Recommendation Camera for Zeiss Axiovert 25CFL with 1x Adapter

[highbeta]

Hello,

I am looking for a microscope camera for a Zeiss Axiovert 25CFL Microscope that is already equipped with a 1X C-Mount Adapter(1108-963). I would prefer a permanent mounted USB camera over a DSLR solution. The main purpose will be florescent microscopy with 10X A-Plan Objective.

I already played with borrowed Amscope MU500 camera but with its Sensor Size: 9.74x7.96mm it obviously just got a small FOV. As far as I learned for the available 1X adapter a 1inch sensor camera would fit best, is that correct?

Can someone recommend a dedicated camera that would fit to this system.

Thanks a lot for your help.

[Scarodactyl]

Typically 1x adapters are meant for 1" sensors. Maybe one of the options from risingcam would work. It is also possible to just permanently mount a dslr, sometimes at a lower cost.

[Alexander]

1'' sensor will fit well.
Most dedicated microscope cameras are not sensitive enough for fluorescence work and those who are cost a fortune.

This is one from the cheaper end of scale:

https://de.aliexpress.com/item/32836591 ... pt=glo2deu

[Scarodactyl]

That will depend on your objectives and dye. I set up a friend's lab with a leitz I refurbished with led lamphouses and a dslr for shooting and it gives them at least adequate results for their research.

[Alexander]

That will depend on your objectives and dye. I set up a friend's lab with a leitz I refurbished with led lamphouses and a dslr for shooting and it gives them at least adequate results for their research.

Exactly. But a consumer DSLR is much more sensitive than 99 % of all dedicated microscope cameras.
The A-Plan objectives are poor performers with UV light anyway. They do ok with excitation light in the visible range.

[Hobbyst46]

Some Olympus fluorescence-sensitive microscope cameras have a small sensor, 1/2.5" I think, and are meant to be used with a ~0.5X reducing lens for decent field coverage.
The following might be somewhat relevant:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=18847&p=138958&hili ... am#p138958

[Topcode]

Exactly. But a consumer DSLR is much more sensitive than 99 % of all dedicated microscope cameras.

source?

For example, the Nikon D6 based on data here has the same read noise at 400000 ISO, as an imx 585 does based on data here(yes thats for an astronomy camera, but some microscope cameras use identical sensors), at 210 db gain. At which the D6 has a .7 stop dynamic range, and the 585, 12 stops. Ill give the D6 some slack, cause its pixels are about 5x the area, and its a much larger sensor, but still. And its not like you can use that extra area when almost all microscopes cannot illuminate that much, or even an aps-c size.

[Alexander]

source?

Read sources carefully. Did you find any proof that the posted data of IMX 585 was at 400.000 ISO? What are the sensitivity and noise level of the D6 at 100 ISO?

Just do the test. Compare the cameras in real live not in sales literature.

[Topcode]

source?

Read sources carefully. Did you find any proof that the posted data of IMX 585 was at 400.000 ISO? What are the sensitivity and noise level of the D6 at 100 ISO?

Just do the test. Compare the cameras in real live not in sales literature.

It was not at 400k iso, as dedicated cameras are not measured in ISO, and that wouldn't be the equivalent of 400k ISO either(from what i can tell, it would be closer to a few thousand ISO, but I am not certain on the conversion for that) (also i mistyped, it was values for 21 db not 210db). However, I assume you are aware of the reason why we increase ISO, which is for lower noise, at the expense of full well. If the 585 is already at the same noise with much lower amplification, there is absolutely zero purpose to amplify further, as you only destroy your dynamic range.

I will entertain your ideas about lower ISO performance however. At 100 ISO, the D6 has just over 9 stops according to photostophotos, at a read noise of 40e. Ill give them the benefit of the doubt, and say it actually has 10 stops and the measurement was pessimistic. That places full well capacity at just over 40ke. The 585 has 46ke full well at its lowest gain, and 12e of read noise. The specs on the D6 are quite respectable, don't get me wrong on that, however, they are not better suited for microscopes than a dedicated camera is. They focus much more on having a large sensor size to accommodate the expected sensor size for typical professional photography, and make sacrifices in other places. In the same vein, dedicated microscope cameras are not very good for typical photography, as they sacrifice sensor size for different characteristics.

I HAVE tested my imx 585s and their read noises and full wells have lined up effectively identically with the results published on the website I posted. Photos to photons is a generally considered a trusted source for this information, but since I do not have any DSLRs, I cannot personally test any, and so I cannot verify that. If you have any DSLRs you are absolutely welcome to measure your cameras performance using available software for that, and I can run another test of my sensors sometime soon since I don't know if I kept the results from my previous tests.

[highbeta]

Thank you all for your comments. My takeaway message is that I will go back to my original setup with a Canon M50 which is used for other purposes too. I just need to do some post processing (croping) on the pictures to get the image section I need with the existing 1x adapter.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10877
Maybe I can find an 1.6x adapter reasonably priced with a bit of luck one day.

Maybe this 1inch sensor RisingCam could be an option for the future?
https://www.aliexpress.us/item/22518325 ... 4itemAdapt
But from what I learned, the overall picture information/quality may not be much better from the above setup.

Another dedicated Canon M50 Body permanently attached for convenience could be even more economic.
There is still one advantage I see with the dedicated microscope cameras and that is the software with all adjustments out of the box that I obviously can't find on the Canon EOS Utility software.

BTW: The current fluorescent dyes used are GFP and MCherry. I don't think sensitivity has been a big problem even with a standard AmScope MU500 cam on other setups. But I am not an expert on this particular research.

Thanks again for the help.

[Scarodactyl]

A teleconverter would likely work fine.

[Alexander]

Maybe this 1inch sensor RisingCam could be an option for the future?
https://www.aliexpress.us/item/22518325 ... 4itemAdapt
But from what I learned, the overall picture information/quality may not be much better from the above setup.

I do own exactly that camera for use on a Zeiss Axioskop. While it performs well in bright field it is a sucker for fluorescence work. The Sony IMX183 is not exactly the most sensitive sensor available. My Canon camera does a much better job there. The difference in picture quality is significant.