*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Have you considered astronomical cameras?  They typically don't have Bayer mosaics.  The super-duper ones used in the major observatories cost a huge amount, but there are a lot aimed at the amateur / semi- professional market which are affordable.  For example, QHYCCD have cameras up to 11 megapixels. That was just a quick search, but I'm sure there are more out there, and your requirements seem very similar to theirs.  

                                                                         Guy

Guy Cox, Honorary Associate Professor
School of Medical Sciences

Australian Centre for Microscopy and Microanalysis,
Madsen, F09, University of Sydney, NSW 2006

-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kurt Thorn
Sent: Tuesday, 4 March 2014 11:28 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: large field of view, high NA objective, which camera?

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi Shalin -

On 3/3/2014 3:33 PM, Shalin Mehta wrote:
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Thank you Kurt and Guy (and others offline) for your responses,
>
> Kurt's evaluation of field of view is quite informative. We are 
> considering a 12.5x 0.5NA objective. The issue then is which camera 
> can capture such large space-bandwidth product.
Who makes this lens? It sounds pretty interesting.

>
> At 500nm, 0.5NA provides ~0.6 um optical resolution. With 12.5x 
> magnification, the optical resolution in image plane is 7.5 um. For 
> Nyquist sampling, we need a camera with pixel size of 3.5um. That 
> translates to about 6000 pixels on one side even for nominal field of 
> view of 22mm.
>
> So, I wonder what monochrome cameras are on the market with pixel size 
> in the range of 3-4um and chip size of at least 5000 pixels on one 
> side (25 MPixels). We can use consumer CMOS sensors, since the project 
> (really, the proposal) is about transmitted light imaging. Are there 
> scientific cameras on market that use consumer CMOS sensors without 
> Bayer filter in front? We need the camera electronics to be able to 
> sync the exposure through TTL trigger.
>
> In absence of 25 megapixel, what is the next best option?
Your best bet may be a consumer CMOS camera.  For instance, the Nikon
D3200 DSLR uses a CMOS sensor that is 6000 x 4000 3.85 um pixels: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D3200

If you're willing to compromise on pixel size or pixel number, there are machine vision cameras that may work.  For example:
http://www.adimec.com/en/Service_Menu/Industrial_camera_products/High_performance_cameras_for_the_machine_vision_applications
and
http://www.isvi-corp.com/index.php
have 25 megapixel CMOS cameras that have 4.5 um pixels.

For CCD sensors, there is a 9 megapixel Sony chip with 3.7 um pixels.  
Here is a camera based on it
http://www.artemisccd.com/artemis-ccd-fs-range.html

There are also some very large (29 MP) Kodak sensors with 5.5 um pixels (e.g. http://www.ccd.com/aspen_cg29050.html)

It would be great to have a camera database somewhere to make finding cameras like this easier!

Kurt

>
> Thanks,
> Shalin
>> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Guy Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> *****
>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>> *****
>>>
>>> I may be missing something here but I thought the field number was largely a property of the eyepiece.  A WF eyepiece uses a field lens to reduce the final magnification a bit but in the process substantially increase the FOV.  Of course the actual diameter of the tube has to allow this and that is why most manufacturers went to 25mm lens mounts rather than RMS when they went to infinity correction.   In this regard the old East German Zeiss lenses were better than the West German ones.  But of course after German reunification the West German company  could not possibly accept that the East German company actually did some things better.
>>>
>>>                                                                                     
>>> Guy
>>>
>>> Guy Cox, Honorary Associate Professor School of Medical Sciences
>>>
>>> Australian Centre for Microscopy and Microanalysis, Madsen, F09, 
>>> University of Sydney, NSW 2006
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Confocal Microscopy List 
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kurt Thorn
>>> Sent: Saturday, 1 March 2014 5:39 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Is field of view of objective constrained by field number of microscope?
>>>
>>> *****
>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>> *****
>>>
>>> Hi Shalin -
>>>
>>> I've done some qualitative investigations of this on our 
>>> microscopes, and you can access information beyond the nominal field 
>>> number of the microscope.  The vignetting seems to mostly occur in 
>>> the C-mount and camera adapter, so if you remove these you can get a 
>>> bigger image.  See
>>> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/?p=108 for some details.
>>>
>>> However, there's no guarantee what the performance of the objective 
>>> beyond the nominal field number will be.  In particular, the NA may 
>>> be lower, there may be problems with field curvature and there will 
>>> likely be aberrations.  In fact, even at the periphery of the 
>>> nominal objective FOV the point spread functions are more aberrated 
>>> - see
>>> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/?p=770
>>>
>>> I hope that helps.
>>>
>>> Kurt
>>>
>>> On 2/28/2014 9:22 AM, Shalin Mehta wrote:
>>>> *****
>>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>>> *****
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I have a question about the maximum usable field of view of 
>>>> commercial objectives, if the only constraint is the mostly-flat field of view.
>>>> We would like to find a commercial low mag, high NA objective and 
>>>> extract as much field of view as possible.
>>>>
>>>> Is the usable field of view of an objective constrained by the 
>>>> field number of the microscope? i.e., if the field number of the 
>>>> microscope is 26 mm, is the diameter of the field of view 
>>>> constrained to 26mm/mag of the objective?
>>>>
>>>> Are there stops in the objective that enforce this specification?  
>>>> If we are to use a tube lens of same focal length as the commercial 
>>>> microscope, but larger diameter, can we have a  field of view 
>>>> larger than specified by the field number? Having a flat field of 
>>>> view will be great, but slight imperfection is not a problem.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Shalin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kurt Thorn
>>> Director, Nikon Imaging Center
>>> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/
>


--
Kurt Thorn
Director, Nikon Imaging Center
http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/