It does 30fps at 512x512Pretty good so long as you're not doing sports or action microscopy ;-)I’m using scan heads when I’m after high optical res with light.In any case, very often in microscopy diffraction defines the resolution obtainable, which is why techniques such as electron microscopy were developed. I'm not sure that the SC180 (or even the SC-180) would be of very much use for electron microscopy.for this particular application, a large field of view was important.No, because for microscopy, resolution is usually of a paramount importance.because it has about half the diagonal dimension? The magical scaling factor which makes everything perfectNo, but the SC180 would be much better.I have just ordered my first Olympus camera: the UC90. They told me it wil revolutionize my imaging. Are you saying it is merely marketing fluff?
--
Ride easy, William.
Bob
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Significant progress in sensors may favor 1", APS-C and M43 cameras
- Thread starter jpzundel
- Start date
Again a completely useless response. I was answering to Sergey, about what is important in microscopy, magnification or resolution (resolution as in the shortest distance between two points on a specimen that can still be distinguished). Not a word about a pixel count.Go to Microscopy 201 and you discover that resolution and pixel count, in this application, are two different things.No. Laymen think magnification is important, but in reality, it's all about resolution. Microscopy 101.Not magnification?No, because for microscopy, resolution is usually of a paramount importance.because it has about half the diagonal dimension? The magical scaling factor which makes everything perfectNo, but the SC180 would be much better.I have just ordered my first Olympus camera: the UC90. They told me it wil revolutionize my imaging. Are you saying it is merely marketing fluff?
But, hey, anything to get you quicker to the 60000th post.
bobn2
Forum Pro
Well, you were recommending an 18MP camera as opposed to a 9MP one, so you were talking about pixel count. And in the end, neither pixel count nor pixel size determines 'the shortest distance between two points that can still be distinguished. That, on a microscope, is diffraction.Again a completely useless response. I was answering to Sergey, about what is important in microscopy, magnification or resolution (resolution as in the shortest distance between two points on a specimen that can still be distinguished). Not a word about a pixel count.Go to Microscopy 201 and you discover that resolution and pixel count, in this application, are two different things.No. Laymen think magnification is important, but in reality, it's all about resolution. Microscopy 101.Not magnification?No, because for microscopy, resolution is usually of a paramount importance.because it has about half the diagonal dimension? The magical scaling factor which makes everything perfectNo, but the SC180 would be much better.I have just ordered my first Olympus camera: the UC90. They told me it wil revolutionize my imaging. Are you saying it is merely marketing fluff?
You seem to be quite obsessive about my post count. The main reason that I have that many posts is that I spend more time than I should arguing with mouthy ignoramuses.
bobn2
Forum Pro
How's the AF tracking?It does 30fps at 512x512Pretty good so long as you're not doing sports or action microscopy ;-)I’m using scan heads when I’m after high optical res with light.In any case, very often in microscopy diffraction defines the resolution obtainable, which is why techniques such as electron microscopy were developed. I'm not sure that the SC180 (or even the SC-180) would be of very much use for electron microscopy.for this particular application, a large field of view was important.No, because for microscopy, resolution is usually of a paramount importance.because it has about half the diagonal dimension? The magical scaling factor which makes everything perfectNo, but the SC180 would be much better.I have just ordered my first Olympus camera: the UC90. They told me it wil revolutionize my imaging. Are you saying it is merely marketing fluff?
Not with Sergey.Well, you were recommending an 18MP camera as opposed to a 9MP one, so you were talking about pixel count.Again a completely useless response. I was answering to Sergey, about what is important in microscopy, magnification or resolution (resolution as in the shortest distance between two points on a specimen that can still be distinguished). Not a word about a pixel count.Go to Microscopy 201 and you discover that resolution and pixel count, in this application, are two different things.No. Laymen think magnification is important, but in reality, it's all about resolution. Microscopy 101.Not magnification?No, because for microscopy, resolution is usually of a paramount importance.because it has about half the diagonal dimension? The magical scaling factor which makes everything perfectNo, but the SC180 would be much better.I have just ordered my first Olympus camera: the UC90. They told me it wil revolutionize my imaging. Are you saying it is merely marketing fluff?
Neither pixel count nor pixel size in itself is important in that regard. Linear resolution of the sensor is important (and on a SC180 is much higher than on a UC90) and should be matched to the resolution of the microscope, if you want to capture all the information.
bobn2
Forum Pro
Erm, maybe you want to look up a the trace above. You were talking with jonasar. There was an interjection from Sergey, but it's still the same conversation...Not with Sergey.Well, you were recommending an 18MP camera as opposed to a 9MP one, so you were talking about pixel count.Again a completely useless response. I was answering to Sergey, about what is important in microscopy, magnification or resolution (resolution as in the shortest distance between two points on a specimen that can still be distinguished). Not a word about a pixel count.Go to Microscopy 201 and you discover that resolution and pixel count, in this application, are two different things.No. Laymen think magnification is important, but in reality, it's all about resolution. Microscopy 101.Not magnification?No, because for microscopy, resolution is usually of a paramount importance.because it has about half the diagonal dimension? The magical scaling factor which makes everything perfectNo, but the SC180 would be much better.I have just ordered my first Olympus camera: the UC90. They told me it wil revolutionize my imaging. Are you saying it is merely marketing fluff?
Erm, what is 'linear resolution' if it isn't pixel size? In fact, that also isn't fundamentally important, because you can always put in a Barlow to match the pixel size of whatever camera you have, or select the objective to match the camera. The limit to resolution, as has been said before, is diffraction.
The bit he was responding to was the snarky interjection about sensor sizes, to which he responded resolution was more important. Your exchange seems to show his response is correct (you don't seem to be disagreeing that resolution is important).Erm, maybe you want to look up a the trace above. You were talking with jonasar. There was an interjection from Sergey, but it's still the same conversation...Not with Sergey.Well, you were recommending an 18MP camera as opposed to a 9MP one, so you were talking about pixel count.Again a completely useless response. I was answering to Sergey, about what is important in microscopy, magnification or resolution (resolution as in the shortest distance between two points on a specimen that can still be distinguished). Not a word about a pixel count.Go to Microscopy 201 and you discover that resolution and pixel count, in this application, are two different things.No. Laymen think magnification is important, but in reality, it's all about resolution. Microscopy 101.Not magnification?No, because for microscopy, resolution is usually of a paramount importance.because it has about half the diagonal dimension? The magical scaling factor which makes everything perfectNo, but the SC180 would be much better.I have just ordered my first Olympus camera: the UC90. They told me it wil revolutionize my imaging. Are you saying it is merely marketing fluff?
Note he never said why the SC180 was better and certainly did not mention more pixel count as the main reason. For example if the SC180 was 8MP instead of 18MP vs the UC90 being 9MP, it wouldn't change his argument one bit.
Seems like you are trying too hard to find something to disagree with.
Last edited:
Same conversation, different subject. But what do you care, as long as it goes towards the 60000th post.Erm, maybe you want to look up a the trace above. You were talking with jonasar. There was an interjection from Sergey, but it's still the same conversation...Not with Sergey.Well, you were recommending an 18MP camera as opposed to a 9MP one, so you were talking about pixel count.Again a completely useless response. I was answering to Sergey, about what is important in microscopy, magnification or resolution (resolution as in the shortest distance between two points on a specimen that can still be distinguished). Not a word about a pixel count.Go to Microscopy 201 and you discover that resolution and pixel count, in this application, are two different things.No. Laymen think magnification is important, but in reality, it's all about resolution. Microscopy 101.Not magnification?No, because for microscopy, resolution is usually of a paramount importance.because it has about half the diagonal dimension? The magical scaling factor which makes everything perfectNo, but the SC180 would be much better.I have just ordered my first Olympus camera: the UC90. They told me it wil revolutionize my imaging. Are you saying it is merely marketing fluff?
The limit of a microscope is one thing, the limit of how much of that limit you actually see on the screen or capture on a photo is another thing, where the resolution of the sensor plays a crucial role. Of course, you know that, but that doesn't stop you from writing yet another meaningless post.
bobn2
Forum Pro
Good grief,you're obsessive.Same conversation, different subject. But what do you care, as long as it goes towards the 60000th post.Erm, maybe you want to look up a the trace above. You were talking with jonasar. There was an interjection from Sergey, but it's still the same conversation...Not with Sergey.Well, you were recommending an 18MP camera as opposed to a 9MP one, so you were talking about pixel count.Again a completely useless response. I was answering to Sergey, about what is important in microscopy, magnification or resolution (resolution as in the shortest distance between two points on a specimen that can still be distinguished). Not a word about a pixel count.Go to Microscopy 201 and you discover that resolution and pixel count, in this application, are two different things.No. Laymen think magnification is important, but in reality, it's all about resolution. Microscopy 101.Not magnification?No, because for microscopy, resolution is usually of a paramount importance.because it has about half the diagonal dimension? The magical scaling factor which makes everything perfectNo, but the SC180 would be much better.I have just ordered my first Olympus camera: the UC90. They told me it wil revolutionize my imaging. Are you saying it is merely marketing fluff?
