Re: Anybody with experience using Digital SLR on a microscope?

> It would be interesting to know the S/N value of a Canon EOS-1D Mark II N
> or
> a EOS-1Ds Mark II, which are professional used DSLR...
>
The S/N is greatly enhanced with cooled CCD vs. uncooled image sensors (CCD
and CMOS). If you think that ISO 3200 is a challenge, try ISO 100,000 [1].
With a cooled CCD you can capture events (signals) that is way below the
noise level of any DSLR. For instance, I would not use DSLRs for
fluorescence microscopy.

[1] D. B. Murphy, "Digital CCD Microscopy" in "Fundamentals of Light
Microscopy and Electronic Imaging", p. 259, Wiley-Liss (2001).

> like I mentioned...if one could use a DSLR with a typical software like
> analaySIS or Metamorph
> this would be a issue
>
Try focusing with a DSLR. There is no real-time preview yet on the big
Canon's. The smaller 20D has some preview mode that you can use if you
purchase a special version of 20D. But this preview would not be of much use
for brightfield. And this special version requires an IR filter if you don't
want to use it for IR work.

But with a dedicated camera, I get a 1600x1200 preview image on the screen
(at 12 or more fps). Focusing the image becomes very simple when using
special tools to do the job. Autofocus of a DSLR does not really work if the
depth of focus is too large (e.g. with any objective at NA 0.4 or larger).
Optical sectioning with autofocus is a nightmare.

If you have the money, get a dedicated imaging device for photomicrography.
There is no better alternative. A cooled image sensor is a must for
fluorescence microscopy.

But I agree if you have already a nice DSLR, why not try it out. The EOS-1D
Mark II N has a 1.2x cropping factor and hence you should be "ok" with a
standard 35mm setup. The 5D, with its full format sensor, would be a little
bit more suitable.

Gregor


.