DJI-action-2 camera

[Cristian11]

Does anyone own by any chance this camera Dji action 2? I have to choose between this one and an iphone to mount on my microscope ocular. Obviously iphone is more preferable but it is more expensive, especially iphone 12 that I have in mind.

So I was wondering how this camera would perform parfocal on a microscope ocular, because on paper the stats look good, but it might fail since it is not intended for such use.

https://www.dji.com/dji-action-2

[LouiseScot]

It looks like it's a reduced Go-Pro-type wide angle 'action camera'. You might be better off with a dedicated EP microscope camera e.g. Toupcam

Louise

[Hobbyst46]

Not a photography expert, but. IMHO this camera is not ideal, for at least 2 reasons:
1. The closest focus distance is 0.3m. So, for mounting on a microscope, you will need a relay lens of some sort. Unless someone has already done, documented and published the optical and mechanical coupling it will be a trial and error and good results are not guaranteed.
2. A less important point but still - I am not sure that the camera can be tethered via cable to a computer. Wifi operation is not always fast and reliable.
So a Toupcam camera as suggested by Louise above would be better.
The Iphone is a different type of approach, called afocal. You use the phone, including its built-in camera lens, AND the ocular of the microscope (or photo ocular if available). It will definitely work; you will need a mechanical adapter for the phone, and installing the phone on the microscope, focusing and alignment are not convenient, but doable. Note, though, that similar quality images can be achieved with much less expensive smartphones.

[Cristian11]

Not a photography expert, but. IMHO this camera is not ideal, for at least 2 reasons:
1. The closest focus distance is 0.3m. So, for mounting on a microscope, you will need a relay lens of some sort. Unless someone has already done, documented and published the optical and mechanical coupling it will be a trial and error and good results are not guaranteed.
2. A less important point but still - I am not sure that the camera can be tethered via cable to a computer. Wifi operation is not always fast and reliable.
So a Toupcam camera as suggested by Louise above would be better.
The Iphone is a different type of approach, called afocal. You use the phone, including its built-in camera lens, AND the ocular of the microscope (or photo ocular if available). It will definitely work; you will need a mechanical adapter for the phone, and installing the phone on the microscope, focusing and alignment are not convenient, but doable. Note, though, that similar quality images can be achieved with much less expensive smartphones.

Thanks for the reply.

Yes I've mistaken the afocal/parfocal part.

So right now I've tried the following.

Using the mirrorless GH5 on the Zeiss Standard with direct projection = Crap image
Gh5 +23mm m4/3 adapter with a glued ( lol ) eyepiece using the hybrid method KPL method 10-8-10 = very meh image
Obviously the old scope and optics will not work well with a m4/3 mirrorless sensor for a lot of reasons.
So I've tried using a Samsung note 9 through the hybrid ocular, OK image. The I used the iphone 12 mini, and even better image as in better contrast. So I've come to the conclusion that iphone would be the best. I'm not worrying about an adapter. I will probably improvise one.

I've seen journey to the microcosmos first videos. They were really good. And he was using a cheap achromat scope and an unknown phone I think. Obviously, he has a lot of skill in using the scope, but still...he had some good images with his low grade setup.

[LouiseScot]

A Toupcam type usb 3 eyepiece camera http://www.touptek.com/product/showprod ... g=en&id=78 is lensless and goes in place of an ocular. You connect to a laptop/pc and view images on the larger screen so you get to check the image/video and the focus ahead of taking a picture or recording a video. It's probably the best option if you don't have a trinocular.

Louise

[Hobbyst46]

I doubt that the camera sensor size (M4/3 vs APSC) should matter to image quality, as long as the relay lens (ocular) magnification is chosen to provide good coverage of the FOV. Magnificent images, taken with an Olympus M4/3 mirrorless camera on a Zeiss Standard, have been posted by forum member 75RR. Although most of the photos were taken afocally, with 12.5KPL or Zeiss Mipro oculars and a prime camera lens.

[Hobbyst46]

Admittedly, the Zeiss Standard with its significant corrections by means of combined oculars and objectives makes it difficult to achieve aberration-free images with an eyepiece camera. Forum member MicroBob has also posted beautiful photos achieved with hybrid oculars but I am not sure about his camera sensor size.

[Cristian11]

A Toupcam type usb 3 eyepiece camera http://www.touptek.com/product/showprod ... g=en&id=78 is lensless and goes in place of an ocular. You connect to a laptop/pc and view images on the larger screen so you get to check the image/video and the focus ahead of taking a picture or recording a video. It's probably the best option if you don't have a trinocular.

Louise

Thank you. I will have a look on that. There are so many variants out there for microscope cams. I will take interest in this one to see how it may go with my antique scope lol

[LouiseScot]

A Toupcam type usb 3 eyepiece camera http://www.touptek.com/product/showprod ... g=en&id=78 is lensless and goes in place of an ocular. You connect to a laptop/pc and view images on the larger screen so you get to check the image/video and the focus ahead of taking a picture or recording a video. It's probably the best option if you don't have a trinocular.

Louise

Thank you. I will have a look on that. There are so many variants out there for microscope cams. I will take interest in this one to see how it may go with my antique scope lol

Um, after Hobbyst's post above it looks like there's a need for corrective optics which would be bypassed by a simple eyepiece cam so the latter may not work so well after all. Maybe see if you can find some info from someone who has achieved good images with your make and model of 'scope.
Louise

[Cristian11]

I doubt that the camera sensor size (M4/3 vs APSC) should matter to image quality, as long as the relay lens (ocular) magnification is chosen to provide good coverage of the FOV. Magnificent images, taken with an Olympus M4/3 mirrorless camera on a Zeiss Standard, have been posted by forum member 75RR. Although most of the photos were taken afocally, with 12.5KPL or Zeiss Mipro oculars and a prime camera lens.

I wonder what prime camera lens he used. Thank for the tip. I will go deeper into the rabbit hole in search for answers heh

[imkap]

I don't think you'll profit much from an action camera. Unless you use it for action, or underwater.

I have a similar setup to yours, not sure if these are better or worse than what you get:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=16028

I think distance between the sensor and the eyepiece makes a difference.
I don't think you need need a hybrid eyepiece for a smartphone, you might be better off with a 'normal' eyepiece. The hybrid is good because it makes the whole thing parfocal. when projecting directly to a sensor.

This guy knows what he is doing and he shared some wisdom about setting up with us, a different microscope but the same principle:
https://krebsmicro.com/

Here you can find nice images made with the old Zeiss optics, info about setting up and hybrid eyepieces:
https://microscopyofnature.com/

I find it harder to make a watchable image than a video...

[Cristian11]

I think you are right about the distance between the sensor and the eyepiece. I am prevented from getting the eyepiece really close due to the limitations of the adapter. I think I will have to 3D print something to hold eyepiece closer.

Your pics are really nice btw. Good job.

[imkap]

I think you are right about the distance between the sensor and the eyepiece. I am prevented from getting the eyepiece really close due to the limitations of the adapter. I think I will have to 3D print something to hold eyepiece closer.

Your pics are really nice btw. Good job.

Not sure it needs to be closer, or what is the problem you have as I've not seen the images. I don't want to point you into the wrong direction, I'm not an expert, just suggesting things I found to be helpful.
Maybe post an example image of something everyone knows about, so you may get more help.

[Cristian11]

I think you are right about the distance between the sensor and the eyepiece. I am prevented from getting the eyepiece really close due to the limitations of the adapter. I think I will have to 3D print something to hold eyepiece closer.

Your pics are really nice btw. Good job.

Not sure it needs to be closer, or what is the problem you have as I've not seen the images. I don't want to point you into the wrong direction, I'm not an expert, just suggesting things I found to be helpful.
Maybe post an example image of something everyone knows about, so you may get more help.

This is the image via direct projection or through ocular. And it is really bad.
I know how to use my GH5 and I fiddled with all the setting to no avail.
https://i.ibb.co/MfGt3R1/worm.jpg

[imkap]

It looks better visually? Did you adjust the condenser height and iris right?
Which objective is this? Did you use the flip out lens?

