Photomicrography set-up with DSLR
Moderators: MacroMike, nzmacro, Ken Ramos, twebster, S. Alden
-
- Posts: 1200
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 10:50 am
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Photomicrography set-up with DSLR
Here's a picture of how I have set my scopes up to do photomicrography with a digital SLR (Canon 10D). It's pretty near identical to the way it's been done for years with film SLR's. The camera is mounted on a stand above the microscope, with no physical contact between camera and microscope.
I've put together a "personal web page" that describes most of my set-up. It's still pretty basic, but has much more info than I could put in a message.
It can be accessed here:
http://micropix.home.comcast.net/microsetup/index.html
Interesting Charlie. You have given me a few ideas here and on you web page. 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.
- twebster
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1518
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 10:55 pm
- Location: Phoenix "Valley of the Sun", Arizona, USA
Hi ya' Charles
This is terrific I so very much enjoyed your article, too. Looking at your setups here, this is exactly how I originally had my film camera set up on my microscope. I may go back to my film camera temporarily to photograph fast moving critters. Let me ask this, Charlie. Does your setup stay parfocal when you change to different power projection lenses or do you need to set each projection lens seperately?
Thanks for a great read and great ideas
This is terrific I so very much enjoyed your article, too. Looking at your setups here, this is exactly how I originally had my film camera set up on my microscope. I may go back to my film camera temporarily to photograph fast moving critters. Let me ask this, Charlie. Does your setup stay parfocal when you change to different power projection lenses or do you need to set each projection lens seperately?
Thanks for a great read and great ideas
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 Charlie,
It's great that you are showing everyone how you are setup and some of your technique. I enjoyed your website as being informative and well-written
Someday, I should take the plunge into high-end objectives, but for now, simple phase objectives do the trick.
It's interesting that so many of us have a similar story -- using microscopes as kids, leaving them for a long time, and then rekindling the earlier passion with one big difference -- the difference between men and boys is the price of their toys
I never looked through a microscope in K-12, and my whole experience was gained at home with a cheapo microscope for Christmas. Kids nowadays hardly ever want this kind of stuff -- they want another game for xbox.
I wonder if anyone gets seriously into this hobby later in life if they didn't have this childhood experience?
Steve
I think your link at the bottom to this site may be broken...
It's great that you are showing everyone how you are setup and some of your technique. I enjoyed your website as being informative and well-written
Someday, I should take the plunge into high-end objectives, but for now, simple phase objectives do the trick.
It's interesting that so many of us have a similar story -- using microscopes as kids, leaving them for a long time, and then rekindling the earlier passion with one big difference -- the difference between men and boys is the price of their toys
I never looked through a microscope in K-12, and my whole experience was gained at home with a cheapo microscope for Christmas. Kids nowadays hardly ever want this kind of stuff -- they want another game for xbox.
I wonder if anyone gets seriously into this hobby later in life if they didn't have this childhood experience?
Steve
I think your link at the bottom to this site may be broken...
-
- Posts: 1200
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 10:50 am
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Tom,
I've actually never assumed it would stay the same when switching to another photo-eyepiece, so I never even checked!
Any time I move the microscope or change eyepieces (rarely) or photo-eyepiece (occasionally) I always to a focus test. But if I don't change anything it has remained parfocal.
Steve... the link to www.amateurmicroscopy.net hasn't been working the last day or two .... Tom???
I've actually never assumed it would stay the same when switching to another photo-eyepiece, so I never even checked!
Any time I move the microscope or change eyepieces (rarely) or photo-eyepiece (occasionally) I always to a focus test. But if I don't change anything it has remained parfocal.
Steve... the link to www.amateurmicroscopy.net hasn't been working the last day or two .... Tom???
- twebster
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1518
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 10:55 pm
- Location: Phoenix "Valley of the Sun", Arizona, USA
Hi ya' Charlie
Sorry guys
For some reason the domain names for amateurmicroscopy.net and reasonableexpectations.com have not propagated to the new server yet. Sometimes it can take as long as 48 hrs but we are quickly coming up to that seadline. For the time being I created a subdomain on photomacrography.net for the other sites. If you want to visit amateurmicroscopy.net or have a link to the site, use this url: http://www.amateurmicroscopy.photomacrography.net. This will open the amateurmicroscopy website.Steve... the link to www.amateurmicroscopy.net hasn't been working the last day or two .... Tom???
Sorry guys
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: 7
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 8:36 pm
Hi Charlie,
Thanks a lot for sharing details of your setup! I haven't visited
your page before. It is very informative and your equipment
looks very nice. It's great to know the details on how you're
capturing your magnificent images! They are getting more and
more breathtaking
I have a question related to flash work. Perhaps its a stupid
question, but it bothers me for some time, as I'm considering
using flash in my setup, too. Isn't it dangerous for eyes to use
flash with a microscope? As far as I understand, the flash uses
the same light pathway as a regular light source. Can you look
thru eyepieces without a danger of blinding yourself while
taking a picture? How do you avoid this danger?
Thanks a lot!
Thanks a lot for sharing details of your setup! I haven't visited
your page before. It is very informative and your equipment
looks very nice. It's great to know the details on how you're
capturing your magnificent images! They are getting more and
more breathtaking
I have a question related to flash work. Perhaps its a stupid
question, but it bothers me for some time, as I'm considering
using flash in my setup, too. Isn't it dangerous for eyes to use
flash with a microscope? As far as I understand, the flash uses
the same light pathway as a regular light source. Can you look
thru eyepieces without a danger of blinding yourself while
taking a picture? How do you avoid this danger?
Thanks a lot!
Piotr
-
- Posts: 1200
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 10:50 am
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Piotr,
Thanks for your comments.
Your question is certainly not a stupid one. I was initially concerned myself. My answer is based solely on my observations (not any empirical info) so take that into consideration.
First, most microscopes that would allow you to view while taking a picture have a light split of about 15%/85% (eyepiece/camera) so the intensity is diminished greatly through the eyepieces. When the picture is taken, the flash does not "appear" bright at all. It is nothing at all like when someone takes a flash photograph of you, and you see "spots" for a minute or so. (I have never noticed even the slightest "after-effect" even after taking many pictures in quick succession). My eyes seem to be bothered more when I take pictures without the flash and need to turn the illumination up in order to get a decent shutter speed and a good 3200 degree K tungsten "color temperature". I was actually a little more concerned with possible UV levels, but my flashes seem to have fairly heavy UV filtration in the plastic covering the flash tube. It is also quite easy to add effective UV filtration if it were still a concern.
As a photographer I've spent many hours over light boxes looking at slides and transparencies. This would occasionally, after some really lengthy "sessions", bother my eyes. I even incorporated UV filters under the plexiglass in the light box to be extra careful, and discussed it with my eye doctor, who did not see it as a problem. If I am fortunate enough to have a long microscope session with good subjects I may take 300-400 exposures (most of which are deleted later!) and I have never experienced the slightest discomfort. I realize that just because no discomfort it noted, it does not guarantee long term safety. But if you eliminate UV as a concern as mentioned (since you can't really "sense" it), then the other concern I have is light intensity, which you can sense. I'm pretty cautious about such things and I have not noticed anything that has aroused any concern at all.
There are others folks on the forum using flash as well. Hopefully they will read this and contribute their experience and perceptions as well.
You have made me a bit more curious, and I think I will use my flash meters to see if I can get some idea of the light levels obtained at the eyepieces. I suspect they will be quite low.
Thanks for your comments.
Your question is certainly not a stupid one. I was initially concerned myself. My answer is based solely on my observations (not any empirical info) so take that into consideration.
First, most microscopes that would allow you to view while taking a picture have a light split of about 15%/85% (eyepiece/camera) so the intensity is diminished greatly through the eyepieces. When the picture is taken, the flash does not "appear" bright at all. It is nothing at all like when someone takes a flash photograph of you, and you see "spots" for a minute or so. (I have never noticed even the slightest "after-effect" even after taking many pictures in quick succession). My eyes seem to be bothered more when I take pictures without the flash and need to turn the illumination up in order to get a decent shutter speed and a good 3200 degree K tungsten "color temperature". I was actually a little more concerned with possible UV levels, but my flashes seem to have fairly heavy UV filtration in the plastic covering the flash tube. It is also quite easy to add effective UV filtration if it were still a concern.
As a photographer I've spent many hours over light boxes looking at slides and transparencies. This would occasionally, after some really lengthy "sessions", bother my eyes. I even incorporated UV filters under the plexiglass in the light box to be extra careful, and discussed it with my eye doctor, who did not see it as a problem. If I am fortunate enough to have a long microscope session with good subjects I may take 300-400 exposures (most of which are deleted later!) and I have never experienced the slightest discomfort. I realize that just because no discomfort it noted, it does not guarantee long term safety. But if you eliminate UV as a concern as mentioned (since you can't really "sense" it), then the other concern I have is light intensity, which you can sense. I'm pretty cautious about such things and I have not noticed anything that has aroused any concern at all.
There are others folks on the forum using flash as well. Hopefully they will read this and contribute their experience and perceptions as well.
You have made me a bit more curious, and I think I will use my flash meters to see if I can get some idea of the light levels obtained at the eyepieces. I suspect they will be quite low.
Last edited by Charles Krebs on Fri Feb 04, 2005 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 545
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:23 pm
- Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Howdy Piotr,
I've never noticed anything unusual when using the flash. Since my camera is parfocal with my eyepieces (and pond critters move very fast), I am always looking in the eyepieces when the flash goes off. I don't remember ever seeing black spots or any other vision associated phenomena that you'd see looking at the sun (or a flash in your face as Charlie says).
My 15x Nikon eyepieces are very relaxing to the eye, and my eyes are never tired or sore after flashing them at least 100 times during a session. It's my back that hurts when I sit there that long!!!
Once I flashed that Vivitar 283 at full power directly into my eyes at about 6 inches distance when I was first goofing around with it--that left a mark!! I saw black for 15 minutes! But through the microscope, it is harder on the eyes to watch the flash's reflection from the wall than through the eyepieces.
Is there UV? Don't know, and as Charlie pointed out, plastics are great UV blockers and that's what is no doubt on the flash lens itself.
I can't be quantitative about it, but it sounds like Charlie has the instrumentation for this.
Maybe this will help?
Steve
I've never noticed anything unusual when using the flash. Since my camera is parfocal with my eyepieces (and pond critters move very fast), I am always looking in the eyepieces when the flash goes off. I don't remember ever seeing black spots or any other vision associated phenomena that you'd see looking at the sun (or a flash in your face as Charlie says).
My 15x Nikon eyepieces are very relaxing to the eye, and my eyes are never tired or sore after flashing them at least 100 times during a session. It's my back that hurts when I sit there that long!!!
Once I flashed that Vivitar 283 at full power directly into my eyes at about 6 inches distance when I was first goofing around with it--that left a mark!! I saw black for 15 minutes! But through the microscope, it is harder on the eyes to watch the flash's reflection from the wall than through the eyepieces.
Is there UV? Don't know, and as Charlie pointed out, plastics are great UV blockers and that's what is no doubt on the flash lens itself.
I can't be quantitative about it, but it sounds like Charlie has the instrumentation for this.
Maybe this will help?
Steve
Hi Piotr, I am using flash too and at first I was concerned that I might hurt my eyes if I was looking in the eyepieces at the same time as I tripped the flash. I solved this very simply by closing my eyes at the same moment as I tripped the flash - it worked very well indeed. However occasionally I forget to close my eyes and I was surprised that I didn't really see any intense light. The flash itself, situated down by the lamp housing catches the periphery of my vision and this seems much stronger than anything coming up the tube.
Hope this helps.
Kenv
Hope this helps.
Kenv
Ken
- twebster
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1518
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 10:55 pm
- Location: Phoenix "Valley of the Sun", Arizona, USA
Hi ya' Piotr
I miss you hanging around I just made a few exposures with my flash setup on my microscope and, quite frankly, I didn't even notice the flash until you brought it up. In my opinion, the UV light given off by office flourescent lighting and daylight poses a greater risk to your eyesight.
Best regards as always, my friend,
I miss you hanging around I just made a few exposures with my flash setup on my microscope and, quite frankly, I didn't even notice the flash until you brought it up. In my opinion, the UV light given off by office flourescent lighting and daylight poses a greater risk to your eyesight.
Best regards as always, my friend,
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!!!