Precisely how good is Windows 7 perfomance with regard to images taken through the camera compared to eyepiece views?
240411
It strikes me as very good, though I am not an intensive user of microscopes. To my eye, the digital image on the PC is every bit as clear as what I see through the eyepiece. We use the scope on a project in Africa and regularly send images for analysis back to the US.
240412
The images come out a little fuzzy, not as clear as looking through the eyepiece. You may have to look at the screen through the camera and make the appropriate adjustments to attain a clearer image. The video is of good quality. Blurry in the transitions, though.
240413
The performance of the software presenting images on the monitor is superior to the view through the eyepiece (due to my eye acuity). We use a 19" NEC relatively high resolution monitor which give excellent images.
240414
The other reviews say it best - not as accurate as the eyepiece but still quite good. BTW, I have used it to show images to young people. They see it on a monitor, then line up to see it in the eyepiece - EXCELLENT for the money!!!
240415
As others have reported the resolution is less than your eye is, the focus needs to be changed slightly as the camera is in a different position in the optical path. The colors are set by the camera, which are off from what your eye sees more greenish as I remember. I don't use it much, or rely on it, its just a fun option. For the price I like the microscope though. I wouldn't return it. If you want something better, you need to purchase different microscope.
240416
The video/photo output is very good on Windows 7. About as good as you are going to get without shelling out thousands of dollars....also, I am not sure how good of a photoshop wizard you may be..But I have used photoshop to "auto stitch" multiple images together into a super high resolution image..Works great and looks great...but keep in mind...nothing will ever compare to a eyepiece view...which is completely optical and not affected at all by any digital compressions....
240417
I found the still images to be good, but as others noted not as crystal clear as the eyepiece view. Certainly usable and functional although the colors may be slightly off compared to the eyepiece view.The video output was fun and interesting for kids to see, but not as close to the eyepiece view as I wanted. I wouldn't use the video output option for any presentations where accuracy was important. In order to give the kids a realistic view, we ended up cycling them through viewing directly through the eyepiece. Any movement such as fresh blood samples and the video output was too blurry to be useful. I found the still images to be good, but as others noted not as crystal clear as the eyepiece view. Certainly usable and functional although the colors may be slightly off compared to the eyepiece view.The video output was fun and interesting for kids to see, but not as close to the eyepiece view as I wanted. I wouldn't use the video output option for any presentations where accuracy was important. In order to give the kids a realistic view, we ended up cycling them through viewing directly through the eyepiece. Any movement such as fresh blood samples and the video output was... » Read More I found the still images to be good, but as others noted not as crystal clear as the eyepiece view. Certainly usable and functional although the colors may be slightly off compared to the eyepiece view.The video output was fun and interesting for kids to see, but not as close to the eyepiece view as I wanted. I wouldn't use the video output option for any presentations where accuracy was important. In order to give the kids a realistic view, we ended up cycling them through viewing directly through the eyepiece. Any movement such as fresh blood samples and the video output was too blurry to be useful. « Show Less
240418
First the Company selling this microscope is very good and responsible. I have no complains about their services. On the other hand, I wish I could answer your question more precisely. It depends on the work you are doing; in my case the microbiology course was demanding me procedures beyond the capability of this great microscope. I suggest you to research a little bit more and obtain reviews from microscope buyers, sharing your interests in using a microscope before any purchase...
2092549
I did not have any trouble seeing the picture on the screen in sunlight. I just shot over 170 photos outside and it worked fine.
1549534
The only issue I have had, and it's really the way it should be is that you can't calibrate if you have any imaging software open, this includes windows photo viewing programs.
1323126
Hi Ryan,As you know that this is a fast dobsonian, you have to use quality eyepieces to get the most out of it.With my Celestron eyepieces I got reasonable level of contrast of Saturn including Casini division, few saturnian moon with little cloudy bands of the planet in 300x .My cloudy nights friends who are using Pentax XW or TV Delos have got lot of viewing pleasure and some of friends who are using Orthoscopic eyepieces also satisfied well with this telescope.I think that you cannot go wrong with this telescope. Clear Skies...Best regardsDr. R.A.N.S Rajapakshe.
1038729
It will do both as well as panorama view which is no different than standard full screen in my opinion. I had it playing at 177" in 16:9 and it was really clear.
1046019
The link for the comparison at cameralabs.com is not applicable because it tested the Sigma 18-200 DC prior to the release of the OS version. The OS version is much better optically than its predecessor and also includes HSM (High Speed Motor). I have read test reviews and comparisons at other sites such as popphoto that indicate the Sigma is sharper and has less distortion than the Nikon 18-200 VR, but they also state it is slightly louder. I just received my Sigma 18-200 OS today and have done limited testing, but I can tell you the AF and OS noise are not bad (the OS chirps when it turns on and off). The Sigma AF is louder than my Nikon 18-135 (w/SWM), but quieter than the AF on my Nikon 50mm 1.8 prime (wo/SWM). The HSM AF seems just as fast as my Nikon lenses. The build quality feels better than the Nikon 18-135; the zoom is smooth and solid. The first things I tested today were barrel distortion and OS functionality. Barrel distortion is present at the wide end on ALL wide-range zooms, but the Sigma controls it better. The Sigma has noticeably less barrel distortion at 18mm than my Nikon. This benefit of the Sigma is moot really, because barrel distortion of both lenses can easily be corrected with software. The OS functions very well, I can shoot hand-held down to 1/10th of a second with no blur. I will post again after I have time to do more testing.
2273417
The Swi-View has a relatively large loupe. It replaced a cheaper hood/loupe combo, which had a 3X loupe, but it was smaller. I have no trouble seeing the entire 3" screen on my Canon 60Da with the Swi-View. I also like the way it attaches (actually "slides onto") the screen. I use it almost 100% of the time for astroimaging, particularly for focusing the optic, using the 5x or 10x mag feature of the 60Da's screen.
1149067
I would check out the AOC website for detailed specs. I like the 2ms response time and 20,000,000:1 contrast ratio. You can also view 4 screens at once if needed.
2067933
I don't do terrestrial viewing other than to align the guide scope, so I can't say what qualifies for good. The image does look nice though. Magnification is great on this thing; on truly clear days I can get 250x. The images are upright.
827414
Working fine for me as a real-time streetcam on a Core2 Quad with 8 GB and Win 7 Ultimate 64 bit. The camera does use a lot of CPU time (20-35% on the quad-core box) at its max resolution 1280x720 mode. CPU use drops significantly at lower resolutions. Nevertheless, it's my favorite USB camera out of an assortment of models I've used. It's by far the best at handling dawn to dusk outside light levels and is even (barely) useful at night with the illumination of a single street light that's about 120 feet away.
492600
Not that I have noticed. Even in 3D mode, the images are crisp and clear. The key with this device is that the quality of the displayed images is all about the custom adjustment to your head and face which is made simple with it's startup calibration process.
2082826
I have one, and I have it set up on my ASUSTeK Computer INC. P8P67 DELUXE computer, with my OS Windows 7 at 64bit ops. I have it connected constantly. It's a great little scope and does fantastic photos, well worth the money.
577535
What's the good effect? Is there an advantage in the image or resolution improvement?
473117
I'm using it on a Windows 7 Pro (64-bit) system right now. I'm happier with it since I upgrade from the on-board video to a stand-alone PCI-E video card with 2G of memory....the max resolution on this monitor was a stretch for the 4GB I had in the system. I had bought a set of 'computer cheaters' to fit over my bifocals....and haven't used them since I got this 27-incher. I LOVE it! It is bright, and it is Huge.
1580445
Qaulity is great. There is even a closeup button that zooms in very well! I ise mine almost daily ;-)
2040708
It depends on the camera's proximity and position to the window. In short: the window's glass might reflect the camera's IR lights, generating a glare that will range from insignificant to completely blown out.If you *really* need reliable outdoor surveillance, consider one of the outdoor models like SCNC3905 or SCNC3805.
2059522
With the VR, it performs fairly well. It is 1/2 stop slower than the older 18-300, but it's lighter and has better optical characteristics. The 1/2 step is not really an issue. Just remember that it does stop down to f6.3 at full telephoto. If you use Auto ISO, this could help compensate. If you have realistic expectations about what the lens can do, it will serve you well.