I am afraid that your approach only invites "another slip betwixt
cup and lip" Modern digital cameras can capture images with resolution
equal to a slide scanner (same technology) without intervention of film
and the inevitable compromises and mistakes. As a practical matter,
unless
one wants to make very large scale prints, many digital cameras are
"overkill" for most scientific illustration.
*****************************************************************
Eugene Stoermer, University of Michigan
Internet e-mail address: stoermer@umich.edu
Voice Phone: 734-764-7430 Fax: 734-647-2748
*****************************************************************

Both Nikon and Leica use a system called Spot. It is rather pricey, still (ca. $7000US),
but results are superb - far superior to film. I've had such a system for about 8 months now,
mounted on a Leica. It uses a standard mount and can be used on most microscopes. There were
a few software problems initally (a bug in the driver) but it seems to work well now. Zeiss
has (typically) its own proprietary hardware and software, and is much more expensive. It
also has a slower "refresh" time, so focussing on the screen is more jumpy. The spot has a
smooth, real-time signal with a fast computer.
Perhaps this is over your budget. There are cheaper ways, but you lose out on resolution and features.

Best of luck
Reed Scherer
 

I saw your request for information concerning digital cameras for
Photomicrography. Do I assume that you want a dedicated camera that is
used only for microscopy?

I have colleagues in the UK who are going ape over the Nikon Coolpix 990
which of course is s standard digital camera. It not only has superb
resolution but the lens has an internal thread which can be screwed on
to an eyepiece or photo eyepiece.

Dr. Savile Bradbury savile.bradbury@pembroke.oxford.ac.uk and Jeremy
Sanderson at jb_sanderson@yahoo.com are both extremely happy and would
be very happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Regards
Mike Dingley

Hi Michael

For a CHEAP and easy to use system don't overlook Kodak. I have been using
a Kodak digital camera system on my Zeiss microscope for a couple of years.
It was very cheap to install, you get to view the picture on the computer
screen prior to taking it. Transfer to lectures (powerpoint) or other
presentations is really fast. The camera also goes on several microscopes
(inverted, compound and dissecting). You can even use the camera off the
microscope. Exposures are almost always good. My camera is several years
old and only managed 1260 x 980 pixels (~ 1.2 million from memory) so is
not as good as newer cameras with 2 or 3 million pixels but plenty good
enough if you did not want to make 8x10 inch enlargements. There are some
compromises associated with using a camera adapted to a microscope rather
than specifically engineered to be part of the microscope (cameras by Zeiss
etc) but the price is right. Check out the Kodak web site.

As a slightly more expensive option there is small Olympus microscope
camera that looks very neat.
 

Just for your information:
We built our own system with the Nikon Coolpix 950, 990 including remote
computer control (total cost was below 2000CAD, software is free). See
our paper downloadable from
http://www.math.ualberta.ca/~bowman/imaging/ (shows some demo diatom
images too)
I tested it with a Unix/Linux operating System. However, the software
for Coolpix 990 now has been compiled for Windows too and John tested it
(there is no graphical user interface for the Windows version, so the
commands have to be typed in mannually).
John is just programming the control for the Nikon Coolpix 990 with USB
support, which reduces the downloading time for a high resolution image
from few minutes to 10 seconds. This feature should be available (at
least for Linux) soon (Windows comes next).

(I also heard from other people operating the Nikon 950 manually with a
shutter release cord and just downloading the images with the given
software).

Cheers Sybille
 

We use the Kodak Megaplus ES 1.0 which is top of the range and takes
great pictures but is quite pricy (currently about � 9,000 GBP). If
you want to see the quality of the pictures check out our project
website at http://www.rbge.org.uk/ADIAC/db/adiacdb.htm . These
pictures are taken with a Zeiss Axiophot with apochromatic lenses.

I print things on an Epson Photo Stylus 700 inkjet printer - cheap to
buy (about �150 GBP) but not so cheap to run. An A4 colour print
(full size) will cost you about 80 UK pence if you take the cost of
the paper and the ink into account.

Hope this is helpful.
Kind regards
Micha Bayer

If you have an Olympus microscope you can use the Olympus
C-3000 or C-3030 (approx. $600-750) with a specialized adaptor
($800). The adaptor is expensive but is supposed to insure
good photographs on both a dissecting or compound
microscope.

Brian Teasdale
Univ. of New Hampshire
 

Don't forget Kodak:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital/scientific/products/applications.shtml

John Merrill
****** merrill3@msu.edu ******
 

I've been using a Pixera for the last 6 months. The system is easy to use,
relatively cheap, and produces (at the highest resolution) images that I
consider to be not quite of publication quality. I use it primarily as a
organizer to archive images of "unknowns" or interesting diatoms.

