Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'camera'.
-
How do you figure out magnification with a camera verses ocular lenses?
Raistlin posted a topic in Micro-paleontology
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.- 1 reply
-
- camera
- magnification
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
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
- 21 replies
-
- 12
-
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!!
- 31 replies
-
- camera
- microscope
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
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.
-
- camera
- microscope
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
100x magnification microscope phone attachment
butchndad posted a topic in General Fossil Discussion
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- 2 replies
-
- camera
- magnification
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
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
-
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.
- 5 replies
-
- 1
-
- camera
- microfossils
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with: