720p video - good enough for microscopy?

[kwesi]

I found a Nikon D5000 on my local online marketplace, and I'm thinking about buying it so I can shoot video through my scope's 3rd port (currently shooting with a Canon Rebel that only takes stills).
Is 720p adequate for microscopy? My intuition tells me it is, since the resolution of the microscope itself has an upper limit, but I want to make sure. I know 1080p and up is the standard for modern DSLR's, but I'm hoping that for my needs it won't make a difference. I'm thinking of making music videos featuring images of protists.

One thing I like about this camera is that it has a swivelling screen, so I'd be able to see what the camera is seeing without having to stand up.

[josmann]

I think it depends on your personal definition of good enough as well as the optics between the camera and the microbes.

It’s not as simple as comparing the physical resolution limit to pixel density. There are a ton of factors that go into capturing quality video - resolution being only one. There is a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes inside of a camera - especially when it comes to video - so you really can’t say “X many pixels is all you need.” One major example is the bitrate of the video capture - most low-mid range cameras capture with a codec that compresses the video frames to hit a target bitrate. Maybe you’ve been watching a sports game on television before and they release confetti in front of the camera. Suddenly the picture quality turns horrible! That’s because the bitrate isn’t high enough to accurately relay all the complicated movements of the confetti. The same thing can happen when you record video at a low bitrate. 720p at 5Mbps will look a lot nicer than 720p at 1Mbps.

The D5000 is pretty old. Back in the day, video on DSLRs was kind of a novelty - not a critical feature like it is today. The video quality may not be up to your requirements - I would try to find some sample footage shot on a D5000 to see if it meets your expectations.

My general advice: capture with the most resolution that you can at the lowest ISO you can with as much light as you can at the highest bitrate you can.

[kwesi]

Thanks for the detailed reply!
The person selling the camera is only asking $100 because the flash is broken, which is fine for my needs. So for that price I think it might be worth a try. I totally know what you mean about the bitrate being too low to capture lots of random motion, but hopefully with what I'm trying to capture that won't be too much of an issue.

[Gasman]

I have the Nikon D5500 DSLR but as I found out it didn't like doing video without the Nikon lens, stills were fine though.

[kwesi]

Well I ended up finding a much better camera for the same price, and it shoots 1080p. I might do some tests switching between 720 and 1080 and see how the quality compares.

[MicroBob]

For still images you would want a camera with EFSC. An old Canon eos 500 has it, the nikon d5000 not.
Also have a look at you computer and storage - can it handle high resolved video?

[josmann]

Well I ended up finding a much better camera for the same price, and it shoots 1080p. I might do some tests switching between 720 and 1080 and see how the quality compares.

Cool, what did you pick up if you don't mind sharing?

[kwesi]

Cool, what did you pick up if you don't mind sharing?

I got a Nikon D3400. I'm really happy with it so far, though I'm still figuring it out (I've mostly used Canon cameras since I was a teenager so I don't have the muscle memory for it yet).
One thing that could be problematic for microscopy is that it doesn't have image stabilization, so I have to do other things to reduce vibrations as much as possible. But I have no other complaints.

Also I just realized I was wrong before - I said I found a camera for the same price as the other one I was looking at, but I was looking at a lot of cameras and didn't realize the one I had referenced earlier was $100. This one was $260CAD. The $100 one didn't have a battery so I wouldn't have been able to test it before buying. I think I still got a pretty good deal and now have a camera that's really good on and off the microscope.

[amphicyon]

For microscopy is much more suitable mirrorless camras. For example, very cheap for aftermarket Sony NEX series of cameras. Mirrorless is very light, have semielectronic shutter (prevents shaking), and swiwel screen. I aslo own NEX F-3. It's provides 1080p video, but i think that this is not enough, 4k is needed. Or 1080 RAW video at least.
Canon DSLR from 550D and above also very good cameras for microscopy, because they have remote shooting option from PC or android.
Old Nikons DSLR (3000/5000) for microscope is worse. No remote shooting, but heavy and uncomfortable.

[MicroBob]

There are a few criteria for a good microscope camera:
- Electronic first shutter cutain (NEX 3 an 5 didn't have one and the shutter blurred the images a lot, NEX 5N on had EFSC)
- Tiltable screen
- Tethering by PC or mobile phone if needed
- Clean HDMI out if needed
-....

If I would look for a camera I would first list which cameras fulfill point one, EFSC, then look further.

[kwesi]

The D3400 is actually surprisingly light - one of the lightest DSLRs that Nikon ever made. Even though it's not mirrorless, shooting with live view reduces vibrations by leaving the mirror out of the way, and it does live HDMI output to a computer, monitor, projector etc. and it has Bluetooth connectivity. Using a remote or 2-second self timer reduces shake as well. I've also noticed that it handles high ISO shooting with much less noise than my previous SLR which lets me use shorter shutter times. Overall I'm really happy with it