A microscope for digital image capturing?

[Lotto]

I'm in process of choosing my first compound microscope for amateurish microworld studies. The problem is, my vision is poor, I wear glasses and am generally uncomfortable with working with optical eyepieces of any kind. So I'm considering buying a cheap entry-level microscope similar to Swift SW200DL with a digital camera for attaching to my PC.

I did some research and found a number of specialized cameras for mounting on microscope tubes. There are also devices for redirecting the optical stream to a smartphone camera. However, I can't fully understand if such devices are mounted *over* eyepieces or *instead* of them? If they replace eyepieces, do I understand it correctly that the final magnification rate on the computer screen will be only that the objective provide (i.e. 4x, 10x, 40x)? Does it make sense to buy 100x lenses to compensate for the loss of eyepiece magnification? Working with oil-immersing lenses somehow doesn't attract me at all, seems to be too troublesome.

[micro]

For usb microscope cameras the eyepiece is usually removed and the usb camera is inserted into the empty eyepiece slot, this will not require using a higher magnification objective. Cameras usually have their own zoom factor of some sort. I forget the terminology but the usual 4x 10x 40x objectives will be fine without needing the 10x eyepiece. Cellphone setups usually take images using the eyepiece rather than removing it. DSLR cameras are usually attached on a trinocular port without an eyepiece and again you have the zoom factor of the DSLR camera.

[Lotto]

Thanks a lot, it explains everything. Microscope cameras usually don't have a good description, only the number of megapixels and available interfaces are specified, so it's hard to understand what king of own lenses they have.

I'm still hesitating what kind of microscope to buy, though. Trinocular devices with a dedicated camera port look convenient but they usually come equipped with 100x objectives I probably won't use, so that's wasting money. What a hard choice...

[Fen]

I use a similar adapter as the one in the second video. NDPL-1(2x) and a Canon 600D. What I see through my 10x eyepieces and what I see on the monitor is comparable in magnification.
This is what I shot with a 40x objective.

[PeteM]

While a trinocular head is useful for most who wish to take photos, in your case a single port going directly to a camera - and from there to a good sized monitor would make sense.

If you wish to take photos or fill a large monitor with an image, a better quality microscope and camera might make sense. It will also make it easier to do things like "focus stacking" - to share images of exceptional depth of field.

If you just wish to get a basic image on a screen, a cheaper monocular microscope and a USB camera might make sense.

[DonSchaeffer]

The camera works as an eyepiece. They usually have a reduction lens attached to increase the field of view to duplicate an eyepiece . I never use my eyepiece. Mine microscope is viewed on the computer only. I took my eyepieces out as soon as I my microscope arrived.

[Greg Howald]

I use the camera a great deal. Without the reduction lens the image is huge, seeming to be at about 40x. With the reduction lens the image is closer to that seen with a 20x eyepiece.
If I were in your shoes I would want a scope with a 100x lens. Most microscopes that have three objectives only don't have all the bells and whistles. You are likely to be missing a condenser with an iris and filter holder. You are likely not to have a mechanical stage. Those things make life a lot easier and give a great deal more flexibility to your experience.
If you don't want to use a 100x objective you could order additional objectives such as 20x or 60x. Then you don't have to mess with oil.