Not really, see above. Use appropriate optical components, you can get down to the diffraction limit with any sensor. Sort of like cameras, really.
It's perfectly meaningful, the question is only whether you choose to extract the meaning or not.
bobn2
Forum Pro
To be fair to me, it was a snarky interjection to a snarky post. How come you're giving his snarky a free pass?The bit he was responding to was the snarky interjection about sensor sizes,Erm, maybe you want to look up a the trace above. You were talking with jonasar. There was an interjection from Sergey, but it's still the same conversation...Not with Sergey.Well, you were recommending an 18MP camera as opposed to a 9MP one, so you were talking about pixel count.Again a completely useless response. I was answering to Sergey, about what is important in microscopy, magnification or resolution (resolution as in the shortest distance between two points on a specimen that can still be distinguished). Not a word about a pixel count.Go to Microscopy 201 and you discover that resolution and pixel count, in this application, are two different things.No. Laymen think magnification is important, but in reality, it's all about resolution. Microscopy 101.Not magnification?No, because for microscopy, resolution is usually of a paramount importance.because it has about half the diagonal dimension? The magical scaling factor which makes everything perfectNo, but the SC180 would be much better.I have just ordered my first Olympus camera: the UC90. They told me it wil revolutionize my imaging. Are you saying it is merely marketing fluff?
But the camera doesn't in the end influence the resolution.
And you think he wasn't? Really? He has already ruled out either pixel count or pixel size as having anything to do with resolution. He's right, in the end, it has nothing to do with the camera at all. But if that's the case, why was ha arguing with jonasar (who actually seems to know a lot more about the topic than him) that he chose the wrong camera.
He's just sore that I made a joke about the model name that went over his head, now he's trying to get his own back.
Only you have to choose optical components appropriate for the subject and required field of view, not for the sensor. In real life, you are choosing sensor based on optical components you have, not optical components based on sensor you have. That is why Olympus has more than one sensor for microscopy cameras.
LOL. I was not arguing at all. I haven't a clue what he is using that camera for. It was just a funny off-topic remark, about a different sort of cameras, just as it was his.
Yeah, you didn't know there is such a camera and now you try to make that as a joke.
Last edited:
bobn2
Forum Pro
Still trying, badly, to play catch up, I see. Shall we stop this now, it's not of any use to anyone, even you.
It is for you and your goal of reaching the post no. 60000 asap.
Miguel-C
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,323
- Reaction score
- 2,685
Go to the sony FF board, they are not taking better pictures with those specs.
I would suggest that the smaller sensors are already good enough for most and that the FF sensor will always be better (than good enough) and therefore attractive to lemming fashionistas and truly serious photographers. I see every reason why Panasonic would be more than happy to relieve anyone who needs a FF ML camera body and suitable lenses of the necessary entry fees.
It is a purely commecial decision taken at a time when the major dslr makers are easing themselves out of the dslr market and are thereby vulnerable to losing market share in the completely new FF ML systems market with its required short flange focal distance lenses. Why wouldn’t they? It does not necessarily mean that the M4/3 system was a huge mistake.
Actually it was quite smart as by sticking to their course without being deflected by fashion crazes (etc) Olympus and Panasonic have developed what is probably the most diversely fleshed out of all the present mirrorless systems that are available.
And it may continue to be for some time to come.
Sergey_Green
Forum Pro
Why do you care about the number of his posts, why is it so important to you?
Sergey_Green
Forum Pro
Just asked. Thanks for 'clarifying' it.No. Laymen think magnification is important, but in reality, it's all about resolution. Microscopy 101.Not magnification?No, because for microscopy, resolution is usually of a paramount importance.because it has about half the diagonal dimension? The magical scaling factor which makes everything perfectNo, but the SC180 would be much better.I have just ordered my first Olympus camera: the UC90. They told me it wil revolutionize my imaging. Are you saying it is merely marketing fluff?
Why do you care about what I care, why is it so important to you?
Sergey_Green
Forum Pro
It is just my observation. If you told me why you care I could perhaps care about it to - are you also a sharing person?
--
- sergey
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum