Hi all,
I am a single molecule detection microscopist and interested in starting photomicrography. As you all are very experienced:
What microscope specs should I be looking for! Trinocular ok....but then what? And where can I look for them?
Suggestions?
Thanks and looking forward to spending some time here.
Captain Nemo
Microscope specs
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:58 am
Microscope specs
CaptainNemo
Please see some of my pictures @ http://kapiteinnemo.zoom.nl/
Please see some of my pictures @ http://kapiteinnemo.zoom.nl/
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:58 am
Whoops
Oh, some confusion here, i am not interested in doing single molecule detection, i was merely talking about my background. I would be interested in going to the cellular level, looking at cells, looking at bacteria, diatomees, foraminiphera, ... Single molecule fluoescence microscopy and spectroscopy is what I did in the past during my phd.
And there we used single photon detectors and nitrogen cooled CCD cameras.
Best
Captain nemo
And there we used single photon detectors and nitrogen cooled CCD cameras.
Best
Captain nemo
CaptainNemo
Please see some of my pictures @ http://kapiteinnemo.zoom.nl/
Please see some of my pictures @ http://kapiteinnemo.zoom.nl/
Welcome to the forum.
Please tell us your budget.
Look into DIC, darkfield, phase contrast and oblique illumination. And figure out which you like to have and can afford. Having a PhD in the field, it should be easy for you to figure it out yourself.
If you have over $2000 in budget, I suggest going with DIC. If not, try to get good apochromatic objectives for your most useful magnification (which you need to figure out yourself too, for subjects you mentioned, it is mostly like equal or more than a 40x objective).
When I started, my budget was $500-$1000, though I ended up spending more. I personally like pond protists and do lots of live water mount, so I stay with oblique, darkfield and water immersion LOMO objectives. I cannot afford DIC and personally do not like phase contrast. I stay with 160 mm tube length system due to better optical compatibility between brands, which makes it cheaper to get features I want too.
Your imaging rig may depend on your camera / sensor size and lens / objectives combinations too.
Having an aplanatic achromat c condenser helps too, if you can afford it.
So it depends on what you have and what you want.
Edit:
Some of the most important specs in microscopy are, but not limited to:
NA, which is related to resolution. Technically the higher the better, but higher resolution typically correlates to less working distance and more difficulties in sample preparation and illumination, especially at over NA 0.9.
Magnification. It will be empty magnification (without increased resolution), once it goes over 1300x. Also focal length.
Tube length. 160 mm or infinity.
Field number (width of well-corrected view field). Your eyes will appreciate at least 18mm of such.
Please tell us your budget.
Look into DIC, darkfield, phase contrast and oblique illumination. And figure out which you like to have and can afford. Having a PhD in the field, it should be easy for you to figure it out yourself.
If you have over $2000 in budget, I suggest going with DIC. If not, try to get good apochromatic objectives for your most useful magnification (which you need to figure out yourself too, for subjects you mentioned, it is mostly like equal or more than a 40x objective).
When I started, my budget was $500-$1000, though I ended up spending more. I personally like pond protists and do lots of live water mount, so I stay with oblique, darkfield and water immersion LOMO objectives. I cannot afford DIC and personally do not like phase contrast. I stay with 160 mm tube length system due to better optical compatibility between brands, which makes it cheaper to get features I want too.
Your imaging rig may depend on your camera / sensor size and lens / objectives combinations too.
Having an aplanatic achromat c condenser helps too, if you can afford it.
So it depends on what you have and what you want.
Edit:
Some of the most important specs in microscopy are, but not limited to:
NA, which is related to resolution. Technically the higher the better, but higher resolution typically correlates to less working distance and more difficulties in sample preparation and illumination, especially at over NA 0.9.
Magnification. It will be empty magnification (without increased resolution), once it goes over 1300x. Also focal length.
Tube length. 160 mm or infinity.
Field number (width of well-corrected view field). Your eyes will appreciate at least 18mm of such.
Last edited by zzffnn on Sun Dec 04, 2016 12:57 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Budget?
This is a first relevant question, of course not the only relevant one.
Illumination techniques you want to do?
New or used? (new good equipment is so expensive that is prohibitive for most people for personal use). There are new low priced instruments but not very capable...
My approach was old stuff (Zeiss Standard) from the 60s-80s bought almost piece to piece and with some DIY adaptations. It ended (after around 4 years ...) being a very capable and versatile system for a moderate budget. Undoubtedly there are more judicious options
This is a first relevant question, of course not the only relevant one.
Illumination techniques you want to do?
New or used? (new good equipment is so expensive that is prohibitive for most people for personal use). There are new low priced instruments but not very capable...
My approach was old stuff (Zeiss Standard) from the 60s-80s bought almost piece to piece and with some DIY adaptations. It ended (after around 4 years ...) being a very capable and versatile system for a moderate budget. Undoubtedly there are more judicious options
Pau