat battery power much faster than SLRs and other cameras. You will either want a second battery, charged and ready ... or an AC adapter such that the camera can be used without battery.

I would go with the latter.
I thought mirrorless cameras had advantages over SLR's that outweighed their drawbacks? I will read a bit more on the subject.

[zzffnn]

Decision is yours and depends on your exact setting. You don't have to use a camera lens. My guess is that NFK 3.3 lens provides too much magnification, so field of view at camera sensor may not match eyepiece. But I could be totally wrong.

[coominya]

My guess is that NFK 3.3 lens provides too much magnification, so field of view at camera sensor may not match eyepiece.

You are correct. The 2.5 is the better choice I believe but I got the 3.3 so I'll work with that.

[Hobbyst46]

I thought mirrorless cameras had advantages over SLR's that outweighed their drawbacks? I will read a bit more on the subject.

Mirrorless cameras do have advantages and drawbacks. I am no expert on photography but was just pointing out two potential pitfalls, which in my opinion are relevant to micrography, and MIGHT be met in mirrorless cameras as far as I have read about.
I myself am using a mirrorless camera specifically because of its light weight, since I hesitate to install a heavy DSLR on the microscope.

[coominya]

Mirrorless cameras do have advantages and drawbacks.
I myself am using a mirrorless camera specifically because of its light weight, since I hesitate to install a heavy DSLR on the microscope.

So you use the Canon EOS M10
Which features:
18MP CMOS Sensor
Fast Hybrid CMOS AF II Autofocus

My last camera was a digital, a canon, and they are as reliable as you can get. I have to get the 4/3 format though so I will be restricted.

[Hobbyst46]

I believe that 16-24MP is fine , I had used a 10MP camera and I think that the difference in pic quality can be seen.
About autofocus: in microscopy you often, if not always, focus with the microscope and not with the camera, so for microscopy the specific AF features, like speed, are less important IMO. And a m4/3 camera is a good choice, as demonstrated by the beautiful photomicrography examples on display on this and other forums and sites.

[MicroBob]

From my point of view these criteria are important for the choice of a microscope camera:

- EFSC
- Proven concept for the adaptation to the microscope
- image quality
- tethering to Android or Windows if needed
- remote release (IR-gadget for 1€, smartphone app, cable release (FUJI))
- handling on the microscope (tiltable screen...)

As an experienced photographer it comes unexpected how much images suffer from mirror- or shutter shock on the microscope. EFSC is offered by more and more cameras but not nearly by all!

The image of a 100:1 oil objective contains comparatively little information, here 6 megapixel is about all that is needed. A low power objective offers much more, but you rarely need it all for images at normal viewing distance. So it doesn't matter much whether you have a 10 or 40 megapixel camera on your microscope.

[coominya]

The image of a 100:1 oil objective contains comparatively little information, here 6 megapixel is about all that is needed.

Is this because of the resolution limits inherent when approaching the wavelengths of light or because of other factors?
In other words, if I was to re-magnify the image plane of a 40x objective with another lens, would there be anymore information I could glean beyond what the 100x oil rendered on it's own?

[MicroBob]

A 10:1 objective covers 100 times the area of a 100:1 objectives.
At 0,30 it roughly has 25% of the linaear resolution. Squared it has 1/16th of the 100:1 objective.
100/16 = ca. 6
So the 10:1 has 6 times the amount of image detail than the 100:1

The world is not always fair.

Calculate this for you 40:1 and take into account the partial use of the image.