DSLR vs dedicated microscope camera ?

[AntoniScott]

Is it better to use a single lens reflex camera through a trinocular phototube (with the appropriate compensating eyepiece) or is it better to just use a dedicated microscope camera ?

[apochronaut]

Unless you need the DSLR for other photography, they come with some baggage that needs to be overridden in order for them to be successful on a microscope. Weight and vibration principally, plus a shutter that is less than ideal for video. Mirrorless cameras don't have the first two cumbrances and in general can achieve similar performance levels for less money, if you are in the $2000.00 range or less for the camera.

Then it becomes a question of whether you need to view at the camera or not. Personally, I like using an articulating camera screen to focus on, for stills, so I use a mirrorless. I am very pleased with it and it was very cheap. DSLR and mirrorless aren't great tor videos of anything moving fast, so if don't need to view at the camera and or want to capture videos of fast moving samples, a dedicated microscope camera with a global shutter can capture movement and good static screen captures of things in motion.

[Dubious]

Yeah, really need to know more about the specific options you are considering (and your microscope). Dedicated USB cameras are often used without a correcting eyepiece or photo lens, so depending on the microscope their images would suffer from CA compared to images from a DSLR with a correcting eyepiece or similar. But some microscopes need the correction much more than others, and in any case, a little CA probably doesn't matter that much to most users. The DSLR usually has a much larger sensor, so if everything else is equal, it should provide a better image. But, not all DSLR's are even suitable for use with a microscope (you need one with “Electronic First Shutter Curtain” (EFSC) and available software control); and it can be a real pain to interface a DSLR to a microscope correctly. On the other hand, USB cameras may come with everything you need to get started; and ones with 1" sensors are also becoming affordable for those that want a large sensor.

[Scarodactyl]

To echo other posts her it depends on your system and your goals. It's hard to beat a used dslr for the money (ie canon rebel t7 for around 300 usd), though a mirrorless camera is more ideal for microscopy in some ways and often easier to adapt on too.

[Microscopy_is_fun]

I agree with everything that has been said above.

My personal opinion: I would only use a DSLR if you already own it. If you buy a camera, I would prefer mirrorless in case your focus is on obtaining colorful and crisp photomicrographs. If you focus is on documenting and image processing (measuring sizes of object, including a scale bar, making annotations, ...) I would prefer a dedicated microscope camera which also includes a dedicated software package for microscopy.

Good microscope cameras with a large sensor are rather expensive, mirrorless gives you in average more bang for the buck.

[jfiresto]

To echo other posts her it depends on your system and your goals. It's hard to beat a used dslr for the money (ie canon rebel t7 for around 300 usd), though a mirrorless camera is more ideal for microscopy in some ways and often easier to adapt on too.

The T7 has been around since practically the Little Ice Age. Is there an earliest version you would recommend for photomicroscopy? Of the Olympus OMD/Pen mirrorless cameras I follow, the E-PL3, from 2011, is the earliest more or less usable model (at low magnifications) and the E-M1, from 2013, is the first that gets rather nice to use.

[Hobbyst46]

Please note also, that the term "dedicated microscope camera" can mean an inexpensive USB camera from no-name sources as well as a very expensive (thousands of $) microscope camera from one of the major microscope manufacturers (Olympus etc). The latter do not necessarily feature a larger sensor - their most important property would be low light sensitivity, and sometimes video recording speed.

In addition, some astronomical cameras appear to serve well for microscopy. Especially since they are so light-sensitive.

[Scarodactyl]

To echo other posts her it depends on your system and your goals. It's hard to beat a used dslr for the money (ie canon rebel t7 for around 300 usd), though a mirrorless camera is more ideal for microscopy in some ways and often easier to adapt on too.

The T7 has been around since practically the Little Ice Age. Is there an earliest version you would recommend for photomicroscopy?

The T7 is from 2018, not too insanely old. I have only tried a few models. The T6 is perfectly good too, the T3 as I recall had some annoying issues with not properly previewing image brightness which made it near unusable.

[jfiresto]

The T7 has been around since practically the Little Ice Age. Is there an earliest version you would recommend for photomicroscopy?

The T7 is from 2018, not too insanely old. I have only tried a few models. The T6 is perfectly good too, the T3 as I recall had some annoying issues with not properly previewing image brightness which made it near unusable.

Good grief. What web pages was I looking at? I need to get more sleep and should probably avoid posting until I deal with some noisy neighbors.

As far as I can tell, the T7 has a fixed (non-tiltable) screen. Does it have a usable HDMI live view? The only hint of its size I can find in the manual (p. 182) is that "if you connect the camera to a TV set with an HDMI cable ... and shoot a movie at 1920x1080 or 1280x720, the movie being shot will be displayed in a small size on the TV set."

[blekenbleu]

Does it have a usable HDMI live view?

Yes, here is a video about T7 video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCm0O8flq38
Here is a credible review:
https://www.steves-digicams.com/camera- ... eview.html

FWIW, patience and about $200 more could snag an M5 or M6, which have 24 megapixels in a mirrorless body,
so no mirror shake and more options for microscope attachment,
using a thin EF-M to M32 adapter with its short flange-to-sensor distance.

[Scarodactyl]

You can also use computer tethering or a phone via wifi.
Iirc the M5 at least does not have compatibility with the canon PC software so you can't do that kind of tethering--it's a dealbreaker for me but not necessarily for everyone.

[jfiresto]

Thank you both for that information. It is good to know more alternatives as it is often quicker and easier to adopt a camera for the microscope than adapt the microscope to the camera.

[Hobbyst46]

You can also use computer tethering or a phone via wifi.
Iirc the M5 at least does not have compatibility with the canon PC software so you can't do that kind of tethering--it's a dealbreaker for me but not necessarily for everyone.

Yes, of the EOS-M series, only the M50 is compatible with the Canon PC software (maybe the M200 as well - but I'm not sure).

[blekenbleu]

You can also use computer tethering or a phone via wifi.
Iirc the M5 at least does not have compatibility with the canon PC software so you can't do that kind of tethering--it's a dealbreaker for me but not necessarily for everyone.

Yes, of the EOS-M series, only the M50 is compatible with the Canon PC software (maybe the M200 as well - but I'm not sure).

The M50 was their first M series model to support tethering.
Canon's EOS Utility manual lists M3,5,6,10, & 100
https://cam.start.canon/en/S003/manual/ ... _0050.html
but with a note that neither remote shooting nor live view are supported,
while the M50, M200 and Mark II M50 & M6 are supported.
(I use an RS60-E3 wired remote shutter release.)