Also, you should take into consideration the glass itself. You have coatings, polishings, glass manufacturers, glass thicknesses, diffraction measurements, even the quality control of the eye piece itself, and much more, all come into play when any technical instrument is being discussed.
Yours is a wonderful channel. Thanks for the lots of information you share with us! Would a pair of Zeiss eyepieces fit in a Motic B1 series microscope? Thanks a lot.
I’m not able to use an eye piece for most uses because of vision problems. I do have a USB camera that I use as well as using a phone camera through the eye pieces with some success. I’ve watched many of your previous videos and one thing that you haven’t covered is the differences in the camera sensor size. You’ve covered the resolution quite well and using a dslr for imaging but I’m looking at an industrial camera that has a very large sensor compared to the usb cameras more similar to the sensor size in the dslr. I have read that the larger sensor can give you increased contrast in your images. Could you cover this in a future video?
I'll give you my insight if you promise not voting Trump! I've spend a LOT of time searching on this topic: trust me, it's not easy! First: Calculation to get the pixel size are made for a black and white sensor. Common camera such as DSLR or phone and most affordable microscope camera are colour camera. Theses color camera have a filter (search BAYER filter on Wiki) that basically remove a lot of spatial resolution and light intensity. So, the megapixel calculation is off by a factor of about 4x (we need 4x more pixels and smaller pixels to get the same image of a black n white sensor). Off course, it's even more complicated... Smaller pixel will get less photons, so they will be more noisy and less sensitive compare to large pixel. GETTING CONFUSE? That's ok.. I'll keep it down to earth from now... My guess: you want to see live video of your microscope slide on your PC screen with the best quality at an affordable price. And your internal diameter tube is 23.2mm . Unless you want to buy a 10,000-50,000$ camera, this is my recommendation... THE SHORT STORY: Avoid all the cheap dedicated microscope camera: unless you want a lower resolution and a heavy crop image. They are worse than most phone + adaptor on the eyepiece. Get a regular 4K APS-C camera with 12-20MP. Match the phototube with the proper reduction lens and plug it to your monitor with HDMI. Boom! THE LONG and confuse STORY without proper editing.... A 4k colour camera will get you more resolution compare to a 1080, regardless of what Oliver said in a previous video (no dead resolution, because we don't use a 4k Black n White) You plug the HDMI output directly on your monitor. If you don't have clean HDMI from your DSLR, it's ok, but you will have some distracting numbers. If you wanna use software to get more options, you need a good computer with proper USB3 and a video transfer card that don't downgrade to 1080 (ex 4K Elgato) Ok, what 4K sensor should you get? First, this is not like regular photography: a larger sensor will not get you more light for the same field of view. The maximum amount of light in microscopy is whatever the objective gives you. So, you can either make this amount of light wider or narrower (with lense inside a phototube) to adjust to the size of your sensor, but you won't change the total amount of photons per pixel on the sensor. A larger sensor will only 'dilute' the same amount of light and a smaller sensor will concentrate this same amount of light. Axiocam 820 color camera (+15,000$) use a 20MP APS-C sensor with high dynamic range, 14Bit , 4;4;4 color subsampling. Off course, this is overkill for your application, but use it as a reference. What you want is the smallest sensor to get the smallest pixel, but with the best noise ratio per pixel. Unfortunately, colour camera use computational magic to get the final image and we don't have all the number to compare them properly. So, get a regular 4K DSLR camera with an APS-C sensor, around 12-20MP. 8Bit is fine and don't worry about the other numbers too much. Just makes sure the 4K is not a crop version of the 1080. Otherwise, you will get unwanted crop, lower image resolution. THE PHOTOTUBE... If you have a large sensor, it won't fit inside the 23.2mm tube. Therefore, you will need a phototube with the proper reduction lens (0.25x or 0.33x or 0.5x) to match the size of the sensor. If you don't reduce enough: you will get an unwanted magnification (crop image) with less light and lower resolution. If you reduce a bit too much: you will get a small circular image in your screen; missing most of your sensor's pixel. The optimal would be to get the edge of the circular image just pass the 4 corners of your rectangular screen. The phototube will also depend if you have an infinite objective (if you paid more than 1500$) or 160mm objective (most entry level) Go to MicrobeHunter Forum to know more about this topic or ask questions. WHAT I WILL DO (not for the faint of heart): I have a SWIFT380B (binocular version, without the 3rd port on top) I will replace the head and eyepiece with a **custom 3D printed head to include a C-mount for an APS-C camera on top. How to know the projected image size? I needed to know what was the size of the projected image above the objective (when you remove the head) to know what size of sensor I should use to avoid getting a lens in my phototube. The purpose is to save on cost and avoid any degradation of image since there is no optic. I put a calibration card (it could be a transparent ruler) in the microscope and adjust the focus. I noted the field of view in mm. Then I remove the head (it's only one screw) and I put a piece of paper about 150mm above the top of the objective. This gives me an image of my calibration card on this piece of paper. I measured the size of the projected image for the same field of view. In my case, it's just a little bit larger than an APSC sensor. So, I will buy a camera with APS-C sensor and I won't need any optic in the phototube. Cheaper and less error. I have no clue why I wrote this enormous comment. I'm tired, I won't edit.. So, sorry if it's a little confusing. Just ask me more question I'll be please to answer you. Alex from Montréal FYI; *1080 video only have 2MP.. Its ok, but not enough if you want the best resolution from 4x to 40x *FYI: 4K image only have 8.3MP, regardless if the sensor has 60MP or 12MP. **Custom 3D printed head: I will design slits to put various filters and module with dichroic mirrors to get epi-illumination, maybe fluorescence, polarization. Basically getting the features usually available only on infinite objective scope for a fraction of the cost.
@@alexandrevaliquette3883 thank you for the detailed explanation though it’s a bit confusing. I have a touptek iuc26000kpa 26mp aps-c usb3 sensor that I’m setting up for imaging. It’s setting up the imaging tube properly that I’m looking into. I have an imaging port in my microscope all ready and a few different reduction lenses to choose from but I think I should be able to use it without the extra lense. I believe I understand your explanation of using the calibration slide to estimate the image size on the sensor.
@@texaspowerman Wow, that's a very impressive camera! They don't lie when they say "everything is bigger in Texas!" Good for you, it's way better than a regular DSLR; I'm jealous! Do you also use it for astrophoto? How much does it retail? I'm glad you understand some part of my previous message. I've spend few hours writing it (just out of passion!). English is my second language and I was tired, so I agree it's a bit confusing! So, yeah, using a calibration slide (or transparent rule with 4x objective) and a paper to compare the image you have on the eyepiece and the image projected above the imaging tube, it should be easy to find the best lens. The perfect fit will be the 4 corners of your screen having a slightly less than perfect image (beginning of vignetting or not plano image). And, accomplish this without any lens would be the ideal situation. This would be for someone who have not buy his sensor yet. I'm very happy if my comment helped you out! Please let me know when your rig is on point! Or if you have any other question. Alex
Hi! I’ll probably buy my microscope today but I have one issue - do you think 25mm vs 22mm eyepieces will make a big difference in watching water life? Seems huge but getting by the 25mm may be an issue. Can you help please?
Hi ,I am new to this , I got an old Compound Microscope , C. Baker London 1944 in very good condition . One thing I don't understand is , why are the Objective Lens are so close to the Stage? it is very easy to brake the slide . Cheers
Unfortunately, this is how physics works. To get a higher magnification, you need a higher numerical aperture (NA). NA is basically an angle or cone of light getting out of your objective. A very pointy cone of light will give you 4x and a very broad cone of light will give you 40x. So, 4x have a lot of free space and 40x has almost no working space between the sample and the objective. Hope it's clear. Does your 1944 use oil lamp or a mirror to get the light? Does it have a condenser? You can ask question on MicrobeHunter Forum. There are some collectors of antique microscope. My guess is this microscope won't get you a great image quality compare to current standard (such as SWIFT350). But, you can have fun for sure!
Also, if you break an objective with your lens, most of the times the lens is also scratched and even though you might not immediately become aware of it, suffers immensely in quality
I got a trinocular microscope with infinity optics for an incredibly low price. It was sold without eyepieces. I just wanted to use the camera port on top. Just for the glory of science I put some standard eyepieces in and it worked. Are there no differences in 160mm and infinity eyepieces?
You did a similar video on this topic, but did not cover the angle of view with example. This is better in my opinion! I hate when specs are misleading and impossible to compare before you buy it. "WF" is meaningless, it should be replace by real viewing angle. Same thing with the sunglas symbol: we should have the real eye relief in mm. I have 3 set of eyepiece: from SWIFT380 10x 18mm and 25x who give me the exact same viewing angle, but different magnifications. And I've bought an extra 10x 24mm (on the same 23.2mm barrel standard). It gives me a little more angle of view. I wish I could know theses angle of view before buying.. Unfortunately, for the cheap eyepiece, we don't have this info. Maybe we can find a thread within the MicrobeHunter on this topic?
Also, you should take into consideration the glass itself. You have coatings, polishings, glass manufacturers, glass thicknesses, diffraction measurements, even the quality control of the eye piece itself, and much more, all come into play when any technical instrument is being discussed.
Hello and thank you.
That's a very useful information, thank you!
I really like your videos, please keep posting.
Yours is a wonderful channel. Thanks for the lots of information you share with us! Would a pair of Zeiss eyepieces fit in a Motic B1 series microscope? Thanks a lot.
I have a question. While using a camera we take out the eyepiece. Are we then losing some magnification?
That was very useful to know.
The quality and arrangement of glasses would also make a difference I guess
I’m not able to use an eye piece for most uses because of vision problems. I do have a USB camera that I use as well as using a phone camera through the eye pieces with some success. I’ve watched many of your previous videos and one thing that you haven’t covered is the differences in the camera sensor size. You’ve covered the resolution quite well and using a dslr for imaging but I’m looking at an industrial camera that has a very large sensor compared to the usb cameras more similar to the sensor size in the dslr. I have read that the larger sensor can give you increased contrast in your images. Could you cover this in a future video?
I'll give you my insight if you promise not voting Trump!
I've spend a LOT of time searching on this topic: trust me, it's not easy!
First: Calculation to get the pixel size are made for a black and white sensor. Common camera such as DSLR or phone and most affordable microscope camera are colour camera. Theses color camera have a filter (search BAYER filter on Wiki) that basically remove a lot of spatial resolution and light intensity. So, the megapixel calculation is off by a factor of about 4x (we need 4x more pixels and smaller pixels to get the same image of a black n white sensor).
Off course, it's even more complicated... Smaller pixel will get less photons, so they will be more noisy and less sensitive compare to large pixel.
GETTING CONFUSE?
That's ok.. I'll keep it down to earth from now...
My guess: you want to see live video of your microscope slide on your PC screen with the best quality at an affordable price. And your internal diameter tube is 23.2mm .
Unless you want to buy a 10,000-50,000$ camera, this is my recommendation...
THE SHORT STORY:
Avoid all the cheap dedicated microscope camera: unless you want a lower resolution and a heavy crop image. They are worse than most phone + adaptor on the eyepiece.
Get a regular 4K APS-C camera with 12-20MP. Match the phototube with the proper reduction lens and plug it to your monitor with HDMI. Boom!
THE LONG and confuse STORY without proper editing....
A 4k colour camera will get you more resolution compare to a 1080, regardless of what Oliver said in a previous video (no dead resolution, because we don't use a 4k Black n White)
You plug the HDMI output directly on your monitor. If you don't have clean HDMI from your DSLR, it's ok, but you will have some distracting numbers.
If you wanna use software to get more options, you need a good computer with proper USB3 and a video transfer card that don't downgrade to 1080 (ex 4K Elgato)
Ok, what 4K sensor should you get?
First, this is not like regular photography: a larger sensor will not get you more light for the same field of view. The maximum amount of light in microscopy is whatever the objective gives you. So, you can either make this amount of light wider or narrower (with lense inside a phototube) to adjust to the size of your sensor, but you won't change the total amount of photons per pixel on the sensor. A larger sensor will only 'dilute' the same amount of light and a smaller sensor will concentrate this same amount of light.
Axiocam 820 color camera (+15,000$) use a 20MP APS-C sensor with high dynamic range, 14Bit , 4;4;4 color subsampling. Off course, this is overkill for your application, but use it as a reference.
What you want is the smallest sensor to get the smallest pixel, but with the best noise ratio per pixel.
Unfortunately, colour camera use computational magic to get the final image and we don't have all the number to compare them properly.
So, get a regular 4K DSLR camera with an APS-C sensor, around 12-20MP. 8Bit is fine and don't worry about the other numbers too much. Just makes sure the 4K is not a crop version of the 1080. Otherwise, you will get unwanted crop, lower image resolution.
THE PHOTOTUBE...
If you have a large sensor, it won't fit inside the 23.2mm tube. Therefore, you will need a phototube with the proper reduction lens (0.25x or 0.33x or 0.5x) to match the size of the sensor.
If you don't reduce enough: you will get an unwanted magnification (crop image) with less light and lower resolution.
If you reduce a bit too much: you will get a small circular image in your screen; missing most of your sensor's pixel.
The optimal would be to get the edge of the circular image just pass the 4 corners of your rectangular screen.
The phototube will also depend if you have an infinite objective (if you paid more than 1500$) or 160mm objective (most entry level)
Go to MicrobeHunter Forum to know more about this topic or ask questions.
WHAT I WILL DO (not for the faint of heart):
I have a SWIFT380B (binocular version, without the 3rd port on top)
I will replace the head and eyepiece with a **custom 3D printed head to include a C-mount for an APS-C camera on top.
How to know the projected image size?
