*** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the *** *** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
Yes, that's right. Digital cameras don't have to be so expensive. I did not state that in this lab, specifically, the microscope camera is used both for the easy case of bright-field, and for fluorescent dye-binding assays that require long exposures that are a problem for the cheapest digital cameras. Maybe I should just shut up and buy an Olympus SLR. The macro lenses for it are pretty amazing. The Olympus E-1 has become really cheap. shutting up now, Dan On Thu, 18 May 2006, Ulrich Genick wrote: > *** 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 > >> >