Ian

Kim Schultz in our biology department uses a Leica camera with good results.
You might want to look at that also.

Greg Boyer
SUNY-CESF
Syracuse

Michael D. Agbeti, Ph.D., CLM
Bio-Limno Research & Consulting
8210-109 Street, PO Box 52197
Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2T5 CANADA
Telephone/Fax: (780) 439-1558
E-mail: magbeti@bio-limno.com
Website: www.bio-limno.com
*******************************************
From: Discussion forum on marine, freshwater and terrestrial algae.
[ALGAE-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE] on behalf of Micha Bayer [M.Bayer@RBGE.ORG.UK]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 5:23 AM
To: ALGAE-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE
Subject: Digital cameras for microscopy

Hi all,

as an afterthought to the recent discussion of digital cameras for
microscopy, I have come across a useful web page which contains a
fairly comprehensive list of high-end digital cameras for microscopy.
It is by Advanced Imaging Magazine; the URL is

http://www.advancedimagingmag.com/product_updates.htm

The technobabble is fairly severe and might put off all but the
toughest phyco-techies, but at least this is a good starting point
for further searches....

Regards
Micha Bayer
______________________________

Dr. Micha Bayer
Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh
20A Inverleith Row
Edinburgh EH3 5LR
Scotland, U.K.
Tel. (+44) (0)131-248 2915 or 248 2965
Fax (+44) (0)131-248 2901
Project Homepage at http://www.rbge.org.uk/ADIAC/
also see the RBGE home page at http://www.rbge.org.uk
______________________________

Hi Joyce,

I was doing some conscious dreaming last night around 1am and ran into
this setup (the sleeping schedule isn't working well these days): using
an off-the-shelf digital camera for microscopy imaging. Plus, you can
take it outside and get some pics of your favorite biological
experience.

http://www.wisc.edu/genetics/micro/

BUY.COM
COOLPIX 950 DIG CAM 1600X1200 2.11MP 8MB 3X/4X ZOOM
Our Price: $619.99 You Save: $279.96

EH-30 AC ADAPTER FOR THE COOLPIX 700/800/950/900S/900
Our Price: $40.94 You Save: $8.06

A lengthy review of the camera
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/C950/C950A.HTM

And now back to your regularly scheduled spam...
--
-----------------------------------------------------
John Zastrow - jcz@uwm.edu - http://www.uwm.edu/~jcz
University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee
Biological Sciences
3209 North Maryland Avenue
Lapham 395
Milwaukee WI 53211
414-229-4552
~ It is by caffiene alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of java that thoughts acquire speed,
hands acquire shaking. The shaking becomes a warning
-Adapted from Frank Herbert, Dune ~
-----------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:28:56 +0800
Reply-To: COSGROVE Jeff <jeff.cosgrove@WRC.WA.GOV.AU
Sender: "Discussion forum on marine, freshwater and terrestrial algae."
<ALGAE-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE
From: COSGROVE Jeff <jeff.cosgrove@WRC.WA.GOV.AU
Subject: microscope digital camera systems - replies
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
This message is posted to you from ALGAE-L.

Well... I must say thankyou to all those people who sent replies to my
intial query. It seems as though the digital camera industry should have no
worries about future business in the microscopy field judging by the number
of requests I had for a digest/summary of the replies I received! So...for
all those people that are interested, here is a digest of the information
provided by our other Algae-L list-members.

We dont use a digital camera as such here but we have our colour CCD video
camera linked thru the PC via an impressive but surprisingly cheap little
unit called "snappy". When we first looked at such a system we were looking
at rather expensive video capture cards (around the $2000 mark) and were
then put on to this system which cost I think a little over $200.

It is a small device that plugs into a parallel port (printer port) and
looks more like a piece of gaming hardware. But it will recieve a video
signal from most sources and for the cost we are quite impressed. The
preview screen is small and has a slow refresh rate and is only black and
white but we use a TV monitor to preview and focus images before we capture
them so that is not a problem. It saves images to most of the common file
formats.
* * * *

Rather than go with a digital camera, we have chosen
instead to use a video camera and capture board with both Mac and PC.
Cameras have been Sony CCD (first purchase was a Sony 3 CCD, second was a
Sony Cats Eye CCD) coupled with Leica DMRX or older Leitz Dialux compound
scopes.

The results from the system have been publishable without any
problem and many journals now accept the figures in electronic format,
eliminating even the need to print the images on photo-quallity printers.

one advantage to using video is it also allows real-time viewing,
extremely fast capture, easy measurement and manipulation software is
available, and allows you the flexibility of video micrography also. chip
sizes in widoe camers have recently been increased (the SOny Cats Eye is
about 1100x1300) which rivals many of the digital cameras. Prices for top
end video and top end cameras are similar. (6-8K USD).

