Beginner camera advice please!

[hyla]

Hey guys! I have some questions that I am a little embarrassed to ask, but I am new to microscopy, and I am just trying to start taking some photographs with my microscope. I have been looking at everyone's pictures on this forum, and they look so cool! I would love to try it out for myself! Unfortunately I have 0 experience taking photos on a microscope. I guess everyone has got to start somewhere.
I was looking to attach a digital camera, or a webcam to my microscope with a trinocular head, but I am unsure how to do so. Some specific things I would like clarification on are...
Does a digital camera or webcam need a "photo eyepiece" or any kind of reduction lens?
Are there any kind of special adapter(s) that are needed for a digital camera or webcam? Most of the tirnocular heads that I have seen appear to have very large tubes that are too big for a digital camera or webcam. I looked on the microbe hunter website, and found a really useful article that discusses attaching many different kinds of cameras to microscopes, and in the photos for the webcams and digital cameras the tubes that are actually attaching the cameras appear to be much thinner than what I have seen. Are these "thinner tubes" (sorry for my lack of technical/correct terms!) something that can be purchased, or are they usually home made?

I am open to any advice anyone has!

[gekko]

Hi Hyla,
Could you post a picture of your microscope and tell us the brand(s) and model(s) of your camera(s) please? It may help someone give you some answers.

[lorez]

You are embarking upon a most fascinating journey and the best way to start is to prepare. The questions you are asking are quite broad and rather than try to answer with my limited typing skills I suggest you do as I did and do a search using the key words, "attaching a camera to a microscope". As you would expect, the phrase returned 183,000 hits. I looked at a few. Some are good and others, not so good. Figuring out which is which is the tough part. If you would let us know what microscope and camera you plan to use it will be easier to suggest some specifics.

lorez

[JimT]

Agree with the first two suggestions; what microscope and what camera (or cameras) do you have.
Lots of sites on the WEB with lots of advice. Good place to start.

[75RR]

hyla has posted in the My microscope section.
See link: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=213

[75RR]

Hi hyla,
Here are a couple of links that have internal links as well. Hope they help.
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 6333#56333
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 9265#99265

[lorez]

Thanks for posting the link to the scope. Now that I know what it is and how it is configured I will suggest a CCD or CMOS USB camera with an eyepiece C-mount that will make it possible to take photographs with the least investment. The photos I have posted have been taken with this type of camera, but mounted on a triocular body. Maybe the quality of the photos is the best, or not so best, recommendation.

lorez

[gekko]

hyla has posted in the My microscope section.
See link: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=213

75RR, yes, you are right, but the Nikon picture Hyla posted is a binocular, and here she is talking about a trinocular scope, which is why I asked for a picture. Also, in order to give her anything approaching specific guidance, we need to know if the camera she intends to use has an interchageable lens or is a point-&-shoot type.
Hyla, upon re-reading your orignal post (the link provided by 75RR above), I was reminded that the objectives that you have are for a 210-mm tube length. If you get what you called "biological" objectives meant for 160-mm tube length, you will need to modify something to change the tube length to 160 mm; my guess is that you may simply need to remove the part between the objective turret and the binocular eyetube that channels the epi-illumination, but I think here you will need the advice of someone who knows for sure. Also, if the "biological" objectives need an adapter to fit the turret, then that also affects the tube length, but I think you said that you had another turret for "biological" objectives, so that may not be a problem. Just things to keep in mind.
I see that lorez has answered while I was writing this: I agree, if you have a binocular rather than a trinocular scope as in the picture, then a USB camera that throws the picture onto your computer monitor would be by far the most convenient as otherwise squinting through one eypeice with a large camera looking through the other eyepiece would be rather tiring.

[hyla]

Hello!

So I currently have a pretty basic Nikon digital camera, it is a point and shoot camera (Nikon Coolpix L28). As for my microscope I have been looking into purchasing a used tirnocular head if I need to. I guess that leads me to another question, is it necessary to get a trinocular head when I am first starting out, or would I be better off attaching a webcam or something similar to the binocular eyepiece? Are there any major advantages to using a trinocular head? I am willing to invest about $200 into setting up my microscope for photography. I am not sure if investing in a tirnocular head that would be compatible with my digital camera is a good, or even realistic, option.

I know I talked about a webcam in my original post. I currently do not have a webcam, but I would be willing to purchase one within my price range if it were a good option.

About my objectives. I do currently have objectives that are not biological, but I do have another nosepiece that is intended for biological objectives. So I was planning on perhaps slowly purchasing biological objectives and swapping out those as well. That will not be for a while though, so for now I am just working with the objectives that I have!

Thank you everyone for your advice so far, and thank you 75RR for posting the link to the "my microscope" section of the forum with the photo of my Nikon Optiphot!

[gekko]

My 2-cents' worth: Having thought about it, I want to reiterate my agreement with lorez: I think in your place I would get a USB microscope camera, say 3 Mpixels (or 5 Mpixels if you plan to print or crop the images), perhaps like the ones that Amscope sell (but I hope you'll get a recommendation from lorez or someone else who is familiar with them). Those appear to give very good results, and fit in place of one of the eyepieces (perhaps using some sort of adapter), so you can still squint though the remaining eyepiece, but you would normally be using your computer screen (so the practical limitation is that you will have to have the microscope close to your computer). You can adapt a webcam if you wish (I believe Oliver has a description of such an adaptation) but I don't know if the results will be as good as a dedicated microscope USB camera-- I may be wrong, but I think the resolution of web cams might not be adequate to give a good image, and I don't know what control you have over exposure, color, etc. You can certainly get excellent results with your Coolpix by somehow (tripod, bracket of some sort, etc.) attaching it to "look" through one eyepiece (afocal method). Whatever method or camera you use, make sure that the microscope is focused on the slide (or whatever object you are looking at) and then, without changing the focus of the microscope, adjust the camera so the image is in focus. In other words, the image is sharp looking through the eyepiece and on the camera at the same time. This ensures that the objectives are being used at their intended working distance and excessive spherical aberration is avoided.

In your place I would postpone the purchase of a trinocular head until I've had more experience to see if I will be driven to get one; you may find out that you really don't need one and that your money could be better spent upgrading some other aspect of your microscope (for example, by getting new objectives, or whatever).

Trinocular head: Optiphot and Labophot use the same binocular and trinocular heads. T type has a lever that you push in so all the light goes to the eyepieces, and when you pull it out, the light is split between eyepices and the phototube/camera. F-type: 100% of the light goes to the eyepieces; you turn (rotate) the eyetubes to the left to let 100% of the light to go to the phtotube/camera. My personal preference is for the T type because it allows me to see through the eyepieces while recording with the camera.

I hope others will chip in with additional or different advice so you get the benefit of a wider range of opinions.

And please accept my apologies for the verbosity!

[hyla]

Hello!

I have taken all your advice into consideration, and what you guys are saying makes a lot of sense. Getting a USB camera does seem to be my best option. I'm particularly excited that I will be able to see the images directly on my computer ! After looking at some USB cameras I have found that the Amscope cameras seem to be the most user friendly, come with software, and are at a price within my budget. I found a 5mp Amscope that looks pretty good with the following specifications.

Camera Specifications:
•Sensor: Aptina MT9P001 CMOS (color)
•Sensor Size: 1/2.5" (5.70mm(H) x 4.28mm(V), diagonal 7.13mm)
•Resolution: 2592x1944 (approx.5,040,000 pixels)
•Reduction Lens: 0.5X
•Pixel Size: 2.2µm x 2.2µm
•G Sensitivity: 0.53v / lux-sec (550nm)
•Frame Rate: 60fps @640x480, 18fps @1280x960, 5fps @2592x1944
•Exposure: 0.21~2000ms, ROI Auto & Manual

•Scan Mode: Progressive
•Dynamic Range: 66.5dB
•A/D Converter: 12-bit Parallel, 8-bit R.G.B to computer
•SN Ratio: 40.5dB
•Spectral Range: 380-650nm (with IR-filter)
•Binning: 1x1, 2x2, 4x4
•White balance: ROI White Balance/ Manual Temp-Tint Adjustment
•Color Rendering Technique: Ultra Fine Color Engine
•Capture/Control API: Native C/C++, C#, Directshow, Twain, Labview
•Recording System: Still Picture and Movie
•Cooling System: Natural
•Operating Temperature: -10°C~50°C
•Storage Temperature: -20°C~60°C
•Operating Humidity: 30~80%RH
•Storage Humidity: 10~60%RH
•Power Supply: DC 5V over USB Port

Sorry to post such lengthy specifications, but I figured I'd better not leave anything out!

[JimT]

Hyla, I have the Amscope 3MP USB camera and am satisfied with it. I wish I had gone with the 5MP and think you will be happier with it. Make sure your eye piece tube is 23, 30, or 30.5 mm so it will fit.

[Dale]

Jim I am contemplating the 3MP unit also, but if you really feel for another $40 the 5MP is a better deal I'd go for that.
The MU500 has the c-mount and the reduction lens, without those 2 items the camera is $90, compared to the $160 for
the 3MP one. My understanding of the reduction lens is to give the sensor a full image rather than a circular. The postal
service has my AO10 so I don't know what mount I'll need.
Dale

[vasselle]

Bonjour
Entre une caméra de 3 MP et une autre de 5 MP il y a pas vraiment de différence flagrante entre les photos.
Je possède une Bresser MicroCam 3,0 MP et j'en suis très satisfait.
Par contre un conseil ne pousse pas la luminosité a fond sur ta caméra il faut mieux régler celle çi sur le microscope.
Et si il y a plusieurs formats pour enregistrer les images choisi le format TIFF surtout si tu corrige tes photos.
Cordialement seb

[hyla]

I think I'm going to go with the 5mp. It's not that much more extra money so I feel like it will be worth it. I just have one more (slightly embarrassing ) beginner question to ask. How do I go about figuring out the size of the eye piece tube?

[Peter]

How do I go about figuring out the size of the eye piece tube?

Hi Hyla,
Use a Vernier or digital caliper.
Peter.

[75RR]

Standard size is 23 mm, there are also some 30mm.
A ruler if you don't have a vernier will do.
The USB cameras tend to come with adapters for the standard sizes.

[Dale]

Do you think the increase from 3 to 5 MP is significant? I have no way to judge.
Dale

[Crater Eddie]

I have both AmScope cameras, the 3mp at home and the 5mp at work.
I see little difference in the image quality, but like the software than comes with the 5mp camera better than what comes with the 3mp camera. And they are not interchangeable.
If I had it to do again I would buy the 5mp camera for home, but the difference is not enough for me to buy another one outright.
For whatever that might be worth to you.
CE

[Dale]

I really glossed over the software. For casual viewing and occasional screen shot that I could process in Lightroom
I wasn't concerned, but I'll go back and scope out the spec's. Thanks
Dale

[JimT]

Dale, I have the 3MP Amscope camera and wish I had bought the 5MP. That said, I agree with Crater Eddie, not worth buying the 5MP at this point but just starting I would go with the 5MP.
When I want to take a larger resolution image I use my Canon.