2,509 Brands 452 Categories All Departments

Photos with digital camera vs built-in camera

Post a reply


Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
BBCode is ON
[img] is OFF
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Photos with digital camera vs built-in camera

MICROSCOPE AND CAMERA

Post by opticsplanet.com on Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:11 pm

Hi

Not familiar with that microscope, so no way I can't offer much in the way of comments, but if your current camera is offering only 1.3MP, going to nearly any good digital point and shoot like your Canon will be an improvement in terms of resolution.

Photos with digital camera vs built-in camera

Post by KlondikeGeoff on Fri Jun 22, 2007 6:08 pm

I've got an Accu-scope with a built-in 1.3 megapixel digital camera. It takes good pics at all magnifications.

However, I'm hoping to get sharper images, and wonder if I get an adapter and use my Canon PowerShot A610, which is 5 megapixels, whether it would really improve the shots.

I rarely print the images, just view them on my 19" LCD monitor. Is it worth the trouble and expense of getting an adapter?

Would using the separate camera give me more latitude in stopping down to get better depth of field that do with the condenser iris diaphragm?

Top