lmscope.com digital camera adapter for c-mount

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Xin Zhang - 24 Aug 2006 19:40 GMT

Hi, there,

I am looking for an adapter that could connect a digital camera to our
Olympus BX-60 microscope. The microscope currently has a video camera on
it via a c-mount tube (U-PMTVC).

The digital camera we are interested in is Canon powershot A620/630. The
rotating screen and video capability look very good.

Then we found a Austria company making digital camera adapters for
c-mount at http://www.lmscope.com/index_e.html

Does anybody have any experience with this company? Or has anybody
connected the BX-60 with a Canon powershot A620 successfully?

Any idea will be appreciated.

Xin Zhang
**************************************
Materials Science and Engineering
University of Maryland at College Park
**************************************

Reply to this Message

GTO - 25 Aug 2006 04:40 GMT

Xin:

The combination of imaging device and microscope must be well balanced. Sure
you can connect a quick-shoot, low-cost digital camera to a world-class
microscope that belongs to the top of the line of light microscopy. This is
rather trivial. But such an approach sounds completely ridiculous to me. If
you intended to connect a Canon Powershot to an old, used Ortholux, I would
see the merit in such a project. Then you want to do it with the absolute
minimum in cost. But if you have the possibility to use a BX-60 then you
should give yourself a brake and buy a good digital recording device from
one of the many vendors who have fine-tuned their equipment to produce the
best possible results with such a great scope.

Now the good news is that I know of some really good companies that sell
topnotch equipment that even our Universities can afford:

1) http://www.pixera.com
2) http://www.diaginc.com/
3) http://www.qimaging.com/

These are some of my favorites. Check them out. They most certainly will not
disappoint.

Gregor

> Hi, there,
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> University of Maryland at College Park
> **************************************

Reply to this Message

Gary G - 26 Aug 2006 20:43 GMT

>Hi, there,
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>University of Maryland at College Park
>**************************************

Why would you put a consumer camera on a BX-60? Why not just sell the
BX-60 for a nice chunck of money and buy a used BH-2 and then connect
the Canon?

I have a new Pixera 600CL 5.8M pixel cooled CCD camera available for
$5700 ($7000 list) and a new 150CL 1.5M pixel cooled CCD camera for
$4250 ($5000 list). In a couple of weeks, I should have one each demo
camera like these. 600CL would be $3950 and the 150CL would be $2150.
These come with camera, CD software, cable and PCI board for PC.

You will need an adapter U-PM.5 from Olympus to handle the larger size
of the Pixera cameras over that of a TV camera.

These cameras are meant to be on microscopes (trinoc heads) and
deliver excellent images down to nearly no light.

Contact me if you are interested.

Gary Gaugler, Ph.D.
Microtechnics, Inc.
Granite Bay, CA 95746
916.791.8191
gary@microtechnics dot com

Reply to this Message

Richard J Kinch - 27 Aug 2006 07:37 GMT

> These cameras are meant to be on microscopes (trinoc heads) and
> deliver excellent images down to nearly no light.

What exactly are the difference between such an imager and a higher-
resolution, high-end DSLR? Speed? Color depth?

Reply to this Message

GTO - 28 Aug 2006 00:20 GMT

There are many differences between a high-end DSLR and a dedicated,
professional imaging device for microscopy. I use both. But the DSLR, I only
use as an amateur.

The dedicated, professional devices, which just have been mentioned, offer
60dB S/N and guaranteed zero pixel defects for starters. No silly issues
with vibrations. Excellent focusing abilities due to great SW and great
real-time preview. And a color depth that is based on a 14 or even 16-bit
A/D. The right combination of pixelsize and size of the image sensor make
life easier so that a simple 1x is perfect for the 1.5MP and a 0.5x is
perfect for the 5MP model of this type of camera. Hence, no fudging around
with the right relay lens.

A high-end DSLR is only connected to a scope in "amateur circles" (not meant
in the discrediting sense!) mainly due to cost reasons. The amateur may
already own such a device and would like to use it on his scope. What a bout
flash photography with the high-end models? - You don't need flash till
about 0.5 microsecond exposure since most of the high-end, dedicated image
devices can expose from very long to about 0.5usec. Of course, most 5MP,
dedicated devices can only be used at its CCD limited resolution, which is
about 1.5MP for life-preview, which is obvious.

So, if you need to see sharp ciliates of your Paramecium at high resolution
while still imaging the entire protozoa (e.g. using a 40x phase contrast
lens with a FOV 25mm), you will need a large image sensor. Then, and only
then when large FOV and high resolution is required, you will default to a
decent DSLR and go through the pain of attaching this correctly to your
scope. Again, amateurs have time to do this correctly. Professionals cannot.
They need to work with their scopes to make living ;-)

Did you forget to mention something?

Thanks,

Gregor

>> These cameras are meant to be on microscopes (trinoc heads) and
>> deliver excellent images down to nearly no light.
>
> What exactly are the difference between such an imager and a higher-
> resolution, high-end DSLR? Speed? Color depth?

Reply to this Message

Gary G - 28 Aug 2006 05:46 GMT

>Hi, there,
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>University of Maryland at College Park
>**************************************

Reply to this Message

will9198@bellsouth.net - 30 Aug 2006 02:12 GMT

I took this picture of human blood cells using my digital camera. I have a
Olympus BH2 with a trinocular head. The picture quality isn't too bad but it
could be better:
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v87/will9198/blood.jpg[/IMG]

What do you think? How does the picture quality comare to the more expensive
cameras? This is the first microscopic picture that I've taken.

> Hi, there,
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> University of Maryland at College Park
> **************************************

Reply to this Message

GTO - 30 Aug 2006 05:41 GMT

A professional, dedicated imaging device is not necessary to make
outstanding photomicrographs. There are other reasons why to choose such a
device.

Looking at your image, I see red blood cells. The objects are recognizable.

To make good photomicrographs, one must follow certain guidelines. I listed
a few below:
1) Vignetting should be avoided (or, at least, it should be cut away)
2) The right balance between resolution and contrast must be found. A
difficult but necessary task. The aperture must not be closed too much.
3) Background correction. This can either be accomplished with in-camera
white balance correction or in post processing.

Now, I am not commenting on your image more than to say that your attempt to
start photomicrography is promissing. A start is a start and nobody should
discourage you in making gradual progress. In time, you will find your
style. Just like in other types of photography, photomicrography is a
combination of art and technical knowhow.

Last but not least I quote one of my favorit American writers:

"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people
always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become
great." - Mark Twain

Gregor

>I took this picture of human blood cells using my digital camera. I have a
>Olympus BH2 with a trinocular head. The picture quality isn't too bad but
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>> University of Maryland at College Park
>> **************************************

Reply to this Message

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Optics / August 2006

lmscope.com digital camera adapter for c-mount