Search the Community

So I've have tried for days to try and figure out the equation for magnification of a camera verses the ocular lens on a microscope. The scope I am using is an AmScope SM-4TZZ-144A-18M3 3.5X to 180X magnification. The camera has a sensor size of 6.14x4.61mm and the calibration resolution is 4912 X 3684 (I have read this stuff matters but not how it works). The AmScope video on calibration is now almost 10 years old and doesn't explain the equation or anything. Say this is my set up oculars (which do not affect the camera) are 20x, my objective is at 4.5 (45 right?), and a Barlow of 2X. That is the max my scope will do and should be the 180X advertised. So what is my camera seeing at the setting since the ocular do not enter into the equation? This is all I am missing on getting the calibration done on my scope. I thought I had it done (and I might have had it done) until I realized the oculars are not involved with the camera. I'm asking all over because this is the new thing I have yet to understand. Please help me.

Got a new "toy" for my birthday! I was wanting an "upgrade" from my Celestron (which has been quite good - but was a little lacking in some respects) and thanks to the FF members input, I decided to go with the Hayear 14 MP HDMI microscope camera. It was just over twice the price of the Celestron but is much higher resolution (and much easier to capture multiple focus images for stacking). I still like the Celestron for my "picking through matrix" - but I am super excited about getting some better, higher res pics! Interestingly, in comparison, some of the Celestron pics are still better sharpness than the Hayear! And, the Hayear will only go as large as 1/2 inch so anything bigger than that and I will go back to the Celestron. So I will continue to compare and contrast. hahahhh!! Here are a couple of photos of some of my littles that I am pleased with how they came out! Central Texas Cretaceous This starfish Madreporite is right at the upper edge of size - It is 12mm and there was about 1 mm space on either side A 9mm Crab Claw Pagurus banderiensis a 4 mm Crinoid Isocrinus annulatus Aurora North Carolina Cretaceous A little Cat Shark 4mm An Echinoid Tubercle 3 mm A Ray tooth or dermal? 3mm Some Fish Verts 3 mm

howdy! Does anyone have the TOMLOV 7" LCD DIgital microscope? For Reference : https://www.amazon.com/TOMLOV-Microscope-Magnification-Ultra-Precise-Compatible/dp/B08G4Y6C65/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=TOMLOV&qid=1612988067&sr=8-4 If so, how do you like it? I'm looking for something that can get a little closer and clearer photos of specimens smaller than 1/8 inch. I have the Celestron Digital Pro (with a 5MP camera and it's pretty good, but I want something a little bit better but there seems to be a big "price gap" from around $100 then nothing till over $300. I wanted to stay around $200 if you have any other microscope camera suggestions. Thanks y'all!!

I normally using my Panasonic G9 with an Olympus 60mm with extension tubes or/plus Canon 500D dual element filter for the small fossil images. However with many of the fossils I am finding using my stereo AMscope (at the 3x-45x configuration (.5 reducer)) with my Panasonic Gx85 produces really good results (have to use a 1 1/4" to .96 adapter (for telescope eye pieces) to mount the camera with a T-mount plus 1 1/4" adapter)). Here is an image of the setup plus an image of a 5mm gastropod that had some interesting dark lines in the fossil. These images out of the camera are 16 MPX raw files reduced to 300 DPI here. I can use more light but was very pleased with this first attempt especially since the Gx85 is my small travel camera and not getting much use. I use the electronic shutter with a 4 second shutter delay to have no vibrations in the image.

has anyone tried anything like this and does it work? Thank you https://cosmosmicroscopes.store/collections/frontpage/products/1000-times-usb-microscope-digital-microscope-mac-support-android-mobile-phone-microscope-usb-microscope-mobile-phone?fbclid=IwAR0y7cmRrG4VI7SzGwfznFC7wWPL9yHcLWWRUL1dWELeXftTcdRyPwOzGKU

As the title implies, I am wondering if I should bother using the Nikon D90 camera or my Samsung S7 phone in the context of taking nature photos (I have birdwatching in mind, as I have recently joined a local birdwatching group). I've taken at least a mild interest to birdwatching, but not sure how well I like it just yet without a set of decent binoculars or camera or field guide (those seem to be the three main things to get started with). I have found a decent field guide my husband was given years ago he had forgotten about and I have picked up a cheap (less than $50) set of 4X30 binoculars to tide me over just until I can determine if I'll be interested in the hobby long-term (I have my eye on a set of Avalon 8X32 binoculars as an intermediate pair to get down the line). Now I am looking at a camera to use before the next group outing (not technically necessary, but it would be nice to have one, as being in Australia, all the birds are 'exotic' and new to me to enjoy). It just so happens that my husband also has an old Nikon D90 camera with a couple lenses (18-55mm and 55-200 mm) as he was interested in photography years ago. But looking it up, it seems it only does 12.3 megapixels. My phone does 12. The only advantage of using the Nikon D90 over the phone that I can think of is that it would be able to zoom better than my phone without losing photo quality. But my phone is much more lighter. So my question for experienced birders, I guess would be, is whether or not you reckon it would be worth it weight-wise to carry the camera around or just use my phone and wait until I can save up for a camera that would be more worth carrying around concerning better image quality over the phone? Figured with as many photographers we have on here, this would be the place to ask! It's not a big deal, either, I just thought I'd pick your minds; I can always change if ideas here don't work out

Someone broke into my jeep last Friday night and stole my small digital camera used on collecting trips, my brand new Estwing rock pick (l3ather wrapped handle -gift from a friend) & my Estwing drilling hammer, chiselsk and some phone/ audio cables. Not enough for an insurance claim and most everyone says I lost just a bunch of hammers.

I recently posted a report here about the finds I made on a trip to the Wutach Valley and promised that the next time I went there, I would finally remember to take my camera along. For those of you who may not be aware, the Wutachtal (in German) is quite a large area and also the name of a municipality in the southeastern Black Forest region. Within this area are a good number of beautiful nature reserves, the best known of which is the Wutachschlucht, or Wutach Gorge in English. It's not quite as huge as the Grand Canyon, but is certainly comparable with the Verdon Gorge, a famous tourist trap in the Provence in France. The Wutach (English: angry brook) has its source in the highest peak of the Black Forest massif, and winds its way eastward through crystalline paleozoic sediments and then more and more rapidly cutting down through first Permian, then Triassic and finally Jurassic and Cenozoic layers. One would think when you move down that the layers would get older, but due to 2 successive tectonic uplifts in the Late Jurassic and late Cretacous periods, the entire southern German tectonic plate is tipped 7° to the east. All of the Cretaceous sediments were also eroded away a long time ago, which is why they can't be found, even underground, in southwestern Germany. The area that has particularly interested me is the one in the municipality of Wutachtal, where a good portion of the Jurassic layers are exposed. It's a classical area for geologists and paleontologists and of course amateur collectors like myself. I've been exploring and looking for exposures for many years, first focussing on the Lower Jurassic, then particularly the Middle Jurassic Aalenian and Bajocian stages and now for going on 2 years, I've been concentrating my efforts on the Callovian Wutach Formation. I've managed to find an area where I've been able to regularly make some finds and recently returned to an exposure which panned out quite well, so I decided I definitely had to get back there again soon. So I was just there yesterday. Here come some pics of it to which I'll first describe the exposure for you. What you see here is a series of mostly soft clay marl layers with the odd hard marly limestone bank in between. Almost all of the sediment is extremely turbidite and full of iron oolites, which accounts for the pronounced red, reddish-brown, yellowy and violet tints. In the middle of the photo is the negative imprint of a large Macrocephalites ammonite which I dug out on the previous excursion. This imprint sits on top of a hard limestone bank. The sediment above it is a much softer clay, which allows mostly for a successful excavation of the fossils in this particular bank. And at this partular small exposure I should add. Conditions can vary when one moves horizontally. Nevertheless, fossils found in this bank here are by far the best preserved. This photo shows the same layers, just a little to the right. And here a little to the left. Note the white limestone sinter, which can be a disturbance to the fossils. The lithological name for this zone is the "Rotes Erlager". As a biozone it's called the herveyi zone. This is about 1 meter thick. This pile which lies between pic 1 & 3 accomodates my scree, broken bits of ammonites, for the moment. I'll be removing it later on, just as I have in the past at the other points, in order to get at the layers. This was my first find of the day. Looks to be a Choffatia sp. Slightly deformed. A couple more. Not easy to see what's in the matrix, is it? Now you know why I use an air abrader You just have to break up some of these big rocks in order to get the little jewels out. Otherwise your knapsack is so heavy by the end of a successful day, that you can't heave it onto your back any more. At this point, I'd dug into the sinter vein. Time to get it out and get around it. I've just run out of pixels. Time to move on to the next post

I was wondering if anyone has any experience with simple video cameras, mag 20 - 800 x for prep work? I was thinking of getting one and putting it in my prep "box". Much cheaper than a microscope and swing arm. I could run the cable out and right to my lap top. The write-up says focal length can be adjusted out to 200 mm. More than enough to work on small fossils. thanks, Tim

if you don't want to spend the money for a microscope or microscope camera here is a low budget device that will get acceptable micro pix. For $10. It will also work well on small megafossils. I got this at the mostly defunct Radio Shack, but I am sure it is still around. ( got it last X-mas) It slides on over your phone camera lens, and provides its own illumination. Just move it up or down to focus ( variable X) and take the photo. I have provided both edited and unedited pix to compare. (the only editing was to get them the same size). These specimens are from the U.Ordovician , Grant Lake Formation, Elk Creek , KY 2-3 mm in length. They are on standard 60 grid micro slides, about 3.5 mm on a side for each box.