Looking for digital camera for my microscope

[Bugone]

Looking for a digital camera for Watson microscope got about 200.00 pound to play a round with any ideas on with camrea will be good for around that amount of money thank bugone

[gekko]

you seem to be taking pretty good pictures, so why do you want to change?

[JimT]

What model of Watson?

[Bugone]

It's Watson micro system 70 microscope it's about 1970s

[JimT]

OK. So given that it is a monocular how would you take images with a better camera?

You might want to think about a scope upgrade and then a different camera.

My humble opinion.

JimT

[75RR]

I believe Bugone's Watson micro system 70 microscope has a binocular head and he is using the camera in his telephone.

I would suggest a point and shoot with an optical zoom function and a compact digital camera mount.
If possible borrow several cameras from friends and relatives to try out - some work better than others.

See link for one type of camera mount, have a look in ebay for others.

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/art ... aptor.html

[rnabholz]

As some here know, I have been using a phone afocally for my photos and videos.

The key to consistent results is to mount the phone rather than handhold.

I use the same mount that 75RR links above, with the addition of one of these inexpensive phone to tripod adapters:

Tackform Tripod Adapter for All Cell Phones https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00VTVPETG/re ... Cwb2FF2QG1

The capabilities offered by a recent model, higher end phone can compete very capably with much more elaborate traditional set ups. I have used the compact camera afocal approach, and it works quite well, but I find that I prefer the phone in terms of ease of use.

In any case, if you own a decent phone, the two adapters discussed above should only run you about $30 total, and will make a huge improvement in ease of use and quality and consistency.

Good luck

Rod

[gekko]

As some here know, I have been using a phone afocally for my photos and videos.

The key to consistent results is to mount the phone rather than handhold.

I use the same mount that 75RR links above, with the addition of one of these inexpensive phone to tripod adapters:

Tackform Tripod Adapter for All Cell Phones https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00VTVPETG/re ... Cwb2FF2QG1

The capabilities offered by a recent model, higher end phone can compete very capably with much more elaborate traditional set ups. I have used the compact camera afocal approach, and it works quite well, but I find that I prefer the phone in terms of ease of use.

In any case, if you own a decent phone, the two adapters discussed above should only run you about $30 total, and will make a huge improvement in ease of use and quality and consistency.

Good luck

Rod

I would like to add that Rod's excellent images speak for themselves.

[charlie]

In any case, if you own a decent phone, the two adapters discussed above should only run you about $30 total, and will make a huge improvement in ease of use and quality and consistency. Rod

I would like to add that Rod's excellent images speak for themselves.

I would like to add that most of you are paying more for cell phones these days that I ever thought of spending on a camera!

But I agree the cell phones take fine images it seems.

[rnabholz]

As some here know, I have been using a phone afocally for my photos and videos.

The key to consistent results is to mount the phone rather than handhold.

I use the same mount that 75RR links above, with the addition of one of these inexpensive phone to tripod adapters:

Tackform Tripod Adapter for All Cell Phones https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00VTVPETG/re ... Cwb2FF2QG1

The capabilities offered by a recent model, higher end phone can compete very capably with much more elaborate traditional set ups. I have used the compact camera afocal approach, and it works quite well, but I find that I prefer the phone in terms of ease of use.

In any case, if you own a decent phone, the two adapters discussed above should only run you about $30 total, and will make a huge improvement in ease of use and quality and consistency.

Good luck

Rod

I would like to add that Rod's excellent images speak for themselves.

Thank you Gekko, that is very nice of you.

[rnabholz]

In any case, if you own a decent phone, the two adapters discussed above should only run you about $30 total, and will make a huge improvement in ease of use and quality and consistency. Rod

I would like to add that Rod's excellent images speak for themselves.

I would like to add that most of you are paying more for cell phones these days that I ever thought of spending on a camera!

But I agree the cell phones take fine images it seems.

You make a good point Charlie, and these days you can pick up a great compact digital camera for less money than ever, no doubt due in no small part to the phone craze.

I would not argue that it makes sense to go out and spend $400 on a phone for Micro-Photography, but there are a lot of people who have a perfectly capable device that already lives in their pocket.

One other small point, the ergonomics of using a phone with the adapters above is hard to beat. Pull your head away from the eyepiece, clamp the adapter on the tube, use the screen to tweak the focus and press the button. Unclamp, remove and your eye is back at the eyepiece without ever leaving your seat. Slick.

That's my 4 cents....

[Bugone]

Thank you for all of your replys I stick to my phone for now thank you

[charlie]

Thank you for all of your replys I stick to my phone for now thank you

For those wishing another fairly reasonable option, with a little patience, a nice dslr can be had on ebay. For me, a $150 Canon 500D (T1i) and a $15 mount seemed a better route. I especially think the "live view" is a valuable and fun. In the live view mode, it also has a silent mode for vibration free imaging. (The down side is, I have found the camera to be fun in general and have spent a few hundred more dollars on lenses.

[gekko]

My 2 cents' worth: As I see it, if you are not happy with the cell-phone camera (which to my eyes is giving excellent results), I would go for a good USB camera. I think a DSLR mounted on one eyetube of the binocular scope will make it at best very inconvenient to look through the other eyepiece. On the other hand, if you think you'll be happy looking at the image on the computer monitor without the need to look through the eyepiece, then go for it. Not having experience in this area, the delay, say between focusing the microscope or selecting the area to look at and seeing the effect on the screen may be more or less objectionable. Keep in mind, though, that a DSLR is heavy, and if it will be supported by the eyetube, it may put too much stress on the microscope, so I would plan to support it independently of the microscope (clamp(s), tripod, etc.) if I were you. Others will, hopefully, give you better advice.