[Cristian11]

It looks better visually? Did you adjust the condenser height and iris right?
Which objective is this? Did you use the flip out lens?

Visually it looks perfect. Everything fine.

I've used all the possible combinations will all objectives and tried all distances with the condenser. The low magnification Plan ones are slightly better. The Neofluar 40x is crap for camera. Probably because it is not Plan.

I've noticed that I have to drastically increase the light intensity for the sensor to pick up the image. It blinds you via oculars, but the camera needs that much light. MFT sensor is well known for needing a lot of light.

I've checked 75RR Standard WL setup and he uses a trinocular head. I don't.

I either mess up somewhere or this camera simply does not like what it sees.


Later Edit.

Right so holly shait. I've mounted my f1.2 Nocticron lens on my camera, I've pointed it through the ocular, and the image is just as crisp as the one I get through the eye with a full field of view! No tunnel effect! Only problem is that...it's so damn sharp, that it sees everything, even the top slide imperfect texture, cause it looks like I have another glass over the sample.
I will post some videos soon. Finally.

[imkap]

I understand, it is difficult setup everything perfectly without a trinocular head. But I'm not sure the difference should be that big if the camera is not perfectly parfocal.

I did some images with KPL 8 eyepiece on the binocular head when I just bought the microscope and they weren't that bad. And it wasn't parfocal with viewing, the sensor distance from the eyepiece was coincidental. I even combined Jena eyepieces with Olympus or Zeiss west objectives, which are not compatible by a long shot and it was still not that bad. Just too much CA and huge planarity issues, but still it kind of worked.

Here is the thread with kind suggestions by the more experienced:
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=14827&p=117933#p117933

Camera is good, the lens are good, so it must be the setup. I think there are quite a few people here using similar lens with good results.

The worm image was shot without an eyepiece?

[Cristian11]

The worm image was taken with the eyepiece on the sensor.

But I've discovered now that camera+lens+eyepiece = amazing quality. My Nocticron lens saved me. I won't bother trying other combinations. The lens is f1.2 42.5 mm so it does wonders via eyepiece apparently.

[imkap]

The worm image was taken with the eyepiece on the sensor.

But I've discovered now that camera+lens+eyepiece = amazing quality. My Nocticron lens saved me. I won't bother trying other combinations. The lens is f1.2 42.5 mm so it does wonders via eyepiece apparently.

Great, I'm glad you found a satisfactory solution. Looking forward to seeing your footage...

[Hobbyst46]

The worm image was taken with the eyepiece on the sensor.

But I've discovered now that camera+lens+eyepiece = amazing quality. My Nocticron lens saved me. I won't bother trying other combinations. The lens is f1.2 42.5 mm so it does wonders via eyepiece apparently.

You re-discovered afocal photography. Great.
To verify that all is good, a stage micrometer will be a better specimen than a mobile animal in liquid.

Still I would be worried to get exact focus on the specimen and the TOP surface of the coverslip (if that is what your reported - forgive me if I misunderstood). Unless it was a very low mag objective.

[Cristian11]

The worm image was taken with the eyepiece on the sensor.

But I've discovered now that camera+lens+eyepiece = amazing quality. My Nocticron lens saved me. I won't bother trying other combinations. The lens is f1.2 42.5 mm so it does wonders via eyepiece apparently.

You re-discovered afocal photography. Great.
To verify that all is good, a stage micrometer will be a better specimen than a mobile animal in liquid.

Still I would be worried to get exact focus on the specimen and the TOP surface of the coverslip (if that is what your reported - forgive me if I misunderstood). Unless it was a very low mag objective.

I somehow managed to sort it out. I am no longer seeing artifacts from the cover slip. I must play a bit more with the camera settings and all. And also add a dimmer to my LED which is way too powerful. I've notices that the eyepiece has to be impeccable or else it will get picked up by the camera.

I'm finally able to enjoy the potential of the microscope, obviously thanks to a damn camera objective that costs as much as a pro entry level microscope hah. Good thing I had it.

https://i.imgur.com/xUzAFM8.mp4 this is my first raw try with it. Will refine everything.

Thank you all for the advice's and troubleshot