Which DSLR adapter to choose? Is the Amscope any good?

[Horseflesh]

I have a Swift 380T, so I have a standard 23mm top tube.

While I am considering a camera made specifically for a microscope, since I have a Nikon full-frame DSLR I first want to investigate making use of that.

Is the Amscope DSLR adapter any good? I don't really see any other adapters (with optics) around the $100 price point. I cannot find any forum posts about this accessory... Can anyone vouch for it?

https://smile.amazon.com/AmScope-CA-NIK ... B005OZ4BME

[PeteM]

On the plus side, it's cheap and provides about the right size image. Good enough for routine documentation.

On the minus side, it's not very well color corrected. Not good enough for great photos. Some of this may be due to use with older microscopes that require eyepiece corrections. I didn't like it on several scopes I tried, but found it usable (but not wonderful) on a Nikon chrome free scope. It might not be too bad on your Swift, which probably has neutral eyepieces and achromat objectives which may be limiting resolution potential in themselves?

If you buy it from Amazon Prime, they will at least let you return it if you're not satisfied after testing it. Let us know what you think, if you decide to give it a try. There's also an Omax branded version of the same thing, which is often a few bucks cheaper.

[crb5]

I tried out this adapter with my Nikon 3000 dSLR and Amscope 120 scope. I was disappointed with the results in that the edges of the image of a test graticule were blurred (see review https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005O ... merReviews. I returned the adapter to Amazon and got my money back. Subsequently I tried taking images at the primary image plane with the same dSLR, without any reduction lens, and also got poor resolution at the edges of the image. It seems the main problem is that this microscope (and probably other comparable economy scopes) requires correction of objective aberrations in the eyepiece, so any imaging system other than the afocal method (e.g. holding camera next to eyepiece) will likely fail since no single reduction lens can correct for the range of aberrations in different makes of objective. On the other hand, I am quite satisfied with my cheap 1.3 MP USB camera which only sees the central 1/5 of the primary image compared with a 10x 18 mm eyepiece i.e. by restricting the imaging path to near on-axis rays, the aberrations seen with a larger sensor are avoided. Furthermore by restricting the field of view to this amount means that 1.3 MP is just enough to satisfy the Nyquist limit, so more MP wouldn't give much improvement in image resolution.

[Horseflesh]

Thanks @crb5, very helpful. Sounds like the Amscope with optics is not a great option for the money. I may get simple T adapter since they are about $10 and just see how it goes.

Which USB camera did you get? I am reluctant to spend a lot on a microscope-specific camera since I don't really know how often I will use it yet... but if I could get live view and fair pictures on the cheap, that could be a good compromise.

[Red_Green]

I own the Amscope Canon DSLR adapter. I have had no issues with it.

Solid metal, sturdy, heavy and well built. Attaches my t6 perfectly. Only thing I do not like is because it magnifies what the microscope sees. So I can't take a picture of a whole organism (if the organism is bigger) like what I see through the eye pieces. Instead it's blown up huge and I have to take numerous pictures and make sort of a panarama of the organism if I want a picture of the whole thing. Which is tedious and time consuming.

Like for example. A mosquito Larvae. Through the eyepiece I see the whole larvae. But on the pc sreen using this adapter with my t6. It's blow up so large, I have to take a picture of the head. Then 3 sections of body, then lastly the hind section. Then I have to run those all through image stacking. Then I have to use another software to take the 5 pictures and piece them together.

I just wish there was an option to photograph exactly what the microscope shows through the eye pieces.

Otherwise it's fine.

[crb5]

Here's a photo of a 2 mm graticule with 10 um divisions viewed with a 10x 0.25 NA objective (cheap Amscope Achromat) taken with a Nikon D3000 dSLR without any lens and hand held at the position of the primary image. The primary image is 22 mm diameter (i.e. 2.2 mm of the graticule magnified 10x) which is just a bit less than the width of 23.6 x 15.8 mm APS-C sensor of the camera - hence the black shadow on each side . Using a standard 10x eyepiece, the field of view is 1.8 mm (large circle) as expected for the 18 mm field number of this eyepiece. The field seen by a lens-less USB camera with a 4.6 x 3.7 mm sensor is shown in the small rectangle. The image of the graticule is good in the center but is blurred at the edges - the latter arises because 1) the objective lens is not Plan so cannot you focus center and edges of images simultaneously, 2) when viewed through a 10x eyepiece the image looks reasonable at the 18 mm boundary, suggesting the eyepiece is correcting for some of the aberrations in the objective lens. Unless the reduction lens supplied with a camera happens to correct for these problems, it is not possible to get good full field of view images by this means. What are the options?

1) Stick with a lens-less USB camera which looks at the center of the field and switch to a lower power objective when a larger field is required. The latter will have a lower NA and therefore resolution will be lost. I have a 1.3 MP Amscope camera, and also picked up a couple of "end of the line" 1.3 MP Swift cameras on Amazon for $15.99 which I loan to students so they can display their plankton discoveries on Zoom to the whole class. I am very happy with this set-up because I use the eyepieces to find plankton of interest, center them in the field, then project the image from the USB camera in the trinoc port, which appears magnified about 5x on the screen, to the class.

2) Add a lens to the USB camera and use it in afocal mode i.e. mount it on the eyepiece. I found a 6 mm security camera works well (set of 6, 8 and 12 mm lenses from Amazon for $14 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MD ... UTF8&psc=1) which I attached to the USB camera and microscope using 23/30.5 mm tube adapter and bits from the local hardware store. This combination gives a field of view similar to what is seen by eye through the 10x ocular. Not the best of quality but better than the raw primary image.

3) Use a higher quality objective which give a flat field and does not rely on the eyepieces for aberration correction. I borrowed a friend's old Leitz scope and put the 10x objective on my Amscope scope - the view through the Amscope 10x eyepiece was worse. However with the Leitz eyepiece + Leitz objective on the Amscope body, the image was good (I did not do tests to see how much better). This showed objectives and eyepieces are designed to work in pairs and why any single camera reduction lens cannot work with all brands.

What not to do in this case - buy a camera with more pixels - you just see the blurr better!

[tlansing]

I also own an Amscope adapter for a Canon 1300D camera and like Red_Green it works well for me. I originally saw it on Robert Berdan's website (https://www.canadiannaturephotographer. ... _tips.html) and his photos are pretty spectacular so I thought I would try it out. I have been using it for several months to take photomicrographs and I am happy with the pictures I have taken. I have also noticed that the image on my computer screen is a bit larger than what I see in my eyepieces but it is not too much of a problem.

[Horseflesh]

Thanks much for that link!

[Stomias]

I have recently acquired the proper optics and tubes to use my Nikon DSLR. I have yet to get results as good as my kludged together eyepiece projection system though. I used the standard T-ring and adaptor plus the 1.25" tube used for telescope focuser insertion. It seems the 1.25" tube just fits over the microscope eyepieces I use and the eyepiece image is pretty far in the tube (Have not measured where the image sits though). I need to work with the 23mm tubes and optics some more. Here are a couple shots using the kludged telescope adaptor (afocal)..............

https://photos.app.goo.gl/UACUwZMcmRyXHF8t9

https://photos.app.goo.gl/QodfubDVZAyWT4f58

https://photos.app.goo.gl/KvPwe9RM3nVLLTrg9

https://photos.app.goo.gl/xKa2GaYhPxxs9bdS9

Here is the adapter YRMV as far as eyepiece fit. https://www.walmart.com/ip/YLSHR-1-25-A ... /879016827

[Horseflesh]

Thanks!