Why 20 megapixels if 5 are enough?

Why are there 20-megapixel cameras for microscopes if everything over 5 megapixels is wasted?
🎈 SUPPORT - Become a Patron: / microbehunter
👜 AMAZON AFFILIATE SHOP - As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
US/World: www.amazon.com/shop/microbehu...
Canada: www.amazon.ca/shop/microbehunter
Germany/Europe: www.amazon.de/shop/microbehunter
UK/Europe: www.amazon.co.uk/shop/microbe...
🖂 NEWSLETTER - www.microbehunter.com/newslett...
💻 WEBSITE - www.microbehunter.com
RECOMMENDED MICROSCOPY PRODUCTS (Affiliate links)
SW380T: amzn.to/3fB76c4
SW350T: amzn.to/3AjxE9G
SW200DL (introductory microscope): amzn.to/3MDP49E
Stereo: amzn.to/40w9wPp
Slides, Cover Glasses: amzn.to/3jvIJxt
Pipette: amzn.to/3Swm9ba

[@no_way4165]

(1) Cameras with fewer megapixels tend to be older, therefore more expensive even if marked down simply because their original MSRP was sky high due to them being cutting edge tech at the time. Cameras with more megapixels tend to be newer, therefore cheaper due to their tech being now mature and commoditized. (2) The resolution of the microscope's image is not the same in all objectives and all magnifications. A 100X objective will not benefit from a camera > 2 MP, a 1.25 X objective will take full advantage of 10+ MP cameras. Also an apo objective resolves better than a cheap objective.

[@TX0486]

Hi there, I've been experimenting with different cameras, from cheap to expensive. When choosing a camera for a microscope, characteristics such as sensitivity, sensor size, and pixel size on the sensor are very important. The smaller the pixel size on the camera, the greater the magnification. For video, it seems that Full HD is enough. However, this is only until you start doing focus stacking from video. Then it is much easier to make a short 4K video, which can then be converted into an image in a focus-stacking application. Another very important feature is FPS. It is desirable to have a high-speed camera that can record videos at 400 fps or 1000 fps. Personally, I use cameras from 10 to 24 MP for a microscope in different modes of operation. ---------------------------- The cheapest microscope camera I use - old Nikon1 j1 10 Mp camera for $9, bought at local second-hand market. It can record realy cool FullHD videos from microscope, and cool slow-mo videos.

[@f.k.6151]

It is more complicated than that. A 5mp sensor 1/4 the size of a 20mp sensor are providing the same pixel density. And it is the size of the pixels and how many there are within a particular range of sensor area that should be compared with the optical resolution.

[@almikell5500]

I am going to look for one of your videos that directly addresses the issue of speed I know that you enjoy playing with a little creepy crawlies.. with frame rates below 1/30 of a second.. thank you..I really appreciate your work.. I'm a teacher.. my students love microscopes

[@carlhunsinger9638]

The reason is simple. Sensor manufacturers do not want to make 5MP sensors. Nobody would ever buy them. If you have a larger sensor with lots of megapixels, look into pixel binning.

[@Bobbysoxer2]

It would be helpful to actually see what is actually seen through the scope with low and high megapixels.

[@UV-NIR-Thermal]

I've tried my Canon 77D connected with Eos utility, with the lens you recommend, with no lens strait sensor, and with the 10x eyepiece. All don't compare to the swift 8mp, think it was $80. I use the SW380T with 4x,10x, 20x plan, and the 40x objectives. Why all the hype about using a dslr, when like you said in this video that 8mp is enough. There's only one time that the dslr is better, and that's using the 4x. Has to do with pixel size and magnification.

[@oni2ink]

I got an SC1803R 18MP camera new for "cheap" (half the price, so about 200€) and indeed the maximum resolution is not really usefull. It's very slow to take images, and the framerate is relatively low (17fps). But with the second resolution the results are pretty cool: 2448x1836 @40fps And the last resolution is even better for recording: 1728x1296 @50fps I also tried binning to reduce the number of pixels in the first resolution, but sadly it adds a lot of noise and I'm not sure why. Only downside is the sensor size, it's 5.86x4.46mm. I have a 3MP camera of the same brand (SC300) and the sensor size is 4.50 x 3.38mm... but the framerate is pretty bad (USB 2.0 camera - 12 fps at the higher resolution).

[@MarieChardome]

interesting, although i don't understand all this yet. so at my lowest level, i decided to have fun comparing pixels of paper, cd, book covers, wrapping etc under my sf10 stereo 🙂

[@weekenddistractions]

I wonder how anti-aliasing filters put onto the sensors impact the effective resolution. Maybe that's a reason to go for a much higher resolution sensor that doesn't have such a filter?

[@sanabriafoto]

I think the higher megapixel count serves for print reproductions. Sometimes the world forgets that there's a life besides the displays. A 1mpx or even 5mpx aren't enough for high quality printing. I've seen too many science books and articles with thumbnail size pictures, maybe the scientists community doesn't care about science diffusion into the general audience.

[@YeaaIJusShiddedOnEm]

I don’t think they “don’t care” per se. I think they just know that most of the general public doesn’t care so why try. This is only based on people I’ve personally known tho so idk

[@pishyenaz]

Hi, I'm new into microscopy and I have a DSLR Nikon camera and I'm planning to purchase bio blue compound trinocular microscope from euromix. Can you guide me through how Can I connect my microscope to my DSLR camera? Which adapter should I use and where to purchase the adapter? Thank you and appreciate your answer

[@MicrobehunterMicroscopy]

Maybe this helps out: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gKabo5qbf9dmmKs DSLR adapters can be bought over Amazon, but depending on whether you have full frame or not, they might or might not work... I suggest that you order one and try it out and then return. You need a Nikon specific T2 adapter.

[@michalbystricky8889]

"megapixel" is the last number we should look at. There are more interesting camera properties than max pixel resolution. Eg. global shutter, short exposure time (for living organisms) etc. Personally I use RPi HQ GS camera with just 1,6Mpx but with global shutter and 30 μs minimal exposure time.

[@YeaaIJusShiddedOnEm]

I don’t know the technical terms for it but there’s a framerate in the “live display” (not talking about recording videos) and I HATE when it’s low much more than I love high res. Had one of these that gave me live feed @2k but it was like 13fps and it was infuriating

[@lotharmayring6063]

get a 4k webcam for some bugs and change the optics and you have a perfekt microscop camera and dont use such monster cameras which is shown in the video here for microscopy

[@geoffgeoff143]

Dynamic range is more important than megapixels.

[@minibigs5259]

Are there any really good reviews of not shit cameras? I vuess due to cost, everybody likes to do reviews of shit cameras.....but nobody really does xvyvz of potentially decent cameras?