...refer to the recent article By Williams et al. 1999. Diatom Research
14(2):381-392. The article contains a pretty good description of the
digitizing and computer setup we were using about 2 years ago, which has
since been updated to the Sony Cat's Eye and A Mac G3. I am not sure of the
capabilities of low light and fluorescnence with video, but I suspect that
it is actually better than similarly priced digital cameras. Many of the
digital camers we looked at were not capable fo even gathering images at
high mag DIC (Nomarski), a problem that our video camera does not have.

ONe web site you may refer to is by Sabine Huhndorf at the field museum:
http://www.fmnh.org./research_collections/botany/botany_sites/
imagemanage/intropage.htm
She has put together a nice site on her use of video cameras in fungal
research.
* * * *

We've been using a DP10 for about a year now with no problems -
not that we need the highest quality images and we did have a budgetary
constraint. Also, have only used it with bright field. I believe a new
model has come out since we bought ours (Yes, the DP11 is now out and has a
better resolution [2.5Mpixel] and real-time image display - Jeff).
* * * *

We use a CoolPix connected to Nikon dissecting scope
ad microscope. Resolution is wonderful.
* * * *

We purchased a Leica DC 100 digital camera last year for use on our compound
and stereo microscopes...The great benefit of them is that taking a photo is
so quick and you have the image straight away that you can measure with
computer software and add directly to documents. The drawback is that the
resolution is not fine enough for use in scientific journals. The images
quickly pixilate when you blow them up... our Leica takes images at 768x582
resolution
* * * *

I have this system (DP10) on olympus microscopes and I like it. I find
focussing to be a problem, especially at lower mangifications. Also, forget
about the serial download and get a smart media adapter for your laptop or a
diskette adapter. I have just submitted the first paper with digital images
used for the plates, so I will have to wait and see if the journal accepts
them. They were printed on a Tektronix dye sublimation printer to conform to
conventional print means of submission. You will want to have a decent
dyesub printer as well, and those are expensive but worth it.
* * * *

...The system we use for this is a Zeiss Axiophot with a Kodak MegaPlus
ES1.0 digital camera, which takes very nice pictures indeed (you can browse
the images at http://www.rbge.org.uk/ADIAC/db/adiacdb.htm). Part of this is
obviously due to the quality of the microscope, and the trick with
buying digital imaging gear is to bear in mind that something in your
system will be the weakest link in the chain. If you start off with a
poor microscope then obviously there is not much point in investing
into a high quality digital camera.

Digital cameras largely differ in the quality of the chip - the more
youy pay, the less faulty pixels you get. The faulty pixels appear to
be a natural by-product of the manufacturing process and manifest
themselves as pixels with a constant grey value in your images
(regardless of what they are meant to represent)...

For images of microalgae, where fine detail can be important, I would
suggest to buy a camera with a resolution of at least 1000 pixels
wide if possible. The larger specimens cannot be imaged well
otherwise.

I would also avoid cameras which do not have a protective glass
screen in front of the chip. The chips are obviously highly
electrostatic and attract dust particles which cannot be removed once
they are attached, whereas a glass screen can be cleaned carefully.
* * * *

This has been an occassional topic of discussion on the Diatom-l list,
you might check the archive at:

http://listserv.indiana.edu/archives/diatom-l.html
* * * *

Try looking for a company called Pixera on the WWW. We looked into some
of their microscope camera a ways back and the one they demoed for us
(their mid-line product) did well for both transmitted light and
flourescence microscopy.
* * * *

Have you looked at the Dage-MTI 300 series cameras <www.dagemti.com? We
have one in our labs and I have been impressed with its dynamic range and
the images we have been able to capture under various light and
epifluorescence illumination. One cool aspect is that you can also capture
video rate images. So if you "ever" think you might be interested in
recording moving objects, this camera works great at doing that. We have
collected great video format images that help demonstrate what we are
looking at with fresh material.

Check out their web page and check around before you purchase anything.
* * * *

...Pixel size and number of pixels = spatial resolution. Most
manufacturers now state they have megapixel resolutions but this can be
misleading. A million pixels on a 1/3" CCD has higher spatial resolution
than a million pixels on a 1" chip because the pixels in the latter are
necessarily greater in size (like comparing 50 ASA vs 1000 ASA film).
However small pixels can suffer from a photoquenching effect where energy
effectively spills out of the pixel. (imagine a pixel as a well). A smaller
size chip also captures less of the field of view than a larger size chip.
Small pixels on a large chip can equal costs $50,000 US so thats why its
not done very often. I think a goodstarting point is a 2/3" CCD with pixels
@ 6-8um square. Some manufacturers use pixel interpolation to
arithmetically double the resolution but it sounds like dodgy magic to me
(the average signal of a number of pixels is used to generate a value for a
new pixel in digital space???) Some cameras allow you to adjust the binning
level where arrays of pixels are combined. This decreases the spatial
resolution but is effective in image analysis applications or where high
resolution is not critical bacause it increases the frame rate/decreases
integration time. eg Zeiss axiocam (max resolution of 3900 X 3090 pixels),
5 frames/sec at 1300 X 1030 pixels to 19 frames/sec at 260X206. 25
frames/sec roughly equivalent to video

Cooled camera ? Free roaming electrons occur in digital cameras and this
dark current equals signal noise which has its greatest effect on smaller
sized pixels. It can be reduced by cooling the CCD chip (mostly peltier
cooling) but this naturally costs more. For longer integration times in
fluorescence applications a cooled camera will limit the dark current
effects but by how much is a good question. An Optronics video camera I
used over 5 years ago wasnt cooled but gave really good fluorescence images
because the analog signal was digitally integrated in another magic box of
tricks - presumably an integrating framegrabber(fluorescence unobservable
down the eyepieces could be real bright on the monitor)

Its a great advantage to have a real size live image for focusing and
moving the specimen. some cameras will do this in B&W which cuts down on
computer requirement and so increases the frame rate. Cheaper cameras may
have no such function or only provide a thumbnail size image which is
pretty useless for fine focusing.

Speed of image transferral to the computer - also a function of the
computer power and the physical link. Theres the exposure time which is
probably equivalent to film systems and theres acquisition/scanning time.
The physical link could be slow Scussi, fast Firewire or Opticalfibre (I'm
not sure how the latter 2 compare yet)

Willing to sacrifice high resolution for live video? Some high end video
cameras can also digitally process a signal so that the effective
resolution increases from standard PAL video of 768 x 576 pixels to 1000 X
1000 pixels. The price of these starts approaching or is equivalent to a
digital camera. Most digital cameras cant operate like video if theyre
striving for high resolution unless thay have good binning capability =
more functions = more cost.

3 chip vs 1 chip camera (applies to both digital camera or digital video).
Colour based on primary RGB signals. In a 1 chip camera colour information
is commonly obtained by a filter mosaic over the CCD. Generally 1/2 pixels
get a green filter and 1/4 each red and blue. In a 3chip camera light is
split by a prism and each CCD sensor digitises the R, G or B info
independently. There are variations of how different manufacturers deal
with colour. eg Zeiss axiocam looks pretty special and its only a 1 chip
camera but it employs more magic via colour co-site sampling. Dont ask me,
I havent figured that one out yet. Others use filter wheels.

Make sure coupling between camera and microscope (C-mount for us) is
parfocal: what you see down the tube is what you see on the screen

The Zeiss axiocam Ive mentioned is $14700 + $2000 (AUS) for software. This
looks
to me to be a really good option if you want to readily achieve all the
objectives in your email and it makes a good benchmark for judging other
cameras. It needs a pretty hefty computer to run it -optimally 256MB Ram.
Unless you've looked at a lot of cameras the price probably sounds horrific
in comparison to a normal film camera but there are more expensive models
around that do a lot less. At the same time there are much more affordable
cameras that are good at particular things and what they lack you may be
able to deal with.

I tested the Polaroid digital camera over a year ago
and it was OK for brightfield but no good at all for fluorescence. I
couldnt test what its prints were like though and it was $8000. Ive seen
the DP-10 being used and the Leica DC100 and both were OK on the monitor,
they picked up fluorescence but not the correct colours - these had to be
manipulated with the software if you wanted to replicate what you saw down
the eyepieces. The prints werent that impressive, Ok at regular photosize
but bad if enlarged. That was over a year ago and the specs might have
changed. The Leica DC200 looks much better (our Zeiss rep naturally said it
was junk compared with the axiocam) but I dont have a price for it.
See the attachments and the axiocam can be found on the zeiss website or
get a dealer brochure. (2 years ago the forerunner of the axiocam - the
Kontron Progres was about $25000 just to indicate what some prices are
doing)

The i-cube website is useful for comparing a large number of cameras - the
Spot line from Diagnostic Instruments and the Optronics Magnafire seem to
be widely used by microscopists http://www.i-cubeinc.com/cameras-chart.htm
for what you want. Their prices are comparable or probably greater than the
Zeiss.

Jeff Cosgrove
~~~~~~~
Phytoplankton Ecology Unit
Water & Rivers Commission
Ph:(64-8)-9470-4385
Fax:(64-8)-9470-6785