I needed to know what was the size of the projected image above the objective (when you remove the head) to know what size of sensor I should use to avoid getting a lens in my phototube. The purpose is to save on cost and avoid any degradation of image since there is no optic.
I put a calibration card (it could be a transparent ruler) in the microscope and adjust the focus. I noted the field of view in mm. Then I remove the head (it's only one screw) and I put a piece of paper about 150mm above the top of the objective. This gives me an image of my calibration card on this piece of paper. I measured the size of the projected image for the same field of view. In my case, it's just a little bit larger than an APSC sensor. So, I will buy a camera with APS-C sensor and I won't need any optic in the phototube. Cheaper and less error.
I have no clue why I wrote this enormous comment.
I'm tired, I won't edit.. So, sorry if it's a little confusing. Just ask me more question I'll be please to answer you.
Alex from Montréal
FYI;
*1080 video only have 2MP.. Its ok, but not enough if you want the best resolution from 4x to 40x
*FYI: 4K image only have 8.3MP, regardless if the sensor has 60MP or 12MP.
**Custom 3D printed head: I will design slits to put various filters and module with dichroic mirrors to get epi-illumination, maybe fluorescence, polarization. Basically getting the features usually available only on infinite objective scope for a fraction of the cost.
@@alexandrevaliquette3883 thank you for the detailed explanation though it’s a bit confusing.
I have a touptek iuc26000kpa 26mp aps-c usb3 sensor that I’m setting up for imaging. It’s setting up the imaging tube properly that I’m looking into. I have an imaging port in my microscope all ready and a few different reduction lenses to choose from but I think I should be able to use it without the extra lense. I believe I understand your explanation of using the calibration slide to estimate the image size on the sensor.
@@texaspowerman Wow, that's a very impressive camera! They don't lie when they say "everything is bigger in Texas!" Good for you, it's way better than a regular DSLR; I'm jealous! Do you also use it for astrophoto? How much does it retail?
I'm glad you understand some part of my previous message. I've spend few hours writing it (just out of passion!). English is my second language and I was tired, so I agree it's a bit confusing!
So, yeah, using a calibration slide (or transparent rule with 4x objective) and a paper to compare the image you have on the eyepiece and the image projected above the imaging tube, it should be easy to find the best lens.
The perfect fit will be the 4 corners of your screen having a slightly less than perfect image (beginning of vignetting or not plano image). And, accomplish this without any lens would be the ideal situation. This would be for someone who have not buy his sensor yet.
I'm very happy if my comment helped you out! Please let me know when your rig is on point! Or if you have any other question.
Alex
Hi! I’ll probably buy my microscope today but I have one issue - do you think 25mm vs 22mm eyepieces will make a big difference in watching water life? Seems huge but getting by the 25mm may be an issue. Can you help please?
Hi ,I am new to this , I got an old Compound Microscope , C. Baker London 1944 in very good condition . One thing I don't understand is , why are the Objective Lens are so close to the Stage? it is very easy to brake the slide . Cheers
Unfortunately, this is how physics works. To get a higher magnification, you need a higher numerical aperture (NA). NA is basically an angle or cone of light getting out of your objective. A very pointy cone of light will give you 4x and a very broad cone of light will give you 40x. So, 4x have a lot of free space and 40x has almost no working space between the sample and the objective. Hope it's clear. Does your 1944 use oil lamp or a mirror to get the light? Does it have a condenser?
You can ask question on MicrobeHunter Forum. There are some collectors of antique microscope. My guess is this microscope won't get you a great image quality compare to current standard (such as SWIFT350). But, you can have fun for sure!
@@alexandrevaliquette3883 It uses a mirror and is has a condenser ,cheers
Also, if you break an objective with your lens, most of the times the lens is also scratched and even though you might not immediately become aware of it, suffers immensely in quality
I got a trinocular microscope with infinity optics for an incredibly low price. It was sold without eyepieces. I just wanted to use the camera port on top.
Just for the glory of science I put some standard eyepieces in and it worked.
Are there no differences in 160mm and infinity eyepieces?
You did a similar video on this topic, but did not cover the angle of view with example. This is better in my opinion!
I hate when specs are misleading and impossible to compare before you buy it. "WF" is meaningless, it should be replace by real viewing angle. Same thing with the sunglas symbol: we should have the real eye relief in mm.
I have 3 set of eyepiece: from SWIFT380 10x 18mm and 25x who give me the exact same viewing angle, but different magnifications. And I've bought an extra 10x 24mm (on the same 23.2mm barrel standard). It gives me a little more angle of view. I wish I could know theses angle of view before buying.. Unfortunately, for the cheap eyepiece, we don't have this info.
Maybe we can find a thread within the MicrobeHunter on this topic?
WF, wide field compared to a soda straw.