Hello
Total newbie here, and not native English speaker, so bear with me
My father has a personal collection of amber with insects and he wants me to photograph the insects.
I did rent the Nikkor 105mm f2.8 micro lens and just attach it to the camera and taking pictures, doesn't work. The magnification (1:1) is simply too low.
You can see samples of why it does not work at http://www.madsfoto.dk/insektrav/ I know now that I should not have put the f-stop at 46-52, because diffraction kills any sharpness the lens can produce. I also did not know about stacking and focus shifting, so I think I should get slightly better results at f8-10 and stacking images.
It seems that most of the insects are in the 1-2mm ( 0.039 - 0.078) range AKA tiny!
I have borrowed a microscope from a school to see if it would be better, and it's a whole other world, I do not think I can get that kind of magnification from lenses and bellows alone.
Right now I have a Nikon D7000 which has a F-mount, not a C-mount.
The plan is to buy a Bresser Stereo Mikroskop Advance ICD 10x160x which does have a attachment for a camera.
But it is my understanding that I need a T2-ring between the camera and microscope, but I do not know what else I should have between.
Any and all ideas, tips or comments are greatly appreciated.
TL;DR What should I get between a DSLR and microscope to get good pictures?
Best regards
Mads Johansen
madsfoto.dk
Nikon DSLR and microscope to photograph amber
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
Rylee Isitt
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:54 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
At the 1mm range, you might get okay results with a bellows. You could sort of do that kind of photography with a Canon MP-E 65mm. Nikon has an equivalent lens, I believe. But to get full frame results, you want a compound microscope or at least an RMS threaded 10x objective that you can mount to a bellows. This latter route is actually very nice. It's cheaper - you don't need to buy an entire microscope, and you don't need a special optical adapter for C-mount. But, you might find yourself spending lots of money finding a good way to mount the camera and bellows.
When stacking, you probably want less than f/8. At high magnification, your effective aperture is much higher, and diffraction kicks in much sooner. For example, if I want to shoot something 1mm in size with my MP-E 65, I'm likely to go all the way out to 5x magnification. At f/8, my effective aperture is actually f/48 (or something close). That means diffraction is pretty bad even at f/8. Ah, but you have a Nikon - so it may be doing this calculation for you and reporting the effective aperture. That would make sense seeing as how you've reported very high aperture values. If that's the case, open the lens up all the way and either use it like that, or stop down one or two stops - whatever gives you the best image quality. Experiment.
If stacking, you'll certainly need a focus block, focus rack, or your camera mounted on a stackshot or microscope. You'll want very fine focus control and be able to set roughly equal increments between each shot.
Also, amber is not going to be free of distortion and abberation. You may find that with some pieces you just can't get very good quality images no matter what you do. But I remember seeing some impressive insect-in-amber shots in the past, so it's certainly possible.
Getting a good adapter to mate your camera with a microscope is easy but expensive. The low cost (less than $100) adapters on eBay may not have very good optics - but then again, maybe they do. A good stereo microscope with image quality that will take advantage of high resolution digital cameras will probably not be cheap. I paid $400 for a bargain scope, only to find out that its optics simply aren't good enough for photography in any situation.
A lot of folks might recommend getting an RMS adapter to mount a microscope objective (perhaps a 10x) to a bellows. This can work very well but a quality objective lens can cost quite a bit, and then you need some supporting equipment because you won't want to hand hold that thing. If you go this route, Edmond Optics currently has a Nikon 160mm E 10x lens available for $90. Mine hasn't arrived yet, so I can't attest to its image quality. But others here have said it's pretty good. That lens, plus a RMS to M42 adapter (cheaply and commonly available on eBay), plus an M42 bellows with the appropriate camera adapter should set you back no more than $300. But then you need to mount it to something sturdy that gives you precise focus control. A heavy tripod with a focus rack/block should work if you shoot with flash, but vibrations would probably make a regular tripod unusable with continuous light.
There a lots of options available to you, and there isn't really a best one that I can see. It's an expensive hobby...
If I end up broke before I finish my degree, this forum will be why.
When stacking, you probably want less than f/8. At high magnification, your effective aperture is much higher, and diffraction kicks in much sooner. For example, if I want to shoot something 1mm in size with my MP-E 65, I'm likely to go all the way out to 5x magnification. At f/8, my effective aperture is actually f/48 (or something close). That means diffraction is pretty bad even at f/8. Ah, but you have a Nikon - so it may be doing this calculation for you and reporting the effective aperture. That would make sense seeing as how you've reported very high aperture values. If that's the case, open the lens up all the way and either use it like that, or stop down one or two stops - whatever gives you the best image quality. Experiment.
