Next <
From: RichA <>
Subject: Re: Guy uses a $3000 camera but a crappy Chinese microscope to shoot videos
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id s30mr249979qta.22.1516411798023;
Fri, 19 Jan 2018 17:29:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by with SMTP id x70mr35633vke.8.1516411797820; Fri,
19 Jan 2018 17:29:57 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 17:29:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
Injection-Info:; posting-host=; posting-account=8Vsz_woAAABQPV3Epo66m_rYvK1EHzOV
References: <> <>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Guy uses a $3000 camera but a crappy Chinese microscope to shoot videos
From: RichA <>
Injection-Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 01:29:58 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 22
Print Article
Forward Article
On Thursday, 18 January 2018 05:08:42 UTC-5, Whisky-dave  wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 January 2018 22:28:33 UTC, RichA  wrote:
> > God, at least get used Nikon, Leitz, Olympus or Zeiss microscope!  The images are mediocre.
> > 
> >
> I agree that it's not brillant and not that impressive, but the depth of field is the problem NOT
the quality of the optics. Of course someone could seel you a $10k lens and tell you you'd get
better results and you may well be fooled by them.
> But in a recent doicumentry series on BBC 1 with david attenborough filming ants, they need to get
really close and have a hiogh depth of field so they brought a ~$8 lens off amazon/ebay and used
that on the end of their £1000s filming rig.

DOF is an issue, but there isn't much you can do about it with video.  However, there is an issue
with the optics, they were probably plan-achro objectives which are horrible for photography.