We have all seen those cheap digital microscopes, whether in USB format or with its own screen, all of them promising super-clear images of everything from butterfly wings to electronics at amazing magnification levels. In response to this, we have to paraphrase The Simpsons: in this Universe, we obey the laws of physics. This applies doubly so for image sensors and optics, which is where fundamental physics can only be dodged so far by heavy post-processing. In a recent video, the [Outdoors55] YouTube channel goes over these exact details, comparing a Tomlov DM9 digital microscope from Amazon to a quality macro lens on an APS-C format Sony Alpha a6400.
First of all, the magnification levels listed are effectively meaningless, as you are comparing a very tiny image sensor to something like an APS-C sensor, which itself is smaller than a full-frame sensor (i.e., 35 mm). As demonstrated in the video, the much larger sensor already gives you the ability to see many more details even before cranking the optical zoom levels up to something like 5 times, never mind the 1,500x claimed for the DM9.
On the optics side, the lack of significant depth of field is problematic. Although the workarounds suggested in the video work, such as focus stacking and diffusing the light projected onto the subject, it is essential to be aware of the limitations of these microscopes. That said, since we’re comparing a $150 digital microscope with a $1,500 Sony digital camera with macro lens, there’s some leeway here to say that the former will be ‘good enough’ for many tasks, but so might a simple jeweler’s loupe for even less.
There are some reasonable hobby-grade USB microscopes. There are also some hard-to-use toys.
Mine sits in the soldering tools box.
Comparing this kind of ‘microscope’ to a real camera is missing the point.
I suppose could mount the micro 4:3 w macro lens on a tripod, set the whole thing sideways, connect it to a bigger screen, arrange the screen above the work area, then solder.
Or I could use the $40 chinesium digital microscope.
Which is the better choice?
Answer: Pay for assembly when you order the boards.
Any day spend soldering tiny surface mount components is a bad day.
Beware software guys bearing soldering irons!
This guy was answering a troll who claimed their cheap gear was better than his studio gear. (That was probably a mistake, as we all know to never feed the trolls.) For someone who makes their money by showing small important things in great detail to a wide audience, production values matter. It makes sense for him to spend his money on quality equipment, regardless of what some internet rando claims.
And that’s interesting to the HAD audience because we like to nerd out on high quality equipment. It wasn’t about what we do with it, or how we can best avoid it.
He’s feeding the trolls and the youtube algorithm.
Title includes troll phrase ‘Pretty Terrible’ without qualification, you are misidentifying the troll.
The cheap gear is better, for things like soldering, checking trichomes for ripeness etc.
For most things, except running a ‘Daily life of a bug’ channel.
The best camera is the one you have, ready to use.
These days, that’s usually a shitty phone camera, with awful glass and a random shot delay.
Also note that there are some jobs you don’t dare do with expensive gear.
Cheap disposable is feature!
HAD is not photography enthusiast site.
Nobody cares about someone’s new F/0.2 lens.
But we do care that someone believed that lens exists.
Will point and laugh.
This guy is comparing sloppily made pictures with a $150 camera +lcd setup with carefully stacked images from his 10x more expensive camara to which he added probably more than double that amount of hardware for the computer.
Then @4:00 he needs a few minutes to explain that if you scale the image on a monitor to have the same size as the real life object, then it has the same size as the real life object.
Then @05:00 he’s showing the ballpoint view of his carefully focus stacked expensive camera while it’s looking at a pocket knife. I assume this is meant to be some kind of humor but I have had enough and did not see the rest of the video.
Yeah, sure, more expensive stuff is more betterer, but these cheap camera / LCD combo’s are plenty good for a whole lot of applications. I would like to see this guy soldering 0402 resistors while holding his sony camera in one hand and looking at the PC monitor behind his back.
If the thing is digital can’t it just step through all possible focal points and present an image where everything in the viewfinder is focused?
You know, fix it in software :-)
I thought that’s what those light field cameras did.
Just twist the lens on a cheap usb webcam almost all the way in and it’ll do approx. 200-400x magnification. Granted the focus and positioning of the subject are a little tricky to get right without a little practice, but for the cost and speed, well within reach of most. If you’re careful / brave enough, you can even remove the IR filter.
My $30 USB microscope has 1 huge advantage over his expensive camera setup: I could afford it.
Works well enough for me anyway.
These digital ‘microscope’ serve a purpose, but TANSTAAFL. They are not a general replacement for a good macro lens, nor for an actual microscope with quality optics and properly designed illumination (You can have my Nikon binocular scope with darkfield and eptiaxial illumination and two camera ports when you pry it from my cold, dead eyes)
I have used several over the years, for example in engineering classes to project live for students. Much better than a webcam (which I also used), in general, as it CAN be focused and gets more light, poor depth of field notwithstanding.
Also have used a better quality one in my engineering life, lipstick size, in large part for things like on-site pics where a cellphone won’t do due to focal capability, available light, access, or the current bane of no unprocessed images available. I can get RAW from the digital ‘microscope’. Kind of important for some things. It is cheap enough that I don’t worry too much about it being damaged in, shall we say, difficult environments. I will say that my Canon’s running CHDK scripts also cover the territory, for a mid-cost, but at a larger physical size, which means they can’t be snaked into some awkward areas. The lipstick form has the additional advantage of being able to mount a prism or first surface mirror to allow looking sideways.
Nah, cheap Chinese microscopes are a free lunch for 99% of people. The companies that make these sorts of products are VERY good at figuring out what features people really don’t need. If you told me 10 years ago that I could buy a digital microscope with micrometer-per-pixel resolution for 30 bucks including next-day delivery I would have never believed you.
What he doesn’t let on is that with the expensive Sony with the huge sensor, you must stack multiple photos to get any depth of field. And this requires a lot of exposure time and substantial post-processing on a computer, so not remotely real-time.
A smaller camera with smaller sensor intrinsically has a much larger depth of field, and lets you do real-time imaging. Equip both with a similar quality lens and lighting, and you’ll find the smaller camera much better suited to the moderate-magnification real-time inspection task.
He’s just looking ridiculous, trying to compare two very different things on a task neither are ideal for. Like asking “What’s better, an e-bike or a ford 150?”
The lows people will go to get clicks.
I follow the guy and he’s a decent fellow. The point he was trying to make was his camera setup was better for taking pictures of knife edges which his channel is all about. Commenters were saying the cheap microscopes were just as good and it wasn’t true besides having a lower price.
Was the headline his or HADs?
Because the unqualified ‘pretty terrible’ is just clickbait BS.
Watching the clickbait would be letting the troll win.
Not going to do it.
So in that context, it makes more sense. It’s a shame it doesn’t serve well as a standalone video. Particularly when headlined like this article.
You can buy decent digital microscopes like those from Dino-Lite, but they are pricey, my AM7115MZTL cost £658 (nearly $1000).
If you’re the type that prefers a DIY option, the HQ camera for the raspberry PI can be paired with a nice C/CS-mount macro lens (or a c-mount scope adapter if you just happen to already have a compatible microscope/dissecting scope). The Sony IMX477 in the HQ is still quite a nice sensor for the price, and while sure, something with an APS-C or full frame sensor and a high end lens can do better in absolute photo quality, I think the c-mount sensor really is in the sweet spot for this application when it comes to the tradeoff between image quality, lens size & weight, and cost. There’s a reason that c-mount adapters have been one of the dominant standards on optical microscopes and dissecting scopes…
also the pi setup makes it easy(ish) to do fun things like mounting the lens assembly on an old 3d printer gantry and driving the z axis stepper for controlled focus stacking.
On the other hand if you want something that “just works” for a reasonable price, I wouldn’t recommend the $89 Tomlov DM9 in the video unless you don’t have another camera and have very low expectations. These days, you probably already have a cell phone, and even a mid-range smartphone can probably take better photos and videos through a $10 jeweler’s loupe than you’ll get from that scope.
But if you’re willing to spend a few hundred, Tomlov (and many other manufacturers) sell perfectly nice and fit-for-purpose digital microscopes that you can just slap on your desk and work with.
What full frame DSLR image stacking has to do with desktop standalone microscope? Nobody is doing focus stacking to get a microscope image to analyze PCB soldering or edge burrs of a knife.
Also he didn’t show any single shot with his macro lens on DSLR, only stacked images. Why? I’m guessing they would look the same as the cheap microscope alone / single frame.