Some questions about a SWIFT camera

[Satinnature]

Hello there, I searched the forum for my questions but couldn't find an answer (maybe I'm not really good with forums).

I'm going to aquire a SW380T and wanted to aquire a camera. I want to be able to livestream my observation (like with Twitch) and take nice pics to make some prints for me and my friends to put on my wall.

I have to questions !

I'm hesitating between some models, the SWIFT SC300 (3MP), the SC500(5MP), and the SC1003 (10MP) (wich is a bit too expensive for me but if it's really good)... So how many MP would I need for that ? What would you advise for what I want to do ?

Also my question on which I can't want an answer is, what is the magnification of a camera ? Since there is no eyepiece, does it magnify 10x ?

Thank you tremendously for your answer, and please pardon me for my eventual mistakes as english is not my first langage. Thank you !

[75RR]

Hi Satinnature, welcome

Not sure if you could not find any links to topics on the SW380T or that the ones you found did not answer your questions.

Here are some links: search.php?keywords=SW380T&terms=all&au ... mit=Search

As to the best camera, it depends a bit on your budget, the quality you want and whether you already have a camera that you can use on the microscope.

[micro]

Cameras have different magnification factors depending on sensor size and a few other things but the image size will be fine. These kinds of usb cameras have varying results and can be kind of a gamble to buy. The megapixels don't really matter but the quality of the sensor does.

[PeteM]

If you just want to see things on a screen, then having sufficient pixels to cover the entire screen is enough (plus some to account for crop factors etc.). The convenience of dropping in an eyepiece camera is useful for this. Typical laptop screen these days might want 3+ mp.

If you want to take quality photos, I don't think the typical USB cameras being sold by microscope dealers are that good a deal. And USB 2.0 is generally too slow for easy focusing at high resolutions or decent quality movies. USB 3.0 is fast enough, but more expensive.

The old Nikon Coolpix camera (with an articulating screen) screwed into a Leitz 10x was the unoffical standard for many users, for many years. The 4 to 5 mp of those old models still offer better images than the 5mp USB cameras being sold today for around $250-350. A used Coolpix and the 10x Leica might cost less than half that; but with a learning curve for the camera controls. Despite its age, still a good option under $150.

Newer Chinese 1080p HDMI and USB cameras with a C-mount and .5x or so reduction lens and 10+mp or so are another option. Typically around $150-200 or so. I recall users here have posted on them. We use one to fill a larger screen and it does that well. Images are stored on a memory card.

A modern mirrorless camera (or adapting a DSLR you may already have) is another option. I've just bought a used and cheap Nikon mirrorless to give it a try - should be here in a few days. Also use a full frame Nikon DSLR now.

LMScope provides a rough ranking of various cameras (and also sells good but $$$ adapters to fit them to various microscopes). You can get an idea if the camera you have will have such things as live view and a silent (low vibration) shooting mode in a camera you may already have.

There are also dedicated microscope and telescope cameras. Rob "Canadian Nature Photographer" Berdan posted about a Rising Cam 20mp unit he bought. Based on his experience, I bought one as well and like it. More than you'll likely want to spend, though.

Finally, modern cell phones take remarkably good pictures. You'll want a holder ($10 to $150 or so options) to hold it steady and centered over a trinocular tube and relay (eyepiece) lens. This may be the cheapest and a very satisfying option.

[EYE C U]

You can zoom in with the software as long as you have a high pixel camera it looks good..just save up more money and go with the 16 or 18

[Satinnature]

Hello,
Thank you all for your answers !

The camera I was aiming for was : https://www.amazon.fr/gp/product/B07PB4 ... p_hza?th=1
Sorry for the french link but you see what it is.

I don't want to invest in a DSLR for now !

[PeteM]

I have an Omax version of that same 5mp USB 2 camera. Looks identical except for the brand name printed on it. It's OK for still images and slowly moving subjects, though well short of "oh wow" quality. The software is OK as well.

If your goal is to take photos rather than continuously display a (slowly updating) image on a monitor, I'd try the cell phone camera you may already have first. Save the $250 or so equivalent for something like a used mirrorless camera and adapter later?

[Satinnature]

I'm more interested in videos right now !

[DonSchaeffer]

Oliver did a video that points something out. Microscopes can only use a certain number of megapixels. Beyond that pixels are just ed. I think the number is about 5 megapixels. Look it up.

[viktor j nilsson]

http://krebsmicro.com/relayDSLR/relay_micro.xls

I've linked to this spreadsheet before. It's very enlightening to try out different objectives and see what sensor you need to resolve all the detail in the image.

There's not a single MP number that's enough under all circumstances. It varies considerably depending on the magnification and numerical aperture.

It's true, however, that the image produced by high magnification microscope objectives contain relatively little information. A 100x 1.25 objective, for example, merely needs a 1.7MP full frame sensor to capture all the detail present in the intermediate image (3 pixels/resolvable detail) when using 2.5x relay optics.

This is not the case for low magnification, high NA objectives, however.

My 10x 0.50 Fluor objective, for example, needs a 27.6MP full frame sensor to capture all the detail.

[75RR]

http://krebsmicro.com/relayDSLR/relay_micro.xls

I've linked to this spreadsheet before. It's very enlightening to try out different objectives and see what sensor you need to resolve all the detail in the image.

There's not a single MP number that's enough under all circumstances. It varies considerably depending on the magnification and numerical aperture.

It's true, however, that the image produced by high magnification microscope objectives contain relatively little information. A 100x 1.25 objective, for example, merely needs a 1.7MP full frame sensor to capture all the detail present in the intermediate image (3 pixels/resolvable detail) when using 2.5x relay optics.

This is not the case for low magnification, high NA objectives, however.

My 10x 0.50 Fluor objective, for example, needs a 27.6MP full frame sensor to capture all the detail.

Agree, a very worthwhile work!

It is worth drawing attention to the following reference (#3) at the bottom of the xls page

"3/ Two pixels on the smallest resolvable detail is the absolute minimum required to have any chance of recording all the detail the objective is capable of producing.
This can only occur when the pixels happen to line up in an "ideal" manner to sample the resolved detail. To insure that the finest detail is resolved in less than ideal
(i.e. real world!) situations, it is best to provide 2.5 to 3.5 pixels per minimum resolvable detail"

[Satinnature]

Thank you all for your answers ! When I have choosen I'll post here some pics of what I can take with it etc