Re: DSLR microphotography
- From: David Littlewood <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:52:42 +0000
In article <h95fo1hr413qegsmo9gfucokgha3i79vio@xxxxxxx>, John A. Stovall <johnastovall@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 22:39:23 GMT, Volvox <volvox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm looking around for a DSLR for use with a microscope.
To cut down on vibration I would like to have a mirror lock. (I will be using x20 and x40 objectives.)
Also a remote shutter release would be an advantage.
I have read about iso settinga, and would also think of using a high value setting - say iso 1600. I understand what noise is, but can find little information comparing different cameras in this respect; ie which cameras are more noisy than others.
Any suggestions as to suitable models to look at gratefully received.
Take a look at the Canon 20A. Yes, A not D.
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos20da.html
Mirror lock up and live preview.
Canon is known for it's low noise at high ISO's.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/20d-part2.shtml
First, it's the 20Da.
Second, it costs over twice as much as the 20D.
Third, it needs to be fitted with an IR filter for most uses; it is optimised for astrophotography and in particular the H alpha IR light.
Fourth, Canon state the live preview is only for use with very dim images; I have not seen any information confirming that it can be used in this application (though it would be very good to have it so confirmed).
To the OP
You will find more information on the web if you search using the correct term, photomicrography. SLRs of any kind (digital or film) are not necessarily the best devices to use for PM work. However, they are perfectly practicable.
The Canon 10D and 20D are satisfactory; they have mirror lock-up (which, as you suggest, is essential) and they will meter quite happily when used without a lens fitted. They use a CMOS sensor which has a very good low noise performance. I have used my 10D with extreme ND filtration and 30 second exposures to test this, and the images are perfectly usable. If you are on a tight budget and don't particularly need to use the DSLR for non-PM work, then the 10D has more resolution than you will be able to get from your microscope, and a second hand one will be half the price of a 20D. The 20D will wildly oversample the image and waste resolution.
The main drawback I find with a DSLR on a microscope is focussing. The focus screens on most AF cameras are very poor for manual focussing; even using a Canon right-angle finder with 2.5x magnification it is not easy to get really spot-on focussing. In many ways a good compact is easier to use and will give equally good results in most circumstances. I use a Nikon Coolpix 995; the later 4500 may be better (4MP). This family is very popular in the PM community, and you will find plenty of information on the web about using them on a microscope. The video output is very useful for focussing.
Tell us what kind of subjects you will be using it for, and what you want to do with the output and we can maybe give more specific help.
Also, you will find far more expertise in sci.techniques.microscopy and the Yahoo Microscopes group.
David -- David Littlewood .
- References:
- DSLR microphotography
- From: Volvox
- DSLR microphotography
- Prev by Date: Re: Canon 20D or Nikon D70s?
- Next by Date: Re: microscopy
- Previous by thread: DSLR microphotography
- Next by thread: Re: DSLR microphotography
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
