My Elaborate Super Macro Photography Setup

You can watch the setup in 4k here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQHCvAvSRvQ . If you want, I can upload a video of me using the setup outside and photographing snowflakes. There is a wireless remote shutter release, which I use to eliminate ambient vibrations, a Celestron digiscoping adapter (originally meant for telescopes) which, with some tinkering, can be used for a microscope even though it's not the most practical setup in the world. I like to use a low power microscope because I've found that the lowest power settings on traditional microscopes (40x) are often too much, especially for large snowflakes, and I prefer to have the most depth of field possible. I have thought about, and have researched, various digital microscopes as well as specially designed cameras for microscopes, but haven't come past any that are of decent quality. I've gotten some experience using a DSLR for photos of microscopic things, as well as a smartphone. All can work well, although the most practical way would be using a phone. I prefer using a compact camera, however, because even though it might not be as practical of use as a smartphone with macro lens it is (in a way) easier to get away with as opposed to a phone's camera; the quality is also better. As for DSLR, there isn't a cheap way that I know of that's also practical for doing photography of microscopic areas. I've tried using a telescope adapter specially made for my DSLR, however, the results were far from good enough, because there wasn't any way to control (adjust) aperture. Even then I'm not totally sure that it would've worked. If there was a way to make a setup for mobile phone photography that's easy and practical to use, then in my opinion, that would be the ideal solution. DSLRs can be heavy and therefore difficult to use for macro photography, while smartphones have significantly less shallow depth of field (image sharpness extends deeper), which I think pretty much makes up for the pitfalls that smartphones have as opposed to DSLRs, when it comes to the macro world. Compact cameras, however, have a nice balance; you can use a compact camera that has a wide aperture to capture more light, while avoiding the often unnecessarily shallow depth of field of a DSLR. Ideally, it would be nice to use a lens that can be sharp at a very small aperture, such as f/22, and to have plenty of light shining. That's the thing about lenses; photographers like to put a lot of emphasis on lenses with fast a aperture, or desire them more. However, at an aperture that's small, such as (for example) f/22, a lens which has a widest aperture of f/4 will more likely be sharper than a lens which has a widest aperture of f/1.4, but for sake of this discussion, I'm disregarding the fact that it also depends on how many elements a lens has which is what influences sharpness. Sharpness is just about equally as important of an aspect of a lens as is contrast. I still haven't figured out why there is more noise in macro photos as opposed to regular photos; the exposure and ISO settings are about the same after all. Had the camera had a prime lens, or a lens which didn't extend, that would have probably been ideal, and the setup would not be so "tedious".