Thinking of buying a microscope

JimH123 said:

I also think that many objects could benefit from focus stacking and to combine with SW such as Helicon. But that would work for something moving.

Which model AmScope are you using? They have so many.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your efforts. Subject motion with live subjects is always a possibility -- given the ISO limitations of the V1 I typically end up shooting between 1/15th and 1/30th of a second.

I can certainly try focus stacking; but neither subject motion nor DOF was an issue with the coin I posted. I also trigger the camera using an IR remote, so camera shake shouldn't be an issue either.

I'm using the AmScope SM-2TZ.

It doesn't look at all bad:


Hair band, 0.1"/2-3mm diameter. Out-of-camera JPEG.

Take a look at 100%, and do look around for where the focus is sharp.

A key issue I've had is flare. I'm still trying to figure that one out.

I am using the trinocular port, but with no optics. The camera is just shoved in place there with a mechanical adapter.

Downsides:

• No aperture, less-than-razor-thin depth of field at maximum magnification (source: took a photo of a razor). Focus stacking may help.
• Flare. This is a very serious issue, actually.
• Poor corner sharpness.
• Poor bokeh.

Shutter shock is also a serious issue the way I have things mounted, but I think it could be resolved with either a better mounting, or a weight on the camera. Many photos are much less sharp than the image on the viewfinder.

Alphoid said:

It doesn't look at all bad:


Hair band, 0.1"/2-3mm diameter. Out-of-camera JPEG.

Take a look at 100%, and do look around for where the focus is sharp.

A key issue I've had is flare. I'm still trying to figure that one out.

I am using the trinocular port, but with no optics. The camera is just shoved in place there with a mechanical adapter.

Downsides:

• No aperture, less-than-razor-thin depth of field at maximum magnification (source: took a photo of a razor). Focus stacking may help.
• Flare. This is a very serious issue, actually.
• Poor corner sharpness.
• Poor bokeh.

Shutter shock is also a serious issue the way I have things mounted, but I think it could be resolved with either a better mounting, or a weight on the camera. Many photos are much less sharp than the image on the viewfinder.

Click to expand...

Try taking a picture of something completely flat so as to see the distortion near the edges.

And what camera were you using? What was its sensor size? And did you shoot this prime, i.e., no lens mounted on the camera? I suspect that perhaps a full frame camera may have vignetting issues. Perhaps an APS-C sized sensor won't vignetting issue.

And a camera with silent, electronic shutter, would solve the vibration problem.

Just for comparison, here is an image from a Dino-Lite AM413T 10x - 50x, plus 220x. This little camera is only 1280 x 1024 pixels. These images were sharpened using Piccure+ 3.0 which seems to add additional DOF to the image.

I am interested in knowing if the Amscope has better image quality than this tiny little camera. http://www.microscope.com/digital-microscopes/dino-lite/

I bought the stand and do not do this hand held. As you can see when blown up to full size, the few number of pixels limits the resolution.



And here is the bottom side of a rose leaf that has a rust problem.

JimH123 said:

Try taking a picture of something completely flat so as to see the distortion near the edges.

Click to expand...

I have. Edges are pretty unsharp. It's not a problem viewing optically, but in a photo, it looks less ideal.

JimH123 said:

And what camera were you using? What was its sensor size?

Click to expand...

12MP MFT camera from Olympus. Easiest camera in my collection to adapt. I'd rather use one of the A-mount cameras, but the adapters are a little less conveniently available. I'm actually still looking around for the right thing. I got C-mount and T-mount adapters. Neither is correct. I think I need a 30mm tube adapter, which I wasn't quickly finding.

The AmScope adapters with optics have horrible reviews. Higher quality non-AmScope adapters, I'm only finding in forum posts, and not for sale.

JimH123 said:

And did you shoot this prime, i.e., no lens mounted on the camera?

Click to expand...

Correct. Mechanical adapter. Scope came with an aluminum tube. It was the same diameter as C-mount. I pressure fit a c-mount-to-MFT adapter to it.

JimH123 said:

I suspect that perhaps a full frame camera may have vignetting issues. Perhaps an APS-C sized sensor won't vignetting issue.

Click to expand...

I don't know about vignetting, but sharpness falls off quickly off-center.

JimH123 said:

And a camera with silent, electronic shutter, would solve the vibration problem.

Click to expand...

Of course. But I'm not buying a new camera. If any of Panasonic, Sony A-mount, Olympus, or ancient Canon support electronic shutter, I'll switch.

I did try taking a video. That worked very well, actually, but limited resolution to 720p. The Panasonic will give 1080p, though.

Of all the problems, this one I'm least worried about right now. Simply attaching a big weight should solve it. When that doesn't work, I'll worry.

JimH123 said:

I am interested in knowing if the Amscope has better image quality than this tiny little camera. http://www.microscope.com/digital-microscopes/dino-lite/

Click to expand...

My impression is it would have worse image quality in the typical case, and better image quality with work. But I haven't played with it enough to know yet.

With careful shopping a good Wild scope could be purchased for $1,000.

How much did you save by buying this Amscope?

Do you feel that the savings was worth it?

Can you live with this quality?

roccoriley said:

How much did you save by buying this Amscope?

Click to expand...

I spent $560. But it's a $300 scope, with $210 worth of accessories. 20x eyepieces, LED top/bottom illumination, 0.5x and 2x Barlow lenses.

roccoriley said:

Do you feel that the savings was worth it?

Click to expand...

Yes, but more in terms of time than money (or, I guess, time isn't free). If someone were to ship me a plan apochromatic Wild scope for $1000 in good condition, it would have been a no-brainer. I looked on both eBay and Craigslist, and there weren't Wilds I wanted to buy -- you couldn't tell what eyepieces you were getting or whether it was complete, let alone whether you were getting a normal, apo, or planapo version. Shopping on eBay for weeks or keeping an eye on Craigslist would not have been worthwhile.

roccoriley said:

Can you live with this quality?

Click to expand...

Definitely.

I compared to photos from Wild scopes. Wild scopes vary quite a bit in optical quality. Unless I bought a plan apochromat, I don't think the optical quality would have been any better. The mechanical quality definitely would have been. This one has a number of issues, especially with the stand (the glass where you bought the object you're looking at isn't quite centered, and the scope doesn't go quite low enough and barely goes high enough). It came with one screw unscrewed, and there's a slight noise when focusing. A Wild would last a lifetime. This one? I'm not so sure.

But overall, this has a trinocular port, which is convenient. It has much easier-to-buy accessories, at least in 2016. And at the price? I'm quite happy with it as a normal household scope. I've been having a great time looking at things.

If I were to do a mulligan, I would have bought a base model without the Barlow lenses or the 20x eyepiece and saved a couple hundred bucks. But I don't feel bad enough about it to return it.

The things I would definitely pay for, I don't think the Wild has available either:

1. Modern, multicoated optics for less flare
2. An aperture for controlling depth-of-field vs. light/resolution
3. More control over direction of the light
4. Better adapters for camera

Alphoid said:

12MP MFT camera from Olympus. Easiest camera in my collection to adapt. I'd rather use one of the A-mount cameras, but the adapters are a little less conveniently available. I'm actually still looking around for the right thing. I got C-mount and T-mount adapters. Neither is correct. I think I need a 30mm tube adapter, which I wasn't quickly finding.

The AmScope adapters with optics have horrible reviews. Higher quality non-AmScope adapters, I'm only finding in forum posts, and not for sale.

Click to expand...

Is this the adapter you are looking for?

Interesting.

Honestly, I don't know. It's not a Leica microscope. It has a hole, about 1.5" in inner diameter, with a set screw. Then there's a tube, whose length is adjustable, which fits there, with a groove for the set screw. It looks a lot like that adapter. On the other end, there's a tube with about a 1" outer diameter. That fits perfectly to a C-mount adapter, but doesn't have a thread, so it's a force fit. I'm actually not sure what that part is for.

The adapter you posted states maximum diameter is 34.3mm. I think the ones which are compatible are 1.5"/37mm, maybe? I'm really not sure. But I did measure the tube my scope came with, and it was 1.5" OD as well. It's a pretty tight fit, one tube into the other.

Alphoid said:

Interesting.

Honestly, I don't know. It's not a Leica microscope. It has a hole, about 1.5" in inner diameter, with a set screw. Then there's a tube, whose length is adjustable, which fits there, with a groove for the set screw. It looks a lot like that adapter. On the other end, there's a tube with about a 1" outer diameter. That fits perfectly to a C-mount adapter, but doesn't have a thread, so it's a force fit. I'm actually not sure what that part is for.

The adapter you posted states maximum diameter is 34.3mm. I think the ones which are compatible are 1.5"/37mm, maybe? I'm really not sure. But I did measure the tube my scope came with, and it was 1.5" OD as well. It's a pretty tight fit, one tube into the other.

Click to expand...

It is certainly not clear what that center post is. Sounds like AmScope's own design.

Some adapters:

1) This adapter goes from T2 which is 42mm. You would need a T-ring for the camera you want to adapt. If you look at the top item on the page, you see a picture. The bottom end is a female T2 connector. To screw in a T-Ring, you need a male-to-male gender changer (next item)


2) It says Out of Stock. There are others who probably make this also.


3) And you need a T-Ring. Here is one such example:


What this get you do is an adapter that fits A-Mount cameras that ends with a male C-adapter.

So I got to thinking. The major problems I have with the scope appear to be depth-of-field, as well as shutter shock/scope shake.

As an experiment, I added an aperture stop. I made a hole in a piece of paper, and placed it below where I put the camera. As expected, two things happened:

1. The image got a heck of a lot sharper. It looks much better now

2. The image got a lot of vignetting

I assume if I wanted to do this, I'd need the stop much, much lower into the scope. Is this something one could do DIY? Or will everything get out of calibration if I tinker with it, never to be usable again? I see apertures being sold on eBay for 20 bucks.

Alphoid said:

So I got to thinking. The major problems I have with the scope appear to be depth-of-field, as well as shutter shock/scope shake.

As an experiment, I added an aperture stop. I made a hole in a piece of paper, and placed it below where I put the camera. As expected, two things happened:

I assume if I wanted to do this, I'd need the stop much, much lower into the scope. Is this something one could do DIY? Or will everything get out of calibration if I tinker with it, never to be usable again? I see apertures being sold on eBay for 20 bucks.

Click to expand...

Interesting results! You are correct, the aperture needs to be right behind the objective lens. Otherwise, it is merely obstructing a portion of the image you are capturing, and you get the vignetting.

Actually, I am surprised that you are seeing sharper results. Where you are reducing the aperture is out so far that it is only blocking some of the light from reaching the camera which is the vignetting you see. And of course, the area with the worst distortion happens to be what is hidden by the vignetting, so perhaps that is why it looks somewhat better.

As for calibration, this sounds like something you add when you want it. As long as the camera can still achieve focus, you should be OK.

Well, it's a little bit more continuous than that. If I have a simple lens, and I put it right at the lens (on either side), I control the aperture. If I put it right in front of the subject or sensor, I get vignetting. In between, I get a little bit of each. The camera adapter is a pretty long tube, so I thought I'd have some effect on depth-of-field, and it did.

It's not reducing distortion, or just hiding portions of the image by vignetting. As far as I can tell, it's exactly a simple increase in depth-of-field. I get more of the image in-focus, so it looks nicer. The image really did look a lot better, and the vignetting actually didn't hurt (the subject was in the center, and it gave nice framing).

I came up with the idea because the scope has a pull switch which moves the image between the left eye and the trinocular port. When I pulled that switch, the depth-of-field increased while it was switching. I thought there was no way that was in the optimal position for an aperture, so I thought I'd try how far out I could go.

eBay has a ton of aperture adapters like these:


I'll try more with paper before buying one, but ideally, I'd add one of these inside the microscope. Although in practice, it sounds like it might just be too complex.

Alphoid said:

I'm thinking of buying a trinocular stereo microscope. I'd like to look at interesting things and perhaps take a few photos with it.

Any advice on what to look for?

Click to expand...

How's the microscope working now that you have had some time with it?

JimH123 said:

How's the microscope working now that you have had some time with it?

Click to expand...

• Great household scope. Well worth the purchase. We're looking at all sorts of things, and having a great time with it understanding the world.
• A few really nice photos, but not many.
• Top/bottom lighting is very helpful. As with any photography, where light comes from makes a big difference.
• I do need side lights and other lighting generally. I need to add this to it now
• I'd really need a good workflow for focus stacking to take great photos. Lack of aperture/depth-of-field is a big issue.
• I'd also need a good rig to connect it to my A-mount camera to it robustly. Right now, I kind of pressure fit an MFT camera on it. Shutter shock is a serious issue.
• Flare, bokeh, corner sharpness, etc. are all issues. It's not designed for artistic photography.
• Trinkets weren't worth it. I bought 2x and 0.5x Barlow lenses, high gain/normal eyepieces, etc. (1) The bundle price was higher than independent purchases (2) The high gain gives only a little more real resolution, has razor-thin depth-of-field, and is more annoying to work with. I should have bought the basic minimal version. Less clutter.

Overall, I'm very happy with it. If there were one thing I could add to it, it'd be an aperture stop.

Alphoid said:

JimH123 said:

How's the microscope working now that you have had some time with it?

Click to expand...

• Great household scope. Well worth the purchase. We're looking at all sorts of things, and having a great time with it understanding the world.
• A few really nice photos, but not many.
• Top/bottom lighting is very helpful. As with any photography, where light comes from makes a big difference.
• I do need side lights and other lighting generally. I need to add this to it now
• I'd really need a good workflow for focus stacking to take great photos. Lack of aperture/depth-of-field is a big issue.
• I'd also need a good rig to connect it to my A-mount camera to it robustly. Right now, I kind of pressure fit an MFT camera on it. Shutter shock is a serious issue.
• Flare, bokeh, corner sharpness, etc. are all issues. It's not designed for artistic photography.
• Trinkets weren't worth it. I bought 2x and 0.5x Barlow lenses, high gain/normal eyepieces, etc. (1) The bundle price was higher than independent purchases (2) The high gain gives only a little more real resolution, has razor-thin depth-of-field, and is more annoying to work with. I should have bought the basic minimal version. Less clutter.

Overall, I'm very happy with it. If there were one thing I could add to it, it'd be an aperture stop.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a camera with a silent electronic shutter might be useful.

And wondering if it might be easier adapting a M42 type mount sonce M42 adapters for cameras are easy and cheap to find.

Would an adapter such as this be useful:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/C-MOUNT-len...387947?hash=item27f719cdab:g:JBUAAOSw~gRV5WcP

Along with this to adapt to the A-mount camera:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/AF-Confirm-...651941?hash=item3a6b5231a5:g:ByEAAOxy4t1SnZAq

The first item has female threads to mate to a tube with C-Mount male threads which then screw into the 2nd adapter to attach to the camera.

M42 has been around for a long time and there are lots of things that adapt to M42, which is a screw in type approach. And all cameras have a M42 type adapter.

**************************

I have returned to edit. I found a YouTube video on attaching a DSLR. Please note that a Nikon camera is being used. The adapter being used screws into a standard T-mount ring.


Here is one example of a Sony A-mount T-ring: (There are many to choose from)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/T-T2-Mount-...374828?hash=item2eed752c2c:g:gk8AAOSwZ8ZW~PJs

Here is an adapter for Canon. The Nikon and Olympus are just like this, and only T-ring changes. They supply the T-Ring. But if you have the Sony T-Ring, you just replace the provided T-Ring and use the Sony T-Ring, and you're done.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/AmScope-CA-...167256?hash=item2c6d6920d8:g:GDYAAOSw5ZBWQTsr