What is The best microscope camera?

[AntoniScott]

Haven't had much luck taking good images with my microscope. There is not much point in saying what doesn't work very well. I've tried many things. Unfortunately, about the best images I get are with a device called a LabCam and my phone's camera (16 megapixels) on my Iphone 11plus. I also have a dedicated microscope camera ( 8 megapixels) that takes equally as good photo's ( sometimes). Both took better pictures thn my DSLR Nikon D5500 with 24 Megapixels.

I see microscope cameras from Olympus ranging up to $4000 that are only 8 megapixels, so clearly the number of pixels is not the deciding factor for image quality.
So what is the best microscope camera if there is such a thing ?
Antoni

[jfiresto]

As you can attest, there is more to getting good images than just the camera. Define "best", for whom, what and with what, and I am sure you will get some suggestions.

[Dubious]

Unfortunately, it can be frustrating interfacing a camera to a microscope. And even when the camera is interfaced properly, it can be difficult if not impossible to capture an image matching the quality that you see with your eye. Which model microscope are you using? Does it have a trinocular head/photo port? The Nikon D5500 uses the DX format which is essentially APS-C format, and a reasonably large sensor capable of giving good results.

You are right that number of pixels is not everything. Above a certain threshold the pixel count seems largely irrelevant, at least in my limited experience using digital cameras with microscopes. I believe Microbehunter has a video in which he does the math to show that 3.x mp is sufficient to capture the resolution of his microscope. I am dubious about that result, as few things in reality perform close to theory; but between an 8 mp camera and 24 mp camera, I am willing to believe there are other factors much more important than pixel count.

If you can tell us more about your system and how you have been interfacing the cameras, someone here may be able to make suggestions.

[apochronaut]

Chances are with a D5500, a heavy camera with mirror slap, your images are suffering from vibration. DSLRs , with effort in the attachment of them to the microscope can be excellent microscope cameras, but they are not designed with a microscope in mind. They can be obese clunkers on a microscope if the mount is weak?
People use them because they already have them and are in awe of them as cameras but small, light cameras with similar pixel counts are better options when the camera is mounted up on a pole.
I have been using a mirrorless camera with an articulating screen that I can rotate to view from my location at the eyepieces for several years and have been pleased with it. 20 mp is lots and no vibration.

[Dubious]

Yes, many of us already have the DSLR, so it is the least expensive way of getting a large-sensor microscope camera. On many DSLR cameras, in Live View mode with the mirror locked up and EFCS (Electronic First-Curtain Shutter) enabled, vibrations from the camera are minimized. I cannot find a reference to the Nikon D5500 having EFCS. If the D5500 doesn't allow those things, it could indeed be a problem.

[Microscopy_is_fun]

So what is the best microscope camera if there is such a thing ?
Antoni

You need to consider the combination of illumination, condensor, objective and camera as a system. That's why it is not possible to name THE best camera. In my view, the quality of images depends in this order on
(1) the quality of the sample
(2) the used illumination
(3) the image processing skills of the user
(4) the used objective and
(5) the camera

Modern cameras have plenty of megapixels, therefore you never need to worry about that. The higher the magnification you use, the less pixels you will need. With a 100x objective, you might easily get along with 1-2MPx. The most demanding objectives in terms of required camera resolution are high numerical aperture objectives with around 10x magnification.

The sensors of DSLRs (APS-C and full format) are mostly too big for a microscope objective, and therefore require a magnifying optic for adapting these cameras. In contrast to conventional photography, you neither gain resolution nor dynamic range by using sensors whose diameter is larger than the field of view of the used objective.

[Dubious]

Depends. Vintage microscopes (and available optics) generally assume a full-frame camera but can be used with an APS-C camera if you don't mind some cropping. With these, it can be difficult to interface a small-sensor USB camera, as the needed brand-specific correcting photo lenses simply aren't available. For example, I attach a DSLR camera directly to my Olympus IMT2--it already has the required photo lens inside. I was interested in interfacing a USB camera to the video port, but that would have required an Olympus photo lens to correct the image from the objective, probably 2.5x since those are still readily available, then a very significant reducing lens to bring the image to the tiny sensor. (A USB camera with a 1" sensor might hit a sweet spot with many systems, but those are still rather expensive and uncommon.) On the Leitz Laborlux, I have a phototube with a 10x Periplan eyepiece inserted, with the camera mounted above.

[Chas]

You have a good phone and a good modern camera
To get the best photos I can using (my 'not as young' ) DSLR, on mounted specimens, I force the camera to use 100 ISO, this sometimes means exposure times of 0.25 to 4 seconds.
The strange (counter intuitive?) advantage of long exposure time is that vibration blur caused by the camera at the begining of an exposure is lost in the rest of the exposure.
For what it is worth, I like direct projection as there is no extra glass between the objective and the camera sensor. It seems a bit laughable but I have ended up using a microscope, for this, which is much like your Lafeyette, in design.
If I unscrew the tube that holds the eypiece from the top of the body, I end up with the body that is around 100mm in length, if a straight-through eyepiece adapter is put on the front my DSLR I end up with another 60mm of distance to the sensor.
And voila I have the 160mm (6 and a bit inches) that the objectives were designed for.
The trickiest bit is finding 'something' that will hold the straight-through camera adapter in the middle of the microscope's body ..I am lucky to have found a random microscope part ..but prior to that I failed to find a bit of pipe/ pill bottle that would do the job and resorted to getting a 3D printer (which is a bit like using a nuclear warhead to crack a nut) ... but in the past I have modified DSLR body caps ( get an nice big tapered hand-reamer to open up a hole in the cap) .
Two things that definitely help ... getting rid of the neck strap on the camera and replacing it with something much shorter and using a shutter release cable.
Diffuse light often seems preferable to the light off a mirror (I just stick a bit of paper over the mirror)
Maybe have a go using your Lafeyette ?
Note: I accept that your worst images might be better than my best ones !

[RobBerdan]

Please see my article where I tested DSLRs, C mount and Cell phones.
RB

https://www.canadiannaturephotographer. ... DSLRs.html

[Leitzcycler]

After reading this article I bought the Risingcam. I am very happy.

[Microscopy_is_fun]

Please see my article where I tested DSLRs, C mount and Cell phones.

Hi Rob,

these are very well prepared investigations and an informative article, like all the microscope related information on your website!

[Dubious]

Rob, many thanks for posting the link to your very useful review of camera options. I'll have to check out the other content on your web site. I've just skimmed through the article, and it looks to be an invaluable resource for anyone getting into microphotography, covering all the main options--cell phones, dedicated USB cameras, DSLR cameras, software, etc. My quick takes from it are: around 10MP are generally needed for optimal photographs and 20MP is better; bigger sensors are better even if the same pixel count; DSLRs outperformed the other options but the RisingCam with 1" sensor was a close second. That's consistent with my (limited) experience with digital microphotography. My 5MP Amscope USB camera works reasonably well, but not as well as my Canon 550D (APS-C) or RP (full frame) if they are interfaced properly (but that can be a big "if").

One question I have is whether, especially with your Motic BA310, you ever tried direct projection and, if so, how it compared with using the photo lens? I have a BA400 that I am slowly rehabilitating; and, since I don't have the Motic 2.5x photo lens, have been playing around with direct projection. It seems to work reasonably well with the Canon 550D, although there are parfocality issues. I may also try direct projection on my Optiphot, since it has CFN objectives that shouldn't need much if any correction.

[Dubious]

...
To get the best photos I can using (my 'not as young' ) DSLR, on mounted specimens, I force the camera to use 100 ISO, this sometimes means exposure times of 0.25 to 4 seconds.
The strange (counter intuitive?) advantage of long exposure time is that vibration blur caused by the camera at the begining of an exposure is lost in the rest of the exposure.
...

That sounds like a very useful technique for those with DSLR's that do not support EFCS--if they are photographing objects that do not move. With moving objects--i.e. living pond water critters--I wonder if something analogous could not be done by shooting in video mode, then using software to "snip" out a still from somewhere after the beginning?

[EYE C U]

i used to use dslr but now use a swift cam right to the computer. full live view ect. love it.

[RobBerdan]

Hi - the best cameras for photomicrography are DSLRs, followed by C mount cameras and then cell phones. I tested some and compared them in an article on my website.
https://www.canadiannaturephotographer. ... DSLRs.html - I have linked to the original images under the smaller web images so you can preview their quality unprocessed.

Mirror less cameras are also good. The size of the pixels and sensor appear to be most important in terms of the quality of the image. Make sure you use Live View when taking pictures and dampen vibrations by using a rubber sheet (hardware store) under the microscope when taking pictures. Faster shutters speeds or very long shutters speeds also help keep images sharp.

I use both Canon and Nikon DSLRs most of the time - each has 12-36 Megapixels. The DSLRs are better for video - smoother frame rates and offer 4K or more. The $10,000 plus C mount cameras from Nikon and Leica are overpriced, though some of the cost is probably for their software. Zeiss C mount digital cameras I have tested are very poor for some reason - their microscopes are fantastic, but they don't appear to know how to make good cameras - I use a DSLR with my Zeiss Axioscope.

The number of Megapixels required depends on the size and purpose of your images, Personally I would not go less than 12 MP - but I make large prints. For the web less are required.
As for software Digicam control for the PC is the best I have used, and its free. I have not tested free software for Mac. https://digicamcontrol.com/

If you don't need large high quality images for printing, the AM scope C mount cameras work well. I found that the Rising Cam C mount from China with a 1 inch sensor
produced excellent results for around $600. I wouldn't recommend C mounts from Nikon and Leica costing over $10,000 - they are too expensive anyway.

For bigger images you can stitch several images together to form Bill board sized images. I sometimes stitch 10-36 images together when I need really big images.

One last comment is that DSLR cameras use RAW files which offer more processing flexibility and enlargement capability than .tif, .jpg files - I always shoot RAW and process my images in Photoshop.

For more information see my web site https://www.canadiannaturephotographer.com/index.html - have several articles on photomicrography.
RB

[Microscopy_is_fun]

Hi - the best cameras for photomicrography are DSLRs, followed by C mount cameras and then cell phones.

Mirror less cameras are also good.

As a general statement, this is somehow too general for my taste. Especially mirrorless mft-cameras are equivalent in terms of quality with DSLRs in my experience: On infinity optics they can be adapted without intermediate lenses directly to the trinocular port, omitting potential issues with such intermediate optics. The geometrically shorter adaptations of smaller sensors is also benficial in terms of better mechanical stabilization.

Since resolution as well as available amount of light (=dynamic range) are determined by the numerical aperture of the objective, a larger sensor does not improve resolution nor dynamic range, which is in contrast to conventional photography.

Modern digital cameras (mirrorless or DSLR) are all excellent in terms of picture quality. I would say: If the picture does not turn out well, the camera is typically not the problem. But I guess that anyone should use that type of camera, he/she is most confident with in terms of handling. In any case it's great, that we have a large choice of really well engineered and economic cameras available for microcopy.

[Dubious]

The review didn't cover MFT cameras, but MFT is still a large sensor compared to most of the USB/C-mount cameras, and I would expect it to produce good results, similar to APS-C cameras. I do think sensor size has to matter, everything else being equal (which admittedly often isn't the case). A large sensor is less affected by dust and lint. Important for me, it is more likely to be compatible with the optics available for vintage scopes. And, even if the overall pixel count is the same, larger pixels can be more sensitive to light.

[jfiresto]

The review didn't cover MFT cameras, but MFT is still a large sensor compared to most of the USB/C-mount cameras, and I would expect it to produce good results, similar to APS-C cameras....

I can not argue with that. MFT can also be quite light, the ones I have been using are less than 350g with dummy battery, and have nice enough tiltable LCD screens with focus peaking that you can use them standalone.

[AntoniScott]

Thank you for all your responses. Much information to deal with. I learned long ago, before microphotography, that mirror vibration can be detrimental to image quality and if I could always used a tripod. If time allowed, mirror lockup also reduced vibration. Unfortunately, my D5500 doesn't have a mirror lock up feature. If I were able to increase the exposure time to two or four seconds to allow mirror vibrations to be minimized, I could experiment with reducing the light intensity to get the proper exposure. The problem is that reducing the light intensity on my microscope changes the light color from white to more orange. I could shoot in RAW and adjust the color temp after the exposure.
My microscope(s) are an Olympus BH2 and a CH2 both with trinocular heads. The camera body adapter to trinocular tube is a tight solid fit, but I can't rule out mirror vibrationa part of the problem. I use the lowest ISO rating I can (I think 80 or 100) for the least grain.

One forum member suggested that I try using the camera without the intermediary lens and just allow direct projection. I'm not sure if I did that already. I'll re-investigate that route also.



Which model microscope are you using? Does it have a trinocular head/photo port? The Nikon D5500 uses the DX format which is essentially APS-C format, and a reasonably large sensor capable of giving good results.

[MIKE ALLEN]

I am using an AmScope trinocular microscope with the.Amscope FMA037. MU035 digital camera. At present, I am snapping my slide collection onto the computer. Due to an eyesight problem. I cannot view the subject in the normal way. So using the software provided by AmScope, I do all the focussing and snapping via the computer monitor. I am quite satisfied with the final results.

[Scarodactyl]

A dslr without mirror lockup really isn't suitable for photomicrography--there are workarounds but it's a lot easier to get a used dslr that does have lockup. A canon t6 can be had for around 200 bucks, has efcs in live view, wifi and usb tethering with good control software. That said putting an aps-c camera on a bh2 is kind of annoying so it may not be the best option. Direct projection is unlikely to give great results since you'll miss the eyepiece corrections which are pretty essential.