Tag changed since this isn't likely to involve a PIC.
Thanks for the comments Russell.
I will certainly look further at the Canon line.
But didn't Minolta just get out of cameras?
Russell McMahon wrote:
> A number of mid to upper DSLR's have full image data download to PC
> "on the fly". My Minolta 7D has this - PC software is free. While the
> 7D is now no longer made, new ones are available and cost probably
> around $US800 up new. I have not used this feature yet so do not know
> capture rate but i assume it does not slow the camera down much
> relative to normal use. A typical image may be 2 MB / 20 Mbit say.
> That should transfer in around 0.1 s on USB2 if everything worked as
> it ought - certainly well under 1 s.
That would certainly be adequate.
> You can make far larger images
> but 2 MB - 4 MB should be OK for most things.
The plan was to use 1280x1024 since that's what the LCD monitors
can display. If we get a better monitor, we'd up the camera
settings.
> Camera does 3 to 4
> frames per second maximum. Not full motion realtime but probably fast
> enough for most astronomical images. An EVF mirrorless camera (non
> SLR) may be better for frame grabbing.
Yes, I figured there wasn't much point in optical viewfinder
for this application.
> Othe DSLRs have this facility. I've seen a Nikon used this way (may
> have been a D70?) and Canon would certainly have it on some or most of
> their DSLRs. The top Canons (and others) now have 802.11g WiFi built
> in.
Now that would be nice. Makes the cabling less of an issue since
moving the camera from scope to scope would become trivial.
(We have dedicated telescopes for solar work, vs deep sky, vs general work).
> Ask further about Minolta software if interested. This MAY be the
> cheapest option using a camera with an APSC or larger sensor. (APSC is
> 2/3 x 35mm full frame linearly or 44% of 35mm frame area). 7D is
> "only" 6 MP BUT has 'real world' performance vastly better than eg 8MP
> "prosumer" wannabees. (I have both so can compare them well).
>
Thanks for that review. I'll see what I can find around here.
IIRC Minolta has a hexagonal pixel based sensor so it gets more
out of each pixel.
A DLSR with it's fancy large-diameter lens may not be the
best match for a telescope eyepiece (I assume that you want
to use the magnification of the eyepiece. People seem to be
getting impressive results from those pocket-sized digital
cameras backed up to microscope and other eyepieces, and I
suspect that it has a fair amount to do with the fact that
the camera lens and its focal length are getting close to
that of the human eye that the eyepiece was designed to accommodate.
part 0 44 bytes his is a multi-part message in MIME format. part 1 1911 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed (decoded 7bit)
William Chops Westfield wrote:
>>>Other DSLRs have this facility.
>
>
> A DLSR with it's fancy large-diameter lens may not be the
> best match for a telescope eyepiece (I assume that you want
> to use the magnification of the eyepiece. People seem to be
> getting impressive results from those pocket-sized digital
> cameras backed up to microscope and other eyepieces, and I
> suspect that it has a fair amount to do with the fact that
> the camera lens and its focal length are getting close to
> that of the human eye that the eyepiece was designed to accommodate.
Yes, it certainly helps to use smaller lenses.
My Pentax 750Z is a LOT easier to use behind an eyepiece than
my Nikon 8800.
>
> www.instructables.com/id/EYY1F7X6PCEP287S4U/
> www.instructables.com/id/EGI0MSNQR2EP287XRS/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, exactly like that.
I've been taking photos this way for years now, with good success.
My only comment on the second link above is that one doesn't have
to use macro mode if one focuses the microscope as if you were looking
at mountains far away (e.g. infinity plane instead of 18"). Then you can
lock the camera to infinity, and get much quicker shutter response.
Same for telescopes of course.
I have a set of 3/8" brass rods held together with lab clamps
to allow me to mount the camera in the correct position behind
the eyepiece so that I don't have to hold it (Celestron C8).
Thanks for all the feedback.
Please take a look at your inexpensive consumer class camera manual
and see if it can stream images to a PC. Would need to be "high speed"
USB (not "full speed") or firewire to be practical.
And taking a moment to read your manual might teach you a few things you
didn't know about your camera <G>.
Robert
part 2 20554 bytes content-type:image/jpeg; (decode) part 3 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii" (decoded 7bit)
On 2006-Jul 01, at 14:22hrs PM, Robert Rolf wrote:
Tag changed since this isn't likely to involve a PIC.
Thanks for the comments Russell.
I will certainly look further at the Canon line.
But didn't Minolta just get out of cameras?
.............................
From Minolta website
Konica Minolta Photo Imaging, Inc. ceased the camera business on
March 31, 2006.
As of April 1st, 2006, Sony Corporation is providing customer service
for Konica’s, Minolta’s, and Konica Minolta’s cameras (excluding Film-
In cameras) and camera-related products except for the binoculars.
Konica Minolta Photo Imaging, Inc. would like to express our
heartfelt appreciation to fans of Konica Minolta around the world for
their support for more than a century.
............................
Russell McMahon wrote:
> A number of mid to upper DSLR's have full image data download to PC
> "on the fly". My Minolta 7D has this - PC software is free. While the
> 7D is now no longer made, new ones are available and cost probably
> around $US800 up new. I have not used this feature yet so do not know
> capture rate but i assume it does not slow the camera down much
> relative to normal use. A typical image may be 2 MB / 20 Mbit say.
> That should transfer in around 0.1 s on USB2 if everything worked as
> it ought - certainly well under 1 s.
That would certainly be adequate.
> You can make far larger images
> but 2 MB - 4 MB should be OK for most things.
The plan was to use 1280x1024 since that's what the LCD monitors
can display. If we get a better monitor, we'd up the camera
settings.
> Camera does 3 to 4
> frames per second maximum. Not full motion realtime but probably fast
> enough for most astronomical images. An EVF mirrorless camera (non
> SLR) may be better for frame grabbing.
Yes, I figured there wasn't much point in optical viewfinder
for this application.
> Othe DSLRs have this facility. I've seen a Nikon used this way (may
> have been a D70?) and Canon would certainly have it on some or most of
> their DSLRs. The top Canons (and others) now have 802.11g WiFi built
> in.
Now that would be nice. Makes the cabling less of an issue since
moving the camera from scope to scope would become trivial.
(We have dedicated telescopes for solar work, vs deep sky, vs general
work).
> Ask further about Minolta software if interested. This MAY be the
> cheapest option using a camera with an APSC or larger sensor. (APSC is
> 2/3 x 35mm full frame linearly or 44% of 35mm frame area). 7D is
> "only" 6 MP BUT has 'real world' performance vastly better than eg 8MP
> "prosumer" wannabees. (I have both so can compare them well).
>
Thanks for that review. I'll see what I can find around here.
IIRC Minolta has a hexagonal pixel based sensor so it gets more
out of each pixel.
>The plan was to use 1280x1024 since that's what the
>LCD monitors can display. If we get a better monitor,
>we'd up the camera settings.
You might like to look at the little 1/4", 1/3" and so on cameras that are
available from various places. These come in XGA (1.3MP) and larger sizes,
and are the type of things used in the likes of cell phone cameras and
(probably) web cams. They have an I2C control bus and parallel video at
selectable rates.
The bit that may get you is sensitivity, but I cannot see that they are
likely to be that much worse than most other cameras.
>>The plan was to use 1280x1024 since that's what the
>>LCD monitors can display. If we get a better monitor,
>>we'd up the camera settings.
>
>
> You might like to look at the little 1/4", 1/3" and so on cameras that are
> available from various places. These come in XGA (1.3MP) and larger sizes,
> and are the type of things used in the likes of cell phone cameras and
> (probably) web cams. They have an I2C control bus and parallel video at
> selectable rates.
>
> The bit that may get you is sensitivity, but I cannot see that they are
> likely to be that much worse than most other cameras.
Those sorts of cameras are usually CMOS, and have horrid noise levels,
and terrible sensitivity. 2 lux @ f2 compared to 0.003 lux for a
CCD hyperHAD.
ALL the web cams I have found so far are basically VGA with up interpolation
to higher resolutions using software.
Modern consumer cameras have much better noise levels and while
more expensive, have intrinsically more resolution.
