Can your camera see as much as your eye?

[btschumy]

I'm still pretty new at imaging through a microscope. I've gone from:

1. Afocal imaging with an iPhone, to
2. Direct objective projection onto the sensor, to
3. Eyepiece projection onto the sensor, to
4. Afocal imaging with a Canon 700D and a 40mm lens.

The last option was suggested to me by some people on the Phtomacrograhy forum that seem to know what they are talking about.

My images have improved with each step although they are subtle changes.

However, it is still the case that I see more detail visually on my wet mounts than I'm capturing with the camera. Is that just the way it is or am I still missing something? I'm tethering with the mirror up before taking the shot so I think vibration is under control.

One possibility is that the eye can accommodate and give a better perceived depth of field than that camera can. Is that what causes this?

Thoughts?

Bill

[75RR]

A camera can never match what you see though the eyepieces, but vibration, among other reasons - such as a lack of parfocality, can put you further away than you should be.
Even though your camera is tethered (or despite that), you may want to look through the eyepieces every now and again to test for vibration when you activate the shutter. There should be none at all. Even the smallest perceptible vibration will affect sharpness.

[btschumy]

A camera can never match what you see though the eyepieces

So why is that? With normal photography out in the real world, I think cameras can capture as much or more than we see with out eyes. Is it the "depth of field" problem?

you may want to look through the eyepieces every now and again to test for vibration when you activate the shutter

I'm not sure how useful that would be. With Canon, the mirror must drop down after the exposure to download the image. It would be hard to tell if any vibration is during or after the actual capture. I suspect the only way to really know if vibration is an issue is to setup a system where the camera is physically decoupled from the scope and see if that yields better images. I may have to try that.

Anyway I do appreciate your comments. I'm hoping others chime in with their experiences.

[KurtM]

I have yet to get an image that's anywhere near as good as what I see through the eyepieces. Well, that may be a little harsh, but it's mostly true. Besides resolution never being as clearly defined, the sensor never seems to perceive light the same as the retina, and the more lenses and things it passes through, the more pronounced the shift. No idea why, have wondered about it myself, but mostly just accepted it as the way things are.

I image with a Canon T3i DSLR tethered to a laptop computer using Canon Utilities software, which runs the camera in "Live View" mode so the reflex mirror is in locked up position eliminating "mirror slap" vibrations. The computer display has a zoom function which I use for focusing, and also for watching prior to tripping the shutter to allow everything to settle down - as much as it's going to, that is, as the view never quite stops and holds perfectly completely still.

There are probably lots of things I could do to improve my method and resulting images, but I place value on relative ease and convenience as part of the equation. As I learned from astrophotography, if the process becomes fiddly, fussy, and just plain tedious, then it just ain't no fun no more.

[75RR]

No idea why, have wondered about it myself, but mostly just accepted it as the way things are.

Same here, perhaps I should have wondered why that was. Looking forward to an answer.