Brian Swale wrote:
>I plan to mount my new digital camera on my microscope a lot more often
>than I do with my film camera. Although I have had a few photographs
>published over the years 99.99% of the time my work is used in slide
>presentations.
>
>To date my 35mm slides have clearly out-performed almost every power point
>presentation they have been compared with. Alas most scientific meetings
>will not accommodate my old technology. Given that I can not afford a
>pro-DSLR, should I go for a 6 MP DSLR or opt for a 7 or 8 MP point-n-shoot?
>
I would almost certainly go with a DSLR and 6 mp will be much higher in
resolution than the capability of the display system. My key reason is
the intended microscope use. Unless I could confirm for sure that a
digicam under consideration could accurately and consistently auto-focus
through the microscope, there would be the possibility of not being able
to accurately focus. The EVF and LCD finders on these cameras are not
usable as critical focusing devices. The also lack the dynamic range of
DSLR finders, which may or may not be an issue through a microscope.
There is, however, a potential problem with the DSLR and a microscope.
Anyone used to a good SLR viewfinder on a 35mm film camera will likely
be dismayed with the viewfinders on the small sensor DSLRs. Because the
image the lens projects on the sensor is smaller than a 35 mm frame, the
view through the finder is necessarily some combination of smaller and
dimmer than on a full frame SLR, digital or film. Some makers have
equivalents of the Varimagni finder to aid in focusing through
magnification of the image. Also only 1 or 2 of the DSLRs offer focus
confirmation with manual focus lenses, which is what a microscope would
be in this usage. So they would go to the top of the list. I'm pretty
sure Nik*n is one, and maybe Pent*x??
The autofocus issue is quite different with DSLR than digicam. A digicam
must use its permanently attached lens to do the focusing on its sensor.
So I presume one must manually focus the microscope at least close, then
let the camera capture and focus that intermediate image. With a DSLR,
one just attaches it directly to the microscope with the microscope
objective as the only lens*. Thus DSLR that can confirm focus for any
image on its sensor, regardless of source seems the likely best choice.
Just adjust the microscope focus 'til you hear the beep and shoot.
There must be lots of folks doing this. What are they using successfully?
>Is there any gain from anti-shake technology if my subjects are trees?
>
Theoretically, but not really at the shutter speed and focal lengths
specified. If 1/125 with 50mm lens works for your film camera, it will
work just as well with a digital.
Moose
* Or does the eyepiece lens have to be left in too? I can't remember,
but it doesn't matter for the point at hand.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|