uhoh7 wrote:
Or it looks like you can attach the body without lens to some microscopes, or with lens to some microscopes.
I currently have a good quality Nikon scope that has a "trinocular" head on it. I acquired it with a leica
film body attached to it. I cannibalized the scope to leica mount and added a m42 to EOS adapter to it. I can now mount an EOS camera above the trinoc objective. Focus is don through camera viewfinder and the camera sets the exposure. I often remove the 6v light from the microscope and fire an external flash through the scopes condenser when photographing live organisms. I have many more improvements to make and to refine the image capture. One thing I hope to achieve in the next year is some convenient means of mounting an EOS to a dissecting scope.
uhoh7 wrote:
Or it looks like you can attach the body without lens to some microscopes, or with lens to some microscopes.
hmmm, my experience with microscopes is mostly with ones that have specialized cameras attached to them and are kept up by their own support staff. i have stuck a camera body directly on a couple of older zeiss microscopes though when i wanted to take an image with lower magnification. microscopes designed for any serious scientific use usually are able to have a camera body attached (via an overpriced proprietary tube). the field of view is usually considerably smaller with such a setup than what you would get through the eyepiece, which is not great for image quality.
Hey, I know that macro rig! (Being the fellow who built it . . . . )
The PMN forum (http://photomacrography.net/forum/ is an excellent recommendation—it’s like a Manhattan Project for photography of small things. On the other hand, wading through the wealth of information at PMN is like reading the lab notebooks of a group of research collaborators (that’s one of the functions PMN serves). But folks there are very helpful, and warmly welcome newcomers.
Uhoh7, I’ll PM you to suggest we speak by phone—a short phone call might clarify some of your options and reduce the amount of “plodding” you need to do.
Tom Harpstead wrote:
One thing I hope to achieve in the next year is some convenient means of mounting an EOS to a dissecting scope.
Thomas, you probably know the following already, and are looking to do this for reasons of convenience. For others who may be reading this, the quality one gets by photographing through most dissecting scopes is a bit disappointing. This is because dissecting scopes usually sacrifice resolution for depth of field—very useful when dissecting, but not so good for photography, compared with using optics with higher numerical apertures (less DOF, more resolution), taking multiple pictures, and focus-stacking the results.
sebboh wrote:
i was rather disappointed with the level of resolution i could get.
Sebboh, like you, I’d suspect that your Zeiss scopes can do better. For comparison, check out Charlie Krebs’ recent images of a peacock feather (it’s of course not all in the hardware—Charlie is a maestro): http://photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20163 .
If you post your parrot feather image, along with details of the exact setup used, at PMN, some serious photomicroscopists will likely consider your setup and offer recommendations on altering it to get the higher resolution you’re looking for.
Chris S. wrote:
Sebboh, like you, I’d suspect that your Zeiss scopes can do better. For comparison, check out Charlie Krebs’ recent images of a peacock feather (it’s of course not all in the hardware—Charlie is a maestro): http://photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20163 .
If you post your parrot feather image, along with details of the exact setup used, at PMN, some serious photomicroscopists will likely consider your setup and offer recommendations on altering it to get the higher resolution you’re looking for.
Cheers,
--Chris
yeah, i suspect you're right. it was a dissecting scope btw and i believe i closed the aperture down a fair bit since i couldn't flatten the feather out. can't remember much else about the setup as i moved away a few years ago.
these days i just work with fluorescence and tell a computer the volume i want imaged and let it do the work.
Chris S. wrote:
Hey, I know that macro rig! (Being the fellow who built it . . . . )
The PMN forum (http://photomacrography.net/forum/ is an excellent recommendation—it’s like a Manhattan Project for photography of small things. On the other hand, wading through the wealth of information at PMN is like reading the lab notebooks of a group of research collaborators (that’s one of the functions PMN serves). But folks there are very helpful, and warmly welcome newcomers.
Uhoh7, I’ll PM you to suggest we speak by phone—a short phone call might clarify some of your options and reduce the amount of “plodding” you need to do.
Thomas, you probably know the following already, and are looking to do this for reasons of convenience. For others who may be reading this, the quality one gets by photographing through most dissecting scopes is a bit disappointing. This is because dissecting scopes usually sacrifice resolution for depth of field—very useful when dissecting, but not so good for photography, compared with using optics with higher numerical apertures (less DOF, more resolution), taking multiple pictures, and focus-stacking the results.
Sebboh, like you, I’d suspect that your Zeiss scopes can do better. For comparison, check out Charlie Krebs’ recent images of a peacock feather (it’s of course not all in the hardware—Charlie is a maestro): http://photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20163 .
If you post your parrot feather image, along with details of the exact setup used, at PMN, some serious photomicroscopists will likely consider your setup and offer recommendations on altering it to get the higher resolution you’re looking for.
i seem to remember both of them having good discussions on what they do and how they do it. i realize most things are from 1-3x lifesize....however, they do have many shots that are considered microscopic.
Above a number of small world images. That's a nice link, because you can just scroll down and compare.. The techniques are outlined in the descriptions.
A microscope is an instrument used to see objects that are too small for the naked eye. The science of investigating small objects using such an instrument is called microscopy. Microscopic means invisible to the eye unless aided by a microscope.
)