Matching camera with C-mount
Matching camera with C-mount
Hey everyone,
So, I've been experimenting with my new trinocular scope (Accuscope 3025) and I'm ready to start filming my samples.
My scope was purchased used, and it came with a 1x c-mount adapter. No lenses inside, just a tube , hence the 1x.
I'm trying to figure out out how to pair it with a camera.
From what I understand, it needs a 1" sensor.
I can't find any resources that explain the process though. What happens if I paid it with a different size sensor?
Do I need some sort of lens between the camera and the objectives? How does the camera deal with the lack of magnification the eyepieces provide? Don't I need a 10x lense for the camera to match what the eyepieces show?
I thought I'd start with a super cheap camera like the 9ne described here: https://youtu.be/tcyhaJE_7co
Just to get me started, while avoiding spending $500+ at first on a camera that won't do what I need.
I will be filming and shooting soil and compost samples, so up to 400x magnification. High frame rate is needed at a reasonable resolution, to ID nematodes and see bacterial morphology.
See the photos attached.
The measurement from the outer part of the ring is 1 inch or 25mm.
The opening itself is almost 3/4 inch or 28.5mm. Although, there is an internal ring that is a few mm smaller inside.. so for something to fall through it would need to be around 26mm wide.
Any advice?
So, I've been experimenting with my new trinocular scope (Accuscope 3025) and I'm ready to start filming my samples.
My scope was purchased used, and it came with a 1x c-mount adapter. No lenses inside, just a tube , hence the 1x.
I'm trying to figure out out how to pair it with a camera.
From what I understand, it needs a 1" sensor.
I can't find any resources that explain the process though. What happens if I paid it with a different size sensor?
Do I need some sort of lens between the camera and the objectives? How does the camera deal with the lack of magnification the eyepieces provide? Don't I need a 10x lense for the camera to match what the eyepieces show?
I thought I'd start with a super cheap camera like the 9ne described here: https://youtu.be/tcyhaJE_7co
Just to get me started, while avoiding spending $500+ at first on a camera that won't do what I need.
I will be filming and shooting soil and compost samples, so up to 400x magnification. High frame rate is needed at a reasonable resolution, to ID nematodes and see bacterial morphology.
See the photos attached.
The measurement from the outer part of the ring is 1 inch or 25mm.
The opening itself is almost 3/4 inch or 28.5mm. Although, there is an internal ring that is a few mm smaller inside.. so for something to fall through it would need to be around 26mm wide.
Any advice?
- Attachments
-
- 20201016_163717.jpg (63.33 KiB) Viewed 7295 times
-
- 20201016_163804.jpg (79.39 KiB) Viewed 7295 times
-
- 20201017_125713.jpg (96.86 KiB) Viewed 7295 times
Re: Matching camera with C-mount
I think a c mount is generally used with a dslr so if you get one of those usb cameras you won't actually need the c mount. The distance from the camera to the image produced by the microscope is a factor and has to be placed with the correct distance to be in focus.
Re: Matching camera with C-mount
IMHO, a cheap eyepiece camera (I mean, 60-70USD or even less; Toupcam camera or equivalent) is a good starting point, in the absence of previous experience with photomicrography of soil. You fit it into the eyepiece tube or phototube and monitor the image in real time, via USB to a PC.
As mentioned in the previous response, its position within the phototube should be adjusted for parfocality with the viewing eyepieces. Such cameras often come with a 0.5x reducing lens. With that lens, better coverage of the field of view is achieved. An eyepiece is not needed in this case. Probably, since the optics are infinity corrected, performance will be OK.
Re: Matching camera with C-mount
If you do not need live video, I would get a used, micro four thirds system camera and mount it with an inexpensive c-mount to µ4/3rds thread adapter. Been there, done that, problem solved and more cheaply. If you need live video, you may want to price out the alternatives.
-John
-
- Posts: 1546
- Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:29 am
- Location: Georgia, USA
Re: Matching camera with C-mount
the reducing lens is to better match the projected image to the sensor size it's needed for some sizes of sensor but not for others-- very camera specific.Geode wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:39 pmHey everyone,
So, I've been experimenting with my new trinocular scope (Accuscope 3025) and I'm ready to start filming my samples.
My scope was purchased used, and it came with a 1x c-mount adapter. No lenses inside, just a tube , hence the 1x.
I'm trying to figure out out how to pair it with a camera.
From what I understand, it needs a 1" sensor.
I can't find any resources that explain the process though. What happens if I paid it with a different size sensor?
Do I need some sort of lens between the camera and the objectives? How does the camera deal with the lack of magnification the eyepieces provide? Don't I need a 10x lense for the camera to match what the eyepieces show?
I thought I'd start with a super cheap camera like the 9ne described here: https://youtu.be/tcyhaJE_7co
Just to get me started, while avoiding spending $500+ at first on a camera that won't do what I need.
I will be filming and shooting soil and compost samples, so up to 400x magnification. High frame rate is needed at a reasonable resolution, to ID nematodes and see bacterial morphology.
See the photos attached.
The measurement from the outer part of the ring is 1 inch or 25mm.
The opening itself is almost 3/4 inch or 28.5mm. Although, there is an internal ring that is a few mm smaller inside.. so for something to fall through it would need to be around 26mm wide.
Any advice?
1942 Bausch and Lomb Series T Dynoptic, Custom Illumination
-
- Posts: 2790
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm
Re: Matching camera with C-mount
I think you are mixing mounts up. Dslrs are not c mount compatible for a few reasons. Pretty much all microscope cameras are set up for c mounts.micro wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:54 pmI think a c mount is generally used with a dslr so if you get one of those usb cameras you won't actually need the c mount. The distance from the camera to the image produced by the microscope is a factor and has to be placed with the correct distance to be in focus.
Re: Matching camera with C-mount
Yes, live viewing on a screen will be ideal. I seem to have some artifacts in my eyes that are making viewing at higher magnification very troublesome.Hobbyst46 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:59 pmIMHO, a cheap eyepiece camera (I mean, 60-70USD or even less; Toupcam camera or equivalent) is a good starting point, in the absence of previous experience with photomicrography of soil. You fit it into the eyepiece tube or phototube and monitor the image in real time, via USB to a PC.
As mentioned in the previous response, its position within the phototube should be adjusted for parfocality with the viewing eyepieces. Such cameras often come with a 0.5x reducing lens. With that lens, better coverage of the field of view is achieved. An eyepiece is not needed in this case. Probably, since the optics are infinity corrected, performance will be OK.
I made it sure it was my own eyes, not the eyepieces themselves. I also compared with other people looking through the eyepieces. So, I may want to use a usb-3 or hdmi for direct viewing on a screen for sure.
Is there a resource somewhere that explains how the camera captures an image similar to the 10x eyepieces without blowing up the image 10 times? I just feel like I'm in the dark about the whole process and find it difficult to choose between products I don't understand fully.
Re: Matching camera with C-mount
Thank you for this. Explains the 0.5 reduction lens idea. Although, I may need to look for a visual explanation (with comparison photos and such) to understand it better.
The issue is, I do not want to use one of my eyepieces for filming. I need to have the binocular head available for direct viewing and use the phototube I paid extra for instead.
I looked into dropping an eyepiece into the phototube but was recommended not to do this, but there is no way to secure the eyepiece in the tube.
He brings us a good point about low light viewing and the camera's ability to resolve the image.
To view bacteria, I need to be closing down the iris diaphram almost all the way, greatly reducing the light available. This means I need a camera that can work at low light it seems.
-
- Posts: 1546
- Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:29 am
- Location: Georgia, USA
Re: Matching camera with C-mount
It's a digital camera, so there is no fixed magnification, just resolution. Even for a film camera the negative gets magnified somewhat arbitrarily when making a print. You can shrink or enlarge the image on your monitor to whatever size you want.
So-- you can record video without an eyepiece and without a camera lens-- direct imaging. You fasten the camera so the bare image sensor looks through the photo tube, and a real image will be projected onto the sensor. I do this with my Dynazoom, except my sensor is small-- 1/2.3-- so I use the reduction lens in there.
A more complicated setup is afocal, which uses both the eyepiece and the camera lens. You can think of the camera lens filling the role of the lens in your eye. I use this method for my Dynoptic because it has some specialized apochromat lenses that have some corrections performed in the eyepiece. They look bad when imaged directly. I also use a tiny telefoto lens with this setup so that I can get the camera lens the right distance from the eyepiece without most of the image being blacked out with just a little circle in the middle. This setup is not always the best because you have to make sure that your camera lens is projecting pretty near the exact right size image into your sensor or again the image will look bad. I use a 1/2.5 sensor with this setup and the first lens I had, optimized for a 1/2 sensor, performed noticeably worse than the lens made for the 1/2.5 sensor.
Anyway, if you can avoid all of that, all's the better. It's a tradeoff between whatever eyepiece corrections are supposed to happen versus the noise introduced by the complexities of the afocal setup. If you got regular achromat lenses and the eyepieces don't really add too many corrections, it's an easy decision. Do direct imaging. If you have beloved and special lenses from the 40s and 50s with the exactly right correcting eyepieces, it's usually also pretty easy: do afocal.
So-- you can record video without an eyepiece and without a camera lens-- direct imaging. You fasten the camera so the bare image sensor looks through the photo tube, and a real image will be projected onto the sensor. I do this with my Dynazoom, except my sensor is small-- 1/2.3-- so I use the reduction lens in there.
A more complicated setup is afocal, which uses both the eyepiece and the camera lens. You can think of the camera lens filling the role of the lens in your eye. I use this method for my Dynoptic because it has some specialized apochromat lenses that have some corrections performed in the eyepiece. They look bad when imaged directly. I also use a tiny telefoto lens with this setup so that I can get the camera lens the right distance from the eyepiece without most of the image being blacked out with just a little circle in the middle. This setup is not always the best because you have to make sure that your camera lens is projecting pretty near the exact right size image into your sensor or again the image will look bad. I use a 1/2.5 sensor with this setup and the first lens I had, optimized for a 1/2 sensor, performed noticeably worse than the lens made for the 1/2.5 sensor.
Anyway, if you can avoid all of that, all's the better. It's a tradeoff between whatever eyepiece corrections are supposed to happen versus the noise introduced by the complexities of the afocal setup. If you got regular achromat lenses and the eyepieces don't really add too many corrections, it's an easy decision. Do direct imaging. If you have beloved and special lenses from the 40s and 50s with the exactly right correcting eyepieces, it's usually also pretty easy: do afocal.
1942 Bausch and Lomb Series T Dynoptic, Custom Illumination
Re: Matching camera with C-mount
Ok makes sense, thanks.BramHuntingNematodes wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:18 pmIt's a digital camera, so there is no fixed magnification, just resolution. Even for a film camera the negative gets magnified somewhat arbitrarily when making a print. You can shrink or enlarge the image on your monitor to whatever size you want.
So-- you can record video without an eyepiece and without a camera lens-- direct imaging. You fasten the camera so the bare image sensor looks through the photo tube, and a real image will be projected onto the sensor. I do this with my Dynazoom, except my sensor is small-- 1/2.3-- so I use the reduction lens in there.
A more complicated setup is afocal, which uses both the eyepiece and the camera lens. You can think of the camera lens filling the role of the lens in your eye. I use this method for my Dynoptic because it has some specialized apochromat lenses that have some corrections performed in the eyepiece. They look bad when imaged directly. I also use a tiny telefoto lens with this setup so that I can get the camera lens the right distance from the eyepiece without most of the image being blacked out with just a little circle in the middle. This setup is not always the best because you have to make sure that your camera lens is projecting pretty near the exact right size image into your sensor or again the image will look bad. I use a 1/2.5 sensor with this setup and the first lens I had, optimized for a 1/2 sensor, performed noticeably worse than the lens made for the 1/2.5 sensor.
Anyway, if you can avoid all of that, all's the better. It's a tradeoff between whatever eyepiece corrections are supposed to happen versus the noise introduced by the complexities of the afocal setup. If you got regular achromat lenses and the eyepieces don't really add too many corrections, it's an easy decision. Do direct imaging. If you have beloved and special lenses from the 40s and 50s with the exactly right correcting eyepieces, it's usually also pretty easy: do afocal.
What I am still uncertain of is the need/use of the 1x c-mount I have... I presume I will need a c-mount if I go with the direct imaging, so that I have something to fit the camera onto the phototube. Correct?
Seeing as I have the 1x already, I will need to find a camera with a 1" sensor? I guess this limits my choices. And I assume that means I'll be stuck with more expensive cameras in that case (because of the larger sensor size). I could compare to buying a new c-mount compatible with a smaller sensor camera.
Any thoughts on that?
Re: Matching camera with C-mount
I will resume writing up my micro four thirds experiences, right after I prepare for some moisture-cured adhesive and start it very slowly drying.
Where are you?
-John
Re: Matching camera with C-mount
Please take a few minutes to get-to-grips with sensor sizes
... then you will have a better idea of what the strange numbers actually mean.
This is a good introduction:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/80958 ... ensorsizes
MichaelG.
Too many 'projects'
Re: Matching camera with C-mount
Thanks Michael, this helps!MichaelG. wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 9:40 amPlease take a few minutes to get-to-grips with sensor sizes
... then you will have a better idea of what the strange numbers actually mean.
This is a good introduction:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/80958 ... ensorsizes
MichaelG.
Re: Matching camera with C-mount
Re: Matching camera with C-mount
I asked because I have a couple, extra, used micro four thirds bodies I picked up while researching cameras to mount on a 1" c-mount photoport. You could use one to evaluate the microscope and photoport, and get some idea of what you might then need.
I paid ca. $60 for each, with the usual, came-with-the-camera accessories, shipping and a 1 year camera store warranty. Unfortunately, shipping to the U.S. probably would not make sense: it might cost more than the camera and certainly more than what I would ask. The last time I checked, there was just expensive, express shipping because of the much reduced, transatlantic flight schedules.
-John
Re: Matching camera with C-mount
Here is a good explanation on camera/microscope compatibility + a link to the main site where there are additional articles
http://www.krebsmicro.com/pdf/trinoc_a3.pdf
http://www.krebsmicro.com/
http://www.krebsmicro.com/pdf/trinoc_a3.pdf
http://www.krebsmicro.com/
Zeiss Standard WL (somewhat fashion challenged) & Wild M8
Olympus E-P2 (Micro Four Thirds Camera)
Olympus E-P2 (Micro Four Thirds Camera)
-
- Posts: 761
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: Matching camera with C-mount
I see! Could you list out the ones you purchased? Or perhaps the ones that seemed most worth it?jfiresto wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:43 pmI asked because I have a couple, extra, used micro four thirds bodies I picked up while researching cameras to mount on a 1" c-mount photoport. You could use one to evaluate the microscope and photoport, and get some idea of what you might then need.
I paid ca. $60 for each, with the usual, came-with-the-camera accessories, shipping and a 1 year camera store warranty. Unfortunately, shipping to the U.S. probably would not make sense: it might cost more than the camera and certainly more than what I would ask. The last time I checked, there was just expensive, express shipping because of the much reduced, transatlantic flight schedules.
I could look for them here, myself. And thank you for offering!
Re: Matching camera with C-mount
Thank you!75RR wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:34 amHere is a good explanation on camera/microscope compatibility + a link to the main site where there are additional articles
http://www.krebsmicro.com/pdf/trinoc_a3.pdf
http://www.krebsmicro.com/
Re: Matching camera with C-mount
Thanks!viktor j nilsson wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:06 amThis is also a good thread on the topic:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 9265#99265