Diffraction question with stereozoom scope

Starting out in microscopy? Post images and ask questions relating to the microscope and get answers from our more advanced users on the subject.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Trimitsis
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:00 am
Location: United States
Contact:

Diffraction question with stereozoom scope

Post by Trimitsis »

I am new to photomicrography, though I have worked at 1:1 happily for many years. I have recently been experimenting with a Meiji EMZ8TR stereo zoom microscope with a Meiji 2.5x photo adapter to a Nikon D810. I am getting images I consider to be soft, and reading the forum I'm coming to think that diffraction is probably my main issue. But I'm confused about how to calculate apertures and diffraction limits with a stereo scope like the Meiji I'm using (as opposed to a compound with objectives that are labeled with NA). I'd be grateful for any insights.

More generally, am I barking up the right tree? If my goal is to photograph plant parts and insects at, say, 5x - 20x magnifications, is a stereo zoom scope adapted to a camera the best way to go? Should I instead be experimenting with microscope objectives stuck on the end of my camera? Or is something like the InfinitProbe TS-160 (http://www.infinity-usa.com/products.as ... robe-TS160) a way to photo-nirvana?

Many thanks!

Milton TrimitsisImage
Milton Trimitsis

Trimitsis
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:00 am
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by Trimitsis »

I forgot to note that the magnification of the attached image is 1.75x (0.7 zoom setting multiplied by 2.5x photo adapter).

Milton
Milton Trimitsis

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23561
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Milton, welcome aboard!

It is close to impossible to calculate apertures and diffraction limits when working with stereo microscopes. Very few manufacturers publish the specifications that would be needed to do this.

In general, stereo scopes tend to run at apertures that are relatively narrow, compared to compound scopes that are labeled with NA. The narrow aperture provides better DOF and allows a longer working distance at reasonable cost, both of which are good tradeoffs for visual inspection of 3D objects. But of course this comes at the cost of reduced resolution, which is particularly visible when pixel-peeping the images from a high megapixel camera.

You asked:
If my goal is to photograph plant parts and insects at, say, 5x - 20x magnifications, is a stereo zoom scope adapted to a camera the best way to go? Should I instead be experimenting with microscope objectives stuck on the end of my camera? Or is something like the InfinitProbe TS-160 (http://www.infinity-usa.com/products.as ... robe-TS160) a way to photo-nirvana?
The short answers are No, Yes, and No.

Pairing a good objective with a good camera is now the most common approach for shooting high quality images of subjects that fit the size ranges of the objectives.

For more information about using microscope objectives with your camera, see our FAQ: How can I hook a microscope objective to my camera?.

You will also need to do focus stacking, which will require some sort of setup for precision focus stepping. A wide variety of approaches for that can be seen in the links at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 5311#55311 .

All that said, the subject in your example looks to be not really small enough to use a microscope objective. The lowest magnification objectives that are worth using are 4X, with a maximum subject width around 5 mm when used with an APS-C sized sensor (roughly 22mm x 15 mm). For larger subjects / lower magnification, between 1X and 4X, there are a couple of other approaches that involve either "stacked lenses" (a shorter lens reversed in front of a longer one), or using a high quality enlarging lens reversed on bellows.

Finally, just to be sure that we're on the same page, I'll mention that the convention here at photomacrography.net is that "magnification" means optical magnification, computed as sensor width divided by subject width. For us, magnifications of 5X to 20X, on an APS-C sized sensor, would mean subject sizes of roughly 4 mm down to 1 mm. Is that your intention also?

--Rik

Trimitsis
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:00 am
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by Trimitsis »

Rik,

Thanks very much for your reply! I've been trying for some time to find a good resource to learn about photographing at higher magnifications that I can easily achieve with reversed lenses and bellows and such. I thought I was alone in the wilderness until I found this site, which seems to have multiple versions of all the answers to questions I've had.

I realize that the burrs in the photo I attached are kind of big, but it's an image I made to compare to the results I could get with a macro lens, to convince myself that I wasn't imagining the softness in the Meiji image. The subjects I'm after will nicely fill a 24x36 sensor at 5x-10x.

It seems that folks on this site are fond of both Nikon and Mitutoyo 10x infinity objectives. Do you have any advice about which to pursue? Is the Mitutoyo's optical quality significantly better than that of the Nikon, or is one mostly paying for the additional working room?

And do you have any experience using a modern Nikkor 70-200 f/4 zoom as a tube lens? It's something I happen to own, and I know folks seem to say that using a zoom in this application is a crap shoot. If I decide to look for a 200mm prime, how important is the optical quality? Is an old 200 f/4 AI in reasonable condition going to work without being the limiting factor optically?

Thanks again, to you and all the folks sharing their expertise on this forum!

Milton
Milton Trimitsis

Lou Jost
Posts: 5942
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

I can help answer the question about Nikon tube lenses. I just tested a bunch of them, and a few hours ago I gave a short partial summary of the results here:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... highlight=

As my time permits I'll put example shots there. Short answer is that a cheap Nikon 200 f4 is good enough for APS, but you need to be a bit careful in your choices for full frame sensor. Most objectives don't fill a full frame sensor either, so you need to be careful with that too.

Trimitsis
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:00 am
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by Trimitsis »

Lou,

Thanks for your note. I had found your earlier thread about testing tube lenses, but I didn't realize that you had posted some of the conclusions. It sounds like it's at least worth giving my 70-200 f/4 ED a test before hunting for a new-to-me 200mm prime. I look forward to seeing your full results.

Milton
Milton Trimitsis

Lou Jost
Posts: 5942
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Yes, it is worth trying what you have. I suspect you will get a bit of vignetting in the corners of FF though. Robert O'Toole's recommendation of a Sigma Life-Size Attachment is also worth taking; I have one on the way but it won't get here for a while, so I could not test it, but Robert found it to be better than anything else he had tried.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23561
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Trimitsis wrote:It seems that folks on this site are fond of both Nikon and Mitutoyo 10x infinity objectives. Do you have any advice about which to pursue? Is the Mitutoyo's optical quality significantly better than that of the Nikon, or is one mostly paying for the additional working room?
The major difference in image quality is that the Mitutoyo's have much less longitudinal CA. With the Nikons, it's pretty much guaranteed that you will get blue/purple color casts in dark areas next to light ones, when working with 3D subjects. See the examples at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 672#147672 .

That said, even the least expensive of the Nikon objectives can still produce high quality images. See for example Blowfly at 5X using Nikon CFI BE 10X .

That was done on an APS-C sensor, but because of the short tube lens (100 mm focal length) the frame width at subject was still 4.46 mm, equivalent to 8.07X on a 36 mm sensor. Coverage on full-frame at 10X should be no problem.

--Rik

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic