I need a bit of help please
Moderators: MacroMike, nzmacro, Ken Ramos, twebster, S. Alden
- S. Alden
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2780
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:25 am
- Location: Pennsylvania, USA
- Contact:
I need a bit of help please
Ok, after seeing ken's setup, I have to try out micro. Now I do not have a lot of money to spend on the setup. What I do have is:
Canon D60
Canon G5
and the lenses:
100mm Macro 2.8
I do have a microscope, but it is small and cheap and not very good.
I found this microscope on ebay. It is a
BAYTRONIX COMPOUND DUAL-VIEW BIOLOGICAL MICROSCOPE
360° SWIVEL DUAL-VIEW HEAD -- TRIPLE NOSEPIECE
It says it comes with a Dual view head allows for optional attachment of film cameras, digital cameras, or CCD video or digital video cameras.
But, it also mentions the following:
This model includes a dual imaging port to allow for the attachment of a film camera, digital camera, or CCD camera so you may capture and output your specimen images. We carry a photo adaptor with a standard PK mount (#669902) and a CCD adaptor (#669904) that work with this microscope.
I take it that I would have to have in addition to the microscope the adaptors? And, I do not know how much those cost, I will have to search.
Is there any thing I need to look for specially or avoid?
Thanks
Canon D60
Canon G5
and the lenses:
100mm Macro 2.8
I do have a microscope, but it is small and cheap and not very good.
I found this microscope on ebay. It is a
BAYTRONIX COMPOUND DUAL-VIEW BIOLOGICAL MICROSCOPE
360° SWIVEL DUAL-VIEW HEAD -- TRIPLE NOSEPIECE
It says it comes with a Dual view head allows for optional attachment of film cameras, digital cameras, or CCD video or digital video cameras.
But, it also mentions the following:
This model includes a dual imaging port to allow for the attachment of a film camera, digital camera, or CCD camera so you may capture and output your specimen images. We carry a photo adaptor with a standard PK mount (#669902) and a CCD adaptor (#669904) that work with this microscope.
I take it that I would have to have in addition to the microscope the adaptors? And, I do not know how much those cost, I will have to search.
Is there any thing I need to look for specially or avoid?
Thanks
Sue Alden
Administrator
Repost of my images are welcome
Administrator
Repost of my images are welcome
-
- Posts: 1200
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 10:50 am
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Sue,
As far as the camera is concerned, your simplest, and best bet (and a very good one!) is your G5. In essence, what happens is when you see what you want through the microscope eyepiece, you hold the camera up to the eyepiece and take the photo. (This is a completely simplified explanation. There are operational considerations such as focus settings, zoom setting, possible exposure compensation. But in the simplest of terms that's what you need to do)
The microscope end is a bit tougher to decide. You'll get a wide range of very valid opinions, and of course, your budget often determines the approach taken. I'm sure others will contribute their thoughts, so you'll need to decide what is your personal best course.
The microscope you mentioned (Baytronix) is a an inexpensive new scope that (I believe) is made in China. I have no experience with it, so I can't comment on it directly. At that price you should probably expect very modest mechanical and optical quality. For someone like you, who wants to "try" this type of photography, I'd first want to insure that the optics (microscope objectives and eyepieces) you use are capable of providing good images. (A photographic analogy I think of would be using a high quality Canon L series lens on a Canon Rebel body, and then taking the same picture with a Canon EOS-1V body. The price and mechanics of the two bodies are miles apart, but the images would look the same because it is the optics that form the image). The (admittedly few) inexpensive Chinese objectives I've seen are questionable in this regard.
So first, a few question about the microscope you already have. Do you know if it takes "standard" microscope objectives with RMS thread, and "standard" eyepieces? You probably don't know this, but if you posted a picture or detailed description of what is written on the microscope and objectives, we could probably determine this. My thinking is this... if it does take "standard" optics, the first thing to do would be to set it up with one or two decent quality objectives and a good eyepiece. (I could even loan you an objective or two to try). Then if, after a while, you find you enjoy photomicrography and would like a more substantial set-up, you can consider the options with a little experience under your belt.
However, if it's more of a "toy" microscope and will not accept these optics then we'll need to get into a discussion of other microscope possibilities.
But first lets determine if you can make some use of gear you already have.
Charlie
As far as the camera is concerned, your simplest, and best bet (and a very good one!) is your G5. In essence, what happens is when you see what you want through the microscope eyepiece, you hold the camera up to the eyepiece and take the photo. (This is a completely simplified explanation. There are operational considerations such as focus settings, zoom setting, possible exposure compensation. But in the simplest of terms that's what you need to do)
The microscope end is a bit tougher to decide. You'll get a wide range of very valid opinions, and of course, your budget often determines the approach taken. I'm sure others will contribute their thoughts, so you'll need to decide what is your personal best course.
The microscope you mentioned (Baytronix) is a an inexpensive new scope that (I believe) is made in China. I have no experience with it, so I can't comment on it directly. At that price you should probably expect very modest mechanical and optical quality. For someone like you, who wants to "try" this type of photography, I'd first want to insure that the optics (microscope objectives and eyepieces) you use are capable of providing good images. (A photographic analogy I think of would be using a high quality Canon L series lens on a Canon Rebel body, and then taking the same picture with a Canon EOS-1V body. The price and mechanics of the two bodies are miles apart, but the images would look the same because it is the optics that form the image). The (admittedly few) inexpensive Chinese objectives I've seen are questionable in this regard.
So first, a few question about the microscope you already have. Do you know if it takes "standard" microscope objectives with RMS thread, and "standard" eyepieces? You probably don't know this, but if you posted a picture or detailed description of what is written on the microscope and objectives, we could probably determine this. My thinking is this... if it does take "standard" optics, the first thing to do would be to set it up with one or two decent quality objectives and a good eyepiece. (I could even loan you an objective or two to try). Then if, after a while, you find you enjoy photomicrography and would like a more substantial set-up, you can consider the options with a little experience under your belt.
However, if it's more of a "toy" microscope and will not accept these optics then we'll need to get into a discussion of other microscope possibilities.
But first lets determine if you can make some use of gear you already have.
Charlie
- S. Alden
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2780
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:25 am
- Location: Pennsylvania, USA
- Contact:
Here are two images of the microscope. It was given to me, so it could not be that great, but I wanted it and kept it now for a while.
Not much in the way of paperwork with it, just that it is a Stellar B138 100x, 200x and 300x objective lenses. It is a little thing.
Not much in the way of paperwork with it, just that it is a Stellar B138 100x, 200x and 300x objective lenses. It is a little thing.
Sue Alden
Administrator
Repost of my images are welcome
Administrator
Repost of my images are welcome
WOW Sue. That was my very first microscope, exactly! What memories you have just brought back. Many a science project was done with one of those. I don't really think that photography through it would be a good idea though but I am really glad you posted that photo of it, brings back a lot of good memories. Thanks!!
Site Admin.
Kenneth Ramos
Rutherfordton, North Carolina
Kens Microscopy
Reposts of my images within the galleries are welcome, as are constructive critical critiques.
Kenneth Ramos
Rutherfordton, North Carolina
Kens Microscopy
Reposts of my images within the galleries are welcome, as are constructive critical critiques.
- S. Alden
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2780
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:25 am
- Location: Pennsylvania, USA
- Contact:
Your welcome Ken. I tell ya what. I will do an even up trade for that microscope setup that is on your desk right now .Ken Ramos wrote: WOW Sue. That was my very first microscope, exactly! What memories you have just brought back. Many a science project was done with one of those. I don't really think that photography through it would be a good idea though but I am really glad you posted that photo of it, brings back a lot of good memories. Thanks!!
Sue Alden
Administrator
Repost of my images are welcome
Administrator
Repost of my images are welcome
Like I said Sue, every one needs a dream. Thanks again Sue.
Site Admin.
Kenneth Ramos
Rutherfordton, North Carolina
Kens Microscopy
Reposts of my images within the galleries are welcome, as are constructive critical critiques.
Kenneth Ramos
Rutherfordton, North Carolina
Kens Microscopy
Reposts of my images within the galleries are welcome, as are constructive critical critiques.
- twebster
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1518
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 10:55 pm
- Location: Phoenix "Valley of the Sun", Arizona, USA
Hi ya' Sue
So you got the urge, huh Warning, photomicrography can be addicting
I've never admitted this in front of any serious microscopists but back in late 2001, early 2002 when I first decided to get into amateur microscopy I bought a microscope that was almost identical to the Baytronix. (All right, the rest of you, knock off the laughing ) I almost gave up on microscopy because of that 'scope. It looked great in pictures and in the eBay ads and it even looked impressive when I unpacked it. As long as you just looked at it, it looked great. Using it was a comedy The optics on the Chinese and Indian 'scopes are terrible. Not very much better than toy scopes. Optical components could not be aligned properly which basically made the 'scope useless. I highly suggest you save your money and not invest in one of these 'scopes.
If you want to get into microscopy as inexpensively as possible I feel there are 2 routes you can go. 1) Buy a used 1960s era 'scope from one of the major manufacturers (Nikon, Olympus, Leitz, and Zeiss, for example). You can often get very good buys on eBay. I bought my Nikon trinocular 'scope for $100 less than I paid for the Chinese 'scope. (I was able to sell the Chinese 'scope to someone who knew even less than I did ) The 1960s "plain Jane" objectives that came with the Nikon yielded images far superior to the Chinese optics. 2) If you want a new 'scope, then consider a LOMO that is made in Russia. These are pretty good 'scopes for the money and far outperform the Chinese/India 'scopes. I think a LOMO trinocular would probably run about $795.00 (I think). I use some LOMO achromatic objective lenses, myself, and they perform well enough for my uses.
There's a lot to consider when buying a 'scope. Charles gave you some great advice, too. I warn you though, you can get hooked on it pretty hard
Best regards as always, Sue
So you got the urge, huh Warning, photomicrography can be addicting
I've never admitted this in front of any serious microscopists but back in late 2001, early 2002 when I first decided to get into amateur microscopy I bought a microscope that was almost identical to the Baytronix. (All right, the rest of you, knock off the laughing ) I almost gave up on microscopy because of that 'scope. It looked great in pictures and in the eBay ads and it even looked impressive when I unpacked it. As long as you just looked at it, it looked great. Using it was a comedy The optics on the Chinese and Indian 'scopes are terrible. Not very much better than toy scopes. Optical components could not be aligned properly which basically made the 'scope useless. I highly suggest you save your money and not invest in one of these 'scopes.
If you want to get into microscopy as inexpensively as possible I feel there are 2 routes you can go. 1) Buy a used 1960s era 'scope from one of the major manufacturers (Nikon, Olympus, Leitz, and Zeiss, for example). You can often get very good buys on eBay. I bought my Nikon trinocular 'scope for $100 less than I paid for the Chinese 'scope. (I was able to sell the Chinese 'scope to someone who knew even less than I did ) The 1960s "plain Jane" objectives that came with the Nikon yielded images far superior to the Chinese optics. 2) If you want a new 'scope, then consider a LOMO that is made in Russia. These are pretty good 'scopes for the money and far outperform the Chinese/India 'scopes. I think a LOMO trinocular would probably run about $795.00 (I think). I use some LOMO achromatic objective lenses, myself, and they perform well enough for my uses.
There's a lot to consider when buying a 'scope. Charles gave you some great advice, too. I warn you though, you can get hooked on it pretty hard
Best regards as always, Sue
Tom Webster
Administrator
Phoenix "The Valley of the Sun", Arizona, USA
Think about this...maybe Murphy is an optimist!!!
Administrator
Phoenix "The Valley of the Sun", Arizona, USA
Think about this...maybe Murphy is an optimist!!!