If stacking, you'll certainly need a focus block, focus rack, or your camera mounted on a stackshot or microscope. You'll want very fine focus control and be able to set roughly equal increments between each shot.
Also, amber is not going to be free of distortion and abberation. You may find that with some pieces you just can't get very good quality images no matter what you do. But I remember seeing some impressive insect-in-amber shots in the past, so it's certainly possible.
Getting a good adapter to mate your camera with a microscope is easy but expensive. The low cost (less than $100) adapters on eBay may not have very good optics - but then again, maybe they do. A good stereo microscope with image quality that will take advantage of high resolution digital cameras will probably not be cheap. I paid $400 for a bargain scope, only to find out that its optics simply aren't good enough for photography in any situation.
A lot of folks might recommend getting an RMS adapter to mount a microscope objective (perhaps a 10x) to a bellows. This can work very well but a quality objective lens can cost quite a bit, and then you need some supporting equipment because you won't want to hand hold that thing. If you go this route, Edmond Optics currently has a Nikon 160mm E 10x lens available for $90. Mine hasn't arrived yet, so I can't attest to its image quality. But others here have said it's pretty good. That lens, plus a RMS to M42 adapter (cheaply and commonly available on eBay), plus an M42 bellows with the appropriate camera adapter should set you back no more than $300. But then you need to mount it to something sturdy that gives you precise focus control. A heavy tripod with a focus rack/block should work if you shoot with flash, but vibrations would probably make a regular tripod unusable with continuous light.
There a lots of options available to you, and there isn't really a best one that I can see. It's an expensive hobby...
If I end up broke before I finish my degree, this forum will be why.
http://www.gemologyonline.com/Forum/php ... on#p159067
When you shoot through a stereo microscope you are getting one half of a stereo view which means you are either shooting at an angle converging on the center point that can be anywhere between two and ten degrees off center, or you are shooting off the central axis of the common main objective.
It is better to use a macro lens or macroscope designed for photography as its primary use. For the size you are talking about you will want to set up a stacking rig.
When you shoot through a stereo microscope you are getting one half of a stereo view which means you are either shooting at an angle converging on the center point that can be anywhere between two and ten degrees off center, or you are shooting off the central axis of the common main objective.
It is better to use a macro lens or macroscope designed for photography as its primary use. For the size you are talking about you will want to set up a stacking rig.
-
Rylee Isitt
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:54 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23608
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
See http://www.photomacrography1.net/forum/ ... php?t=4151 for some pictures and discussion by Charles Krebs about shooting insects in amber. Most of the discussion is down at the 5th thread in the post. These days most people would use Zerene Stacker instead of Helicon Focus, but other than that all the info is still current.
For this sort of work, I would recommend going no higher than a 4-5X NA 0.10 microscope objective. If the amber is clear, that will allow shooting through several mm of it and still getting a good image. If you try going up to a 10X NA 0.25 objective, then the allowable thickness of amber gets much less, more like 1 mm.
In any case, pay attention to Charles' tip about oiling a cover glass to the amber. Otherwise the curved or rippled surface of the amber will form its own lens that degrades the image.
--Rik
For this sort of work, I would recommend going no higher than a 4-5X NA 0.10 microscope objective. If the amber is clear, that will allow shooting through several mm of it and still getting a good image. If you try going up to a 10X NA 0.25 objective, then the allowable thickness of amber gets much less, more like 1 mm.
In any case, pay attention to Charles' tip about oiling a cover glass to the amber. Otherwise the curved or rippled surface of the amber will form its own lens that degrades the image.
--Rik
-
Craig Gerard
- Posts: 2877
- Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 1:51 am
- Location: Australia
That information is too important not to include directly in this thread. Here is the relevant quote from the link in Rik's post.Rik wrote:See http://www.photomacrography1.net/forum/ ... php?t=4151 for some pictures and discussion by Charles Krebs about shooting insects in amber. Most of the discussion is down at the 5th thread in the post. These days most people would use Zerene Stacker instead of Helicon Focus, but other than that all the info is still current.
Reference: http://www.photomacrography1.net/forum/ ... php?t=4151Charles Krebs wrote:... snip... I only have few samples right now, and I have chosen to work with ones where the inclusion is close to the surface. (Or where I have removed some amber to get the subject close to surface). I have tried to cut and polish a surface this is as flat and parallel to the subject as possible, but this can not always be done due to the shape of the amber and the position of the subject. I would say that in the few pictures I have posted the subject was between .5 to 1.5 mm below the surface.
The thing that seems to make the biggest improvement when the amber surface is not as "perfect" as I would like (which is always!) is to position a coverglass against the surface and "flood" the gap with immersion oil. The index of refraction of amber is 1.546. My immersion oil is 1.515... not a perfect match, but it makes a huge difference in the quality of the result. (The immersion oil does not seem damge the amber).
Craig
To use a classic quote from 'Antz' - "I almost know exactly what I'm doing!"
Missing the point
Hello again.
Thank you very much for your replies. It is giving me lots of food for thought.
But I think you are all missing the point of my post. What I would like is to know what specific parts I need to put between the 3rd eye of the microscope and my Nikon camera.
Best regards
Mads
Thank you very much for your replies. It is giving me lots of food for thought.
But I think you are all missing the point of my post. What I would like is to know what specific parts I need to put between the 3rd eye of the microscope and my Nikon camera.
Best regards
Mads
-
Planapo
- Posts: 1581
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:33 am
- Location: Germany, in the United States of Europe
Hej Mads,
Stereomicroscopes are important instruments when it comes to viewing and inspecting things, e.g. for identification and handling things under direct visual observation, like it is done, for instance, when preparing subjects, including amber pieces.
However with the stereomicroscope you linked, you won't be able to take photographs of higher magnification and very pleasing optical quality, mainly because of the comparably low NA of most of these instruments (apart from more recent very expensive high-end models.) There is a current thread where this is discussed in more detail. See: http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=17256
Note that Charlie's high quality amber photos in the thread Rik has linked to above were taken through a (compound light) microscope and not through a stereomicroscope.
The kind of setup that Charlie used can be seen here:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... c.php?t=12
Further note that in this setup the camera has no direct physical contact to the microscope. Hence no other connecting parts than the bellows and an adapter ring to the camera are used. The camera is positioned over the microscope with the bellows functioning as a hood that is reaching over the tube with the photo-eyepiece, but not touching it or any other part of the microscope. This is done to avoid vibrations of the camera shutter being transferred to the microscope. Naturally the camera has to be meticulously positioned.
I think with your camera model this kind of installing the camera over the microscope without physical contact could still be advisable, if you want to use a microscope, but I am not familiar with Nikon bodies.
However, you don't necessarily need a complete compound microscope because contrary to your assumption:
Med kærlig hilsen fra Sydslesvig,
--Betty
Stereomicroscopes are important instruments when it comes to viewing and inspecting things, e.g. for identification and handling things under direct visual observation, like it is done, for instance, when preparing subjects, including amber pieces.
However with the stereomicroscope you linked, you won't be able to take photographs of higher magnification and very pleasing optical quality, mainly because of the comparably low NA of most of these instruments (apart from more recent very expensive high-end models.) There is a current thread where this is discussed in more detail. See: http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=17256
Note that Charlie's high quality amber photos in the thread Rik has linked to above were taken through a (compound light) microscope and not through a stereomicroscope.
The kind of setup that Charlie used can be seen here:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... c.php?t=12
Further note that in this setup the camera has no direct physical contact to the microscope. Hence no other connecting parts than the bellows and an adapter ring to the camera are used. The camera is positioned over the microscope with the bellows functioning as a hood that is reaching over the tube with the photo-eyepiece, but not touching it or any other part of the microscope. This is done to avoid vibrations of the camera shutter being transferred to the microscope. Naturally the camera has to be meticulously positioned.
I think with your camera model this kind of installing the camera over the microscope without physical contact could still be advisable, if you want to use a microscope, but I am not familiar with Nikon bodies.
However, you don't necessarily need a complete compound microscope because contrary to your assumption:
there are in fact ways to apply certain lenses or certain suitable microscope objectives with bellows etc., to reach magnifications on sensor up to 50x or even more.I do not think I can get that kind of magnification from lenses and bellows alone.
Med kærlig hilsen fra Sydslesvig,
--Betty
Atticus Finch: "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view
- until you climb into his skin and walk around in it."
Lee, N. H. 1960. To Kill a Mockingbird. J. B. Lippincott, New York.
- until you climb into his skin and walk around in it."
Lee, N. H. 1960. To Kill a Mockingbird. J. B. Lippincott, New York.