*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
*** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
There are many cheap digital camera options available to take
good pictures of crystals. A few years ago we bought a
Nikon coolpix camera (one of the cheapest digitals with
a filter thread) and an adapter from WPI.
The whole thing cost ~$300 and the pictures are much
better than what one needs for documentation or
publication purposes. Also, any light-intensity at which one
can possibly see anything by eye is
good enough to take very nice pictures.
We use the same camera to take pictures of gels,
group photos for acknowledgment slides etc.
Don't be fooled by vendors who try to convince you that
you need to spend thousands of dollars on an SLR
or specialized microscopy camera to take pictures of
crystals.
People have even snapped pictures of crystals right through
the eyepiece using camera phones and the results
are quite presentable.
Bottom line, easy does it.
Ulrich
On May 18, 2006, at 6:57 PM, Daniel Anderson wrote:
*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
*** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
"Tungsten-balanced" color negative film is ideally suited to
photomicroscopy, but nobody wants to hear that.
Special-purpose digital microscope cameras are still expensive,
spectacularly expensive if they are refrigerated to reduce noise.
You can see some special-purpose camera options at www.mikronet.com
and
www.diaginc.com . The Mikron Instruments booth at a show in mid-
April had
a C-mount color camera for only $1500, but it's not obvious on
their web
site. The cheapest cameras from Diagnostic Instruments are probably
good
for crystals, but last time I asked, I think they were close to $5000.
The cheapest digital SLR I can think of is the Pentax *istDL. You
could
in principle adapt it via "T-mount" for direct projection from the
eyepiece. It would vibrate the microscope.
www.bhphotovideo.com , for example, has it.
You asked about filter threads. If your camera has its own lens
(with filter threads), then the
exit pupil of the microscope eyepiece has to be larger than the
entrance
pupil of the camera lens. That seems unlikely, unless it's a little
point-and-shoot camera.
Bernhard's microscope/camera seems sensible, at least on the web
site...
Why did I type all that? Because it's time to make a budget.
Now I will ask a camera question: Why are special-purpose digital
cameras
for telescopes
so much cheaper than for microscopes? It seems like they do the same
thing, acumulate light energy for seconds or minutes without
vibrating.
www.adorama.com has them.
-Dan (Anderson)
On Thu, 18 May 2006, Lautenschlager, Catherine L wrote:
Does anyone have suggestions for a microscope camera, to take
pictures of wells? The cameras seem to range from $200-2000.
Will any camera with a filter thread work? We already have a C-
mount...
-Catherine