-
- Posts: 545
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:23 pm
- Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Hi Sue,
I agree with Tom. I bought some Chinese objectives once, and they had horribly large amounts of astigmatism. I've had excellent performance from my old LOMO multiscope. It doesn't make much sense to buy a LOMO new since even though they are much cheaper than a new Nikon (etc), you can get a better buy from a used scope (including a used LOMO if you can find one).
Frez is your man, as he has an excellent eye for bargain scopes. He found me a used trinocular phase LOMO multiscope on dotmed.com. I got great service from that rig, but I sold it to help finance my Leitz Diavert.
Ebay can be daunting -- especially if you don't have much experience, and then you think you've found a good bargain, and a sniper takes it from you in the last few seconds of the auction.
If you think you will do a lot of photography, get a trinocular port. Only Ken R has the lightning reflexes required to use one of the binoc ports and hold the camera up
Finding a microscope is difficult and it always costs more than you initially wanted to spend...
If you find something you are interested in on ebay, post the url and we will look at it and comment.
Here's a great phase contrast Nikon I saw today. It's 150.00 now, but there are 6 days left.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... RK:MEWA:IT
Steve
I agree with Tom. I bought some Chinese objectives once, and they had horribly large amounts of astigmatism. I've had excellent performance from my old LOMO multiscope. It doesn't make much sense to buy a LOMO new since even though they are much cheaper than a new Nikon (etc), you can get a better buy from a used scope (including a used LOMO if you can find one).
Frez is your man, as he has an excellent eye for bargain scopes. He found me a used trinocular phase LOMO multiscope on dotmed.com. I got great service from that rig, but I sold it to help finance my Leitz Diavert.
Ebay can be daunting -- especially if you don't have much experience, and then you think you've found a good bargain, and a sniper takes it from you in the last few seconds of the auction.
If you think you will do a lot of photography, get a trinocular port. Only Ken R has the lightning reflexes required to use one of the binoc ports and hold the camera up
Finding a microscope is difficult and it always costs more than you initially wanted to spend...
If you find something you are interested in on ebay, post the url and we will look at it and comment.
Here's a great phase contrast Nikon I saw today. It's 150.00 now, but there are 6 days left.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... RK:MEWA:IT
Steve
- S. Alden
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2780
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:25 am
- Location: Pennsylvania, USA
- Contact:
Thanks everyone for your help. I am reading up on the different microscopes now. It does not have to look good on the outside, just I would like it to look good on the inside. I also will need to be able to connect my G5 to the micoscope. Used is good.
Sue Alden
Administrator
Repost of my images are welcome
Administrator
Repost of my images are welcome
-
- Posts: 545
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:23 pm
- Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Hi Ken,Kenv wrote:Steve I just looked at this - is it possible to turn this scope into a trinocular for photography? Not that I'm interested, I was thinking of Sue. I have a new Phase Lomo on order.
Ken
You're right that this one is not a trinocular--it would need a different head. It was just a quick illustration of what's around on ebay.
You'll be very happy with the LOMO phase. I got very good results with mine. Is it a multiscope or another version? Are you getting it from LOMO USA -- Chris there is very helpful.
Steve
Hi Steve, Yes it is the multiscope and looks real good. A microscope engineer here in NZ checked it out for me and he gave it top marks. I'm getting it from OpticsPlanet Chicago, the guy there, Mark Levitrin has been most helpful. It should be dispatched over the next 24 hours - I'm looking forward to getting it.
Can you please tell me the name of a good book for protists?
Thanks Steve.
Ken
Can you please tell me the name of a good book for protists?
Thanks Steve.
Ken
Ken
-
- Posts: 545
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:23 pm
- Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Ken,
Here's a link to patterson:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&s=books
and here's one for Jahn
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&s=books
They are both excellent. Patterson has direct photos and drawings while Jahn just has drawings. The two books compliment each other well.
Steve
Here's a link to patterson:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&s=books
and here's one for Jahn
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&s=books
They are both excellent. Patterson has direct photos and drawings while Jahn just has drawings. The two books compliment each other well.
Steve