Here you go some demos of the microscope:
Attached photo is a still image out of that 16MP camera, directly as it was saved on the SD card. The jpeg compression is pretty horrible so video mode actually looks better. The photo also shows the depth of field possible. You can see the board (Its a RaspberryPi 3) is in focus but you can also see the top of those dual height USB jacks reasonably fine. The videos up there on youtube is pretty much exactly what you see on the HDMI monitor. And as usual the cameras viewing angle is more narrow than what you see trough the eyepiece because it has to get cropped down to square+some tolerance.
Went back and found the original aliexpress listing:
So apparently what i have here is a "Minsvision 7X-45X Trinocular Stereo Zoom Microscope 16MP Camera HDMI TF Card Storage 60 pc Microscope Light Ring"
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32880959393.html?spm=2114.12010615.8148356.3.475b7a8feQvzBF
Berni, thanks very much for getting all the images/videos and other info together. I appreciate it.
The Minsvision head looks like it probably came from wherever Amscope gets their 745 heads, so I'm going to guess that the image quality is similar.
I think based on your experience and your images and the other images so far in this thread that Amscope's image quality will be sufficient to make me somewhere between happy and very happy with their simulfocal. Having said, I would not rule out the possibility that an Amscope binocular could have some image quality advantage vs. their simulfocals; whether this is the case or not, and if so, to what degree I can't say - just not enough info. What I can say is that Torsten's "green" photo represents my best hope for what might be achieved; any more and I'd be ecstatic, similar/slightly less which is what I think we've seen from some of the other images will be ok. Fwiw, I think Torsten's "green" image might represent what the typical Amscope stereo optics can achieve, but isn't often seen with digital images. I'm guessing that this particular image is so impressive (at least to me) because not only did the scope do it's job, but Torsten captured it exceedingly well with his camera (along with his scope lighting and focusing). I think there is a bit of a hit or miss when snapping a camera photo down an ocular, not unlike there is some hit or miss with any photo. Occasionally a photographer nails it and sometimes it's just close. Something about it, but that particular image (the "green" image) is as breathtaking as a soldering-related photo can be
.
Getting back to facts (I think) vs emotions, I did some research today and spoke with folks experienced with Leica and Olympus. What I learned is that when you spend about $5k for a new scope in their current product lines they are very sure that their trinoculars/simulfocals don't degrade the binocular view. As I understand slightly better now, the two binocular views converge with the view from the objective lens and how they converge is a bit of the engineering magic provided by the high end manufacturers. I think each high end company has some amount of proprietary technique but they seem to agree that to make a 3rd port for the camera the basic approach is to put a prism somewhere inline with the path between the objective lens one of the ocular ports enabling the prism to share the image with the camera port. The high end guys are very sure that this prism holds it's own with the rest of their optics - as a result they claim the light attenuation is negligible (and can easily be made up by putting more light on the subject), and they also claim, most importantly, that the prism introduces no discernible degradation to what reaches the oculars. This is their confident position on the matter (as I understand it). From there they will say that if you pay less something has to give (in addition to their overhead and profit margin) and that all bets are off as to whether manufacturers down the food chain can make such a claim regarding no degradation when adding the third port.
I have no doubt that when looking through the optics of a Leica or Olympus that the image would be clearer, more detailed, and more faithfully rendered and overall better magnified than a product costing 20% or 10% of what they get for a fully configured (head, boom, camera, etc) microscope. In their case they start with exquisite optics for the binoc and then they add sufficient beam splitting optics to avoid degrading the binoc view. It's just a matter of throwing enough knowhow and $ at the problem until there are no weak links in the chain.
So, the question is not whether Amscope can provide a binoc (or a trinoc) that matches the big guys, but whether Amscope can provide a trinoc that can match it's own binoc. I guess time will tell but I'm inclined to give it a whirl unless anyone has any new persuasive info to surface. My thinking is that the trinoc/simulfocal will be substantially close to the binoc and the flexibility to have the digital image will be useful. Worst case, it's time to bailout of microscopy or upgrade the head (resale value on an Amscope trinoc head might be half?).
In summary, microscopy is another another department within TEA.
Thx for all the info and guidance from everyone on this thread. Plz feel free to weigh-in with more sample images and other info/advice. Thx again, EF