> Prev
From: RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
Subject: Guy uses a $3000 camera but a crappy Chinese microscope to shoot videos
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.200.27.245 with SMTP id m50mr2034469qtk.39.1516228105514;
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:28:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.31.48.85 with SMTP id w82mr328884vkw.11.1516228105306; Wed,
17 Jan 2018 14:28:25 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer02.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!s47no691495qta.0!news-out.google.com!g8ni1880qtk.0!nntp.google.com!s47no691494qta.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:28:25 -0800 (PST)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.95.0.172; posting-account=8Vsz_woAAABQPV3Epo66m_rYvK1EHzOV
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.95.0.172
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <3af047ec-3d2c-4725-b2c8-ebcb0887f11b@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Guy uses a $3000 camera but a crappy Chinese microscope to shoot videos
From: RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 22:28:25 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Body-CRC: 915249968
X-Received-Bytes: 1317
Print Article
Forward Article
God, at least get used Nikon, Leitz, Olympus or Zeiss microscope!  The images are mediocre.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/4895064436/structure-moving-4k-close-u... 

	
From: Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Guy uses a $3000 camera but a crappy Chinese microscope to shoot videos
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.200.48.196 with SMTP id w4mr19796449qta.20.1516270116255;
Thu, 18 Jan 2018 02:08:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.31.48.85 with SMTP id w82mr462871vkw.11.1516270116089; Thu,
18 Jan 2018 02:08:36 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!newsgate.cuhk.edu.hk!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!i22no3931803qta.1!news-out.google.com!e39ni1490qtk.1!nntp.google.com!s47no932549qta.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 02:08:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <3af047ec-3d2c-4725-b2c8-ebcb0887f11b@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=138.37.90.65; posting-account=Fal3rgoAAABua4brvRuRwdmPfigIDi6x
NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.37.90.65
References: <3af047ec-3d2c-4725-b2c8-ebcb0887f11b@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <597a320e-8583-45f3-b7ea-263cf69b28fa@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Guy uses a $3000 camera but a crappy Chinese microscope to shoot videos
From: Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:08:36 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 17
Print Article
Forward Article
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.
> 
>
https://www.dpreview.com/news/4895064436/structure-moving-4k-close-u...

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.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05rgmbt/p05rglqk 

	
Next <
From: RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Guy uses a $3000 camera but a crappy Chinese microscope to shoot videos
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.200.46.97 with SMTP id s30mr249979qta.22.1516411798023;
Fri, 19 Jan 2018 17:29:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.31.174.73 with SMTP id x70mr35633vke.8.1516411797820; Fri,
19 Jan 2018 17:29:57 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!s47no1994441qta.0!news-out.google.com!e39ni1854qtk.1!nntp.google.com!s47no1994436qta.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 17:29:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <597a320e-8583-45f3-b7ea-263cf69b28fa@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.95.0.172; posting-account=8Vsz_woAAABQPV3Epo66m_rYvK1EHzOV
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.95.0.172
References: <3af047ec-3d2c-4725-b2c8-ebcb0887f11b@googlegroups.com> <597a320e-8583-45f3-b7ea-263cf69b28fa@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5e22bd8b-8af1-4f70-967c-78f6662a2457@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Guy uses a $3000 camera but a crappy Chinese microscope to shoot videos
From: RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
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.
> > 
> >
https://www.dpreview.com/news/4895064436/structure-moving-4k-close-u...
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05rgmbt/p05rglqk

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.