On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:27:42 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...

Noise mostly but also CA, dynamic range, etc. The lenses aren't designed
for closeup. If you mount a P&S on a microscope with ample light or
exposure time, I'm not sure there would be any difference other than noise
and the loss from the built in 'relay lens' I'm sure scientists use P&S
this way sometimes but if they are really pushing the limits, that's not
optimal. Check out this discussion of how it helps to remove the relay
lens & work directly:
http://www.photomacrography.net/foru...pic.php?t=8268

Fantastic!

By "relay lens" you mean the eyepiece lens, right?


Oh fer cryin' out loud. I've been using P&S cameras for over a decade for
imaging through my lab-quality phase-contrast microscope.

Here's a quick example of plain ol' "creme of tartar" crystals in polarized
light at the low magnification of 120x or so. Not even one of my favorites.
One of the few snapshot examples I'm willing to share publicly.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2497/...55bc0707_o.jpg

Can't you useless DSLR trolls find at least ONE thing that makes a DSLR
superior for any photography related situations or subjects? You're
hopelessly pathetic so far. Even the OP of that referenced thread is using
the worst possible lighting for his microscope. The shallow DOF and
disastrous CA is horrendous when he cranks up the magnification beyond a
simple dissecting scope's level of magnification. Totally useless results.
Incident lighting is child's-play in the hands of someone that knows what
they are doing.

When I see idiots behaving like idiots, I call them idiots. It's a pretty
simple call.