Going to take the plunge...

A forum to ask questions, post setups, and generally discuss anything having to do with photomacrography and photomicroscopy.

Moderators: MacroMike, nzmacro, Ken Ramos, twebster, S. Alden

Moebius
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 10:03 am
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Going to take the plunge...

Post by Moebius »

...ok, now that you guys have hooked me on photomacrography, it is time for me to now take the plunge into photomicrography. I had a lot of fun as a kid looking at pond life and later on in the medical lab looking at cultures/cells.

Having done a little research already, I see the options for equipment to get started in this hobby are overwhelming and would appreciate some help.

I suppose the main question to be answered is "what do I want to take photomicrographs of?". Well, the obvious answer is "everything I can get my hands on". Realistically, though, I think my two main aspirations are insect anatomy and pond life.

Insect anatomy I would like to be able to get clear pics of insect heads/eyes/wings etc. Since I assume that in most cases these will not be translucent, a Stereo microscope is in order? If so, what do I need to look for in a quality scope other than brand? Max magnification needed? Special lighting needs? I plan to use my Panasonic FZ-20 for this, so would a simple, high quality stereo microscope with a trinocular head made by a quality company as Nikon or Zeiss suffice? Any features to look for?

Pond Life Now here it gets more confusing for me. Such questions as:
Do I need Darkfield?
Do I need Phase Contrast?
Special Lighting needs?
I know for this I would need a compound microscope, thus needing two microscopes.

Perhaps it would be advisable to start with the cheaper/easier Stereo microscope and see where the addiction/additional knowledge gleaned takes me?

There is not a light microscope that will work for both these endeavors is there?

Ken Nelson

User avatar
wilash
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: Japan

Post by wilash »

First, you do not need a microscope for every technique. What you need is a microscope that has the accessoeries to do things like darkfield or phase contrast. Think of a microscope as a frame that you add things to to fit your requirements.

Most microscopes can be set up for transmission (diascopic) and reflection (episcopic) illumination. So you can get scopes that do both.

As far the difference between stereo and compound microscopes, what kind of magnifications are you looking to achieve?
Will

Moebius
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 10:03 am
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Moebius »

I don't wish to necessarily view bacteria, so I would think 800-1000x maximum for transmission to get nice photos of protozoa. For reflection, I don't have much experience with other than dissecting microscopes...I would like to get images similar to Charles Kreb's (not quality wise of course) pic of a mosquito's head.

Ken

rjlittlefield
Posts: 727
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:57 pm
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Ken,

For what it's worth...

I would recommend that you do not start by spending money on a stereo scope intending to photograph through it. I have owned a Bausch & Lomb StereoZoom 10.5-45X for about 30 years. I like it a lot for direct viewing, but it is not very good for photography.

I learned long ago that I could get far better pictures by sticking short focus lenses on long extensions in front of my SLRs (35mm at first, switching entirely to Canon Digital Reflex about a year ago).

You don't have the option of extensions with the FZ-20, but it should work just fine to stick short focus lenses in front of your main lens as described toward the bottom of Danny Young's article at http://www.photomacrography1.net/photom ... 0/fz10.htm.

An old-fashioned "standard" lens for 35mm is about 50mm focal length. Reversed and used as a +20 diopter close-up lens, that should take you to several times higher magnifications than your Nikon 6T, which is only +2.9 diopter if I read the literature correctly.

This technique is cheap to try and I would expect it to work pretty well. If nothing else, it will give you a standard for comparison when you do start to shoot through a low power microscope.

For higher power work, yep, you need a microscope, and I look forward to seeing responses from other people who know a lot more about that than I do.

Best regards,
--Rik

Moebius
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 10:03 am
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Moebius »

Thanks for the info Rik. I have known about reversing the lens for the FZ-20, but want a setup where I can achieve greater magnification and stability as well.

I have been doing more research and I think my magnification needs are a bit exaggerated...protozoa will be the smallest of my interests.

My main questions now concern whether I will be able to use my FZ-20 (I also have a Canon A80) to get acceptable pictures(and how to connect), and what examples of microscopes will I be able to use for both transmission and reflection? I have been looking at many new/used microscope sites and have seen many nice light microscopes, but don't know what to look for in their ability for transmission as well. What would I want the transmission for? Things such as http://www.photomacrography1.net/forum/ ... php?t=3568
or
http://www.photomacrography1.net/forum/ ... php?t=3623

(I don't presume to be able to get Charles's quality, though)

Things such as Phase Contrast and Darkfield would be nice, but would rather just have the potential to add that at a later time.

[edit]
perhaps this one?

http://www.opticsplanet.net/mulbmphascon.html


Ken

rjlittlefield
Posts: 727
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:57 pm
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Ken,

What you write makes perfect sense. My point is only that the reversed-lens add-on will bridge the gap between your existing macro work and the low magnification of what you can get through a conventional (non-stereo) microscope. I am pretty sure that the images of Charlie's you link to were done with low magnification objectives on a conventional scope. The second one is explicitly listed as "10X objective". His Nikon Small World fly was initially advertised by Nikon as having been shot through a stereo microscope, but apparently they fouled up the caption and it was actually shot with a low power objective on a conventional scope. Your first link I'm not sure about, but it looks an awful lot like what I'd expect from a 2.5X objective, which is what Charlie writes that he often uses (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RealMicroscopy/message/83).

Given what you want to do, I'd recommend first getting a non-stereo microscope capable of growing into darkfield, phase contrast, and maybe DIC.

In addition to the microscope, you're going to want a good illuminator, perhaps one of the dual fiber-optic jobs that give you a lot of flexibility to throw gobs of light onto the front of a subject.

If there is a microscope dealer within visiting range, it would be worth your while to go make friends so they can show you some options firsthand.

--Rik

User avatar
Ken Ramos
Site Admin
Posts: 4809
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 7:58 pm
Location: Western North Carolina

Post by Ken Ramos »

O.K. for what it maybe worth here is my two cents. When I first returned to microscopy, I went through several different microscopes, none of which met my expectations. So what, I am very picky. No not very picky but so picky it is sometimes sickening and that has cost me a lot of money in microscopes. If you are going to invest some money in a high powered compound microscope might I suggest those made by Nikon, Olympus, or Zeiss with ICS (Infinity Color Corrected Optical Systems) optics and that they have Plan objectives for a flat sharp edge to edge views, especially for photography. I am no photographer of sorts but like to document my observations in photographs, so I suggest also that your compound scope of choice have a trinocular head with which you can install a 10X eyepiece to use as a relay to the camera lens. Also, unless you can actually use the microscope for a period of time before hand, never never never buy used equipment unless you have a rock solid money back guarentee in writting. Personally I prefer and recommend new equipment with a guarentee or warrenty for 5yrs or more. :D

As for cost of a good quality set up, get ready to spend at least 1500 to 2000 or more dollars. Of course this will depend on your wants and needs, you could spend less, a lot less and then end up like myself, eventually purchasing a high end instrument after having wasted enough money before hand to purchase a high end instrument to start with! :?

I can by PM, put you in contact with a Zeiss Technician and Dealer who can get you started with a Zeiss Axiostar or another high quality brand of your choice. I get no kick back on this by the way. The gentleman is a personal friend of mine and has met my microscopy needs quite well over the years and stands behind the equipment he sells and services.

As for macro work. I think the suggestion of the macro lens set up with various diopters is a good one. Our macro shooters get very high quality images with their cameras, much better than those of mine shot through a Meiji Stereo IMHO. However stereomicroscopes are my favorite, so this all comes down to personal preference.

If you do want a stereomicroscope for all round viewing and photography, I highly suggest the Meiji EMZ-13TR, 10X zooming thru to 70X. It has a photo tube and you can continuously view your subject through the eyepieces without the use of a sliding prism while photographing. It is great for studying insects, plants, rocks, cats, dogs, your neighbors annoying children, anything you can stuff under the objectives. :lol: Cost, about $2160.00 For a much better stereo there is the Zeiss Stemi 2000 cost $$$$$$$$! With photo tube and fiber optic illumination $$$$$$$$!!

Image

MEIJI EMZ-13TR Stereomicroscope


I guess that about wraps it up for me. Anyone else? :)
Site Admin.
Kenneth Ramos
Rutherfordton, North Carolina
Kens Microscopy
Reposts of my images within the galleries are welcome, as are constructive critical critiques.

User avatar
wilash
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: Japan

Post by wilash »

Not to disagree with Ken, but to show there are different ways of skinning the rabbit, I would recommend looking at second-hand microscopes. The prices of research scopes can be very, very low in comparison to what they cost new. It also depends on how far back you go and whether the scope has infinity optics or a specific tube length. ebay has some realy good deals, but...

You need to learn a significant amount about the different types of microscope optics and standards before you do. It can be very confusing. The nice thing about microscopes is they are modular, so you can add stuff as you go. But that can be a double edged sword with used scopes. If they are too old, accessories are hard to come by. Too new, and the stuff is very expsensive. If you go for a used scope, I would recommend going for a scope that has what you want already on it and then add the things you would like at a later date.
Will

User avatar
Ken Ramos
Site Admin
Posts: 4809
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 7:58 pm
Location: Western North Carolina

Post by Ken Ramos »

You know Will, you're right. There are a lot of things to be considered. Most, not all microscopes, are pretty much "what you get is what you got" type scopes. Meaning that there are limited accessories that can be added to them. Not to harp on or to promote one microscope over another but I like the Zeiss Axiostar. The Axiostar is based around a system. You can go from regular brightfield microscopy all the way to EPI fluorescence and everything else in between. At the moment the basic cost of an Axiostar with CP (clinical plan) achromats is about $1200.00 US. Not a bad price actually and the Axiostar can grow with your needs and wants. However no matter which scope you buy, Nikon, Zeiss, Olympus, Meiji, etc. if you drive a Cadillac, expect to pay for Cadillac parts and accessories! :shock: Meiji is another up and coming microscope. Charlie uses one if I am not mistaken, along with his Nikon. I was considering purchasing another scope, a Meiji as a matter of fact but they are more expensive than the Axiostar.

Anyway Will you brought up some very good points there. As for eBay. Some folks fair well, others do not. eBay is a "pig in a poke" in my opinion but everyone else has belly buttons too. :lol:
Site Admin.
Kenneth Ramos
Rutherfordton, North Carolina
Kens Microscopy
Reposts of my images within the galleries are welcome, as are constructive critical critiques.

Moebius
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 10:03 am
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Moebius »

Ken/Will/Rik,

I appreciate the responses and it has gotten my thinking. First of all, I agree there are two schools of thought on the 'old vs. new' debate; analagous to automobiles as well.

I think that unless a used scope was from a trusted source (member of this community or recommended by them), I would go the new route. Ken, I have been reading about the Axiostar and if I went new, I believe I would bite the bullet and get one of these Zeiss beauties. Ken, when I am closer to a buying decision, I will thankfully make a call to your Zeiss contact...but not ready just yet.

I would welcome any news of microscopes for sale from a trusted source, though.

I do have a couple questions regarding a scope like an Axiostar:

1) I see they connect the camera directly to the microscope through a t-tube, yet I have seen other posts on this forum stating that you don't want to directly connect it due to vibrations from mirror slap. First of all, I won't be connecting it to a DSLR (don't have one), but probably a Canon A80 I have laying around (unless there is some reason not to). Thus, will there be a problem with vibrations?

2) Lighting. I want to take pics of protozoa/algae as well as low powere reflective power shots of insect anatomy. Will I need a secondary light source such as a flash or fiberoptic setup?

3) Table. I do not as of yet have a low table to use for this purpose. How heavy/sturdy does it have to be?

4) If using a Canon A80, what options will I have to take the picture without standing up and looking at the LCD screen of the camera itself. Can I assume that the picture will look exactly as I see in the binocular lens; thus can just press the shutter release button?

Ken Nelson

User avatar
Ken Ramos
Site Admin
Posts: 4809
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 7:58 pm
Location: Western North Carolina

Post by Ken Ramos »

Ken, if you click on the link below it will show you how I have a Fuji A340 set up on the Axiostar. Mind you, I have added a 30 degree head with the photo tube installed. The stock Axiostar does not come this away. However, you can order it with the 30 degree photo tube head. If and when you are ready I can find out for you or put you in contact with a Zeiss Tech. who can tell you more, I have his toll free phone number if you want it. For microphotography on a basic level you cannot beat the set up I have shown below. No, you will not get photos like Charlies but it would be possible to do so with that set up. Graham Matthews has some good ideas on that and has posted them here on the forums. I forget the links right off hand but send him a PM. Graham has produced some excellent flash images with his set up, which is somewhat similar.

You asked:
If using a Canon A80, what options will I have to take the picture without standing up and looking at the LCD screen of the camera itself. Can I assume that the picture will look exactly as I see in the binocular lens; thus can just press the shutter release button?
With the Orion SteadyPix adapter there is no vibration from just releasing the shutter on your camera. I said in the link that there would be some but that would be if one was to get a little excited and get heavy handed with it. Actually it is very stable. Once set up, which is easy to do but may require some tweaking, nothing major, what you see in the binocular head is what you will get on the camra file. In the image of the flea, I just reached up and pushed the shutter button to take the photo. Now also note that I have a Zeiss 10X eyepiece installed in the photo tube to serve as a relay lens for the main camera lens. The Zeiss 10X eyepiece is $114.00, "Cadillac Parts."

http://www.photomacrography1.net/forum/ ... php?t=2548
Site Admin.
Kenneth Ramos
Rutherfordton, North Carolina
Kens Microscopy
Reposts of my images within the galleries are welcome, as are constructive critical critiques.

User avatar
wilash
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: Japan

Post by wilash »

About tables. Yes, the steadier the table the better. But there is a lot of latitude there. I place my Olympus Vanox on probably the worst table you could think of. I have made exposures up to a minute without any problems. I simply let everything settle before I start and make no contact with the table.
Will

User avatar
Ken Ramos
Site Admin
Posts: 4809
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 7:58 pm
Location: Western North Carolina

Post by Ken Ramos »

I am posting these photographs to show how simple this set up is for microphotography and for the information of others who may be contemplating going into microphotography. I get good results from this set up and I am quite pleased with the images I get. You do not need a high end microscope but one with a trinocular head is advised. Most all of your commercial digital cameras can be attached this way to a trinocular head using the Orion SteadyPix camera adapter. Here you can see how I have a Sony DSC-P200 attached to my Axiostar.

Ken your Canon A80 should set up the same way as this Sony DSC-P200 to any microscope with a trinocular head and 10X eyepiece.

Image
Image
Site Admin.
Kenneth Ramos
Rutherfordton, North Carolina
Kens Microscopy
Reposts of my images within the galleries are welcome, as are constructive critical critiques.

Moebius
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 10:03 am
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Moebius »

Ken/Rik/Wil,

I appreciate the info. Now I need to do some heavy thinking to assure myself I want to take the plunge(Which I think I do). Will it hold my interest? I think so, but with such a hefty investment, I want to be as sure as I can. Perhaps an X-mas present for myself?

Ken, when the time is right, I will contact you for your Zeiss contact's name if you don't mind.

Ken Nelson

rjlittlefield
Posts: 727
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:57 pm
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Ken,

It may be obvious, but I thought I should point out that Ken Ramos's trinoc eyepiece shown above carries an "eyeglasses" symbol. I presume that means it has a high eyepoint, suitable for use with a user wearing eyeglasses. The markings vary between manufacturers. However it's marked, you'll need an eyepiece like that for use with a camera, to avoid vignetting.

Your FZ-20 may present problems anyway. I have not used one, but the pictures in the ads show quite a bit of glass in front. Test to be sure.

--Rik

Locked