Camera & microscope combo suggestions please

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

MacroMike
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:04 pm
Location: ODESSA, FL
Contact:

Camera & microscope combo suggestions please

Post by MacroMike »

I have a couple of Canon EOS cameras and various lenses. I'd like to purchase a reasonably inexpensive microscope and be able to shoot basic images through it. Excuse me if I sound ignorant (I'm strickly a macro kind of guy), but wouldn't an EOS camera be dificult to attach to a microscope and even with an adapter wouldn't some field of view be lost? I would appreciate any advice on the best type of microscope and adapter to use with my cameras or suggestions for a new camera and microscope combination. Thanks.

Charles Krebs
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Contact:

Post by Charles Krebs »

Mike,

Need a bit more info. Do you think you are looking for a "compound microscope" or a stereo microscope. Stereo scopes provide magnifications much higher than typical macro camera gear, but less than a "compound" scope. If you know which you want, or could give some idea of the subjects you intend to work with it would be helpful.

There are two basic approaches. If the camera has a permanently attached lens (or a DSLR with a lens attached) it is commonly called the "afocal" method. In a nutshell, the camera is positioned over a regular eyepiece.

The second method is for cameras with no attached lenses. In this case the microscope image is "projected" directly onto the film/sensor. This is generally accomplished with a special eyepiece made for this purpose (not the same one used for viewing or the afocal method)
reasonably inexpensive microscope
That of course can mean different things to different people. :wink:

There are a few approaches people use. Some recommend (occasionally quite vehemently) purchasing older used scopes by one of the four major manufacturers. If your budget is higher you can consider a new, "lower end" model from the big four (I'll add Meiji, a solid Japanese maker that is often not considered by some... very strong in stereos, and have some nice new compounds as well. And Lomo as well). There are also inexpensive models of new scopes (eBay is full of them) that are usually made in China or India. These are a gamble. Materials, construction, and optics are usually of lower quality than the others mentioned.

But if you can give us a little more info it will be easier to make more recommendations.

Charlie

MacroMike
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:04 pm
Location: ODESSA, FL
Contact:

Post by MacroMike »

Hello Charles.

I'm starting a unique business in January - a butterfly breeding farm. Butterfly releases at weddings or funerals and emotional therapy at hospitals or nursing homes are becomimg very popular as well as public display habitats and educational programs.

I'll need to check my breeding stock for vairimorpha imperfecta, ophryocsystis elektroscirrha, polyhedrosis and other bacteria, viruses or parasites. I'll also need to display anatomical images for client information - scales, eyes, palp, antenna, proboscis, veins, reproductive claspers, eggs and instars. I guess that I'm looking for a compound microscope with a lightweight permanently attached DSLR at a few hundred dollars each. I'll simply need to quickly document things and not create the sort of art work that you do.

Thanks,

Michael

Charles Krebs
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Contact:

Post by Charles Krebs »

Mike,

From your potential subject list it sounds to me like many of your images would require reflected illumination at fairly modest magnifications rather than transmitted light at higher magnifications. While these lower power transmitted light shots can be accomplished to some degree on a "compound" scope, it is not really designed for that. I think you would be better off with a stereo scope. With these, the working distance is much greater and it is far easier to light the subjects from above.

I don't really have any first hand experience with them. (I have a basic stereo that I use for preparing specimens but I've never used it to take pictures). Something like the Meiji Ken uses would be good. The Lomo SF-100 (MBC-10 outside the USA) is not a "zoom" but it has a multiple magnification range, seems to be well regarded optically, and is priced moderately. (Although no one seems to like the light that Lomo supplies with the scope... not a big deal). I suppose there will be times you would want more magnification, but I suspect that you will be frustrated far more often trying to set up reflected light shots on a higher power transmitted light compound scope.

You'll want a trinocular scope and it is very helpful if the trinocular tube is made so that you can simultaneously view and photograph. (With some you lose the image in the eyepieces completely when you switch over to the camera tube).

That's my take. Sorry I can't offer more concrete suggestions, but I would only be repeating what I have "heard" and not what I have actually tried first hand.

Charlie

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

Post by rjlittlefield »

Mike,

The folks at the McGuire Center at the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville run a world-class facility for research, breeding, and display of butterflies. See the "Butterfly Rainforest" at http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/butterflies/ .

If you have not already done so, I strongly recommend to make friends with some of their staff and find out what capabilities they have found to be necessary. The one time I went there, 3 years ago, they seemed like real friendly folks.

My concern is that the list of things you've mentioned ranges from macroscopic anatomy through viruses. Any one scope is going to do only a part of the job, and you'd like it to be the part that you care most about and is not covered by your other equipment.

My guess is that in any case you're going to be wanting a "dissecting scope" (low magnification, upright image, stereo), just for direct viewing and hands-on manipulation of eggs, larvae, etc.

But that scope is not going to be much use for for taking a close look at pathogenic fungi, protozoa, and bacteria, if in fact taking a close look at those things is a requirement.

Regarding DSLR versus other cameras, it's not an easy call. With proper adapters, you'll get the same field of view, resolution, and convenience with any camera. The question is only how many hoops you have to jump through to get there.

Charlie's DSLR setup is wonderful, but he has a lot of time and cleverness invested in getting it that way.

If you want something only a little less good, with a lot less work, then I would strongly consider putting a conventional eyepiece in the camera port and positioning a point-and-shoot camera to look into it.

Not all point-and-shoots will work well that way, but enough of them do that it's the preferred approach of most people on the Yahoo Microscope group. (It's also what I do most of the time, partly because it's easy, and partly because I can shoot movies with my P&S and not with my DSLR.)

Talk to the folks at Gainesville. If you're going to buy a high power (inverted image, non-stereo) scope, then you'll also need to decide what sort of illumination you can live with, for example brightfield versus phase contrast, darkfield, DIC, etc. There are big differences in cost, and for sure you're going to have to make some tradeoffs.

Sorry I can't be more definite, but there are a lot of unknowns at this point.

--Rik

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic