This may be a stupid question...

[Intergage (Matt)]

Hey all,

I was looking at microscope on ebay and saw this one.
How ever, in a effort to justify buying it (No real reason..) I thought maybe the camera might come in handy for different things.

I use a Canon EOS 600D with a 1.25" adapter (Not sure what it's really called) it allows me to put lenses inside. Anyway, I seem to use no lens inside the adapter when taking pictures of things like M42 and thought maybe, even though it's an awful resolution it might be better?
My biggest problem with it is the 600D seems to zoom it too much and I can only take 5 second exposures before very noticeable star trails. Even the rotation gets a bit bad as I'm only using a Dob.

I can't seem to find the width of the camera or the average width of a microscope lens. It looks like 30mm but it could be 25mm for all I know.
Can anyone tell me if it would work or if it would even be worth trying?

Thanks,

[cometcatcher (Kevin)]

Microscopes have weird size lenses with weird focal planes so prime focus with them using a DSLR without a relay lens doesn't always work. Good quality relay lenses are not cheap either but with one like this you will be able to use your DSLR for photography through the microscope. Without it you may not reach focus with some objectives.

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Canon-SLR...item5d4abf0fcb

[cometcatcher (Kevin)]

Actually a much better microscope more suited to photography would be only a few dollars more. Like this one.

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/40X-2000X...item2eb8c0400f

The 3D stage is much much better than slide clips the other one uses and you get a trinocular head. This gives you a camera port at the same time as a binocular view. This model is similar to the one I have.