Medium Format Photo Microscopy

<p>I am interested in knowing if it is possible to use medium format film cameras to take photographs through a microscope?..</p>

<p>I have done some basic research on the web, but find little published regarding using a medium format camera for photo microscopy..</p>

<p>I understand that digital cameras and 35mm film cameras are the standards for this type of photography..</p>

<p>When I get my Pentax 67II camera later this year I am interested in occasionally using it to take photos of larger 3-dimensional objects such as dead insects, coins, minerals, etc..</p>

<p>To this end I would purchase an inexpensive used trinocular microscope with which to use..</p>

<p>It is my thinking to attach the 67II camera directly to the microscope without a lens..</p>

<p>I am well aware of using macro lenses for this type of work, so please do not suggest this..</p>

<p>I am interested in other types of microscopy in addition to what I have described above, so if it is possible to use the 67II for this type of photography; then this would be the learning microscope for the more difficult types of microscopy..</p>

<p>A way of getting my feet wet, so to speak..</p>

<p>If it is not possible to use the 67II camera for this type of photography, then I will just shelve the idea of photo microscopy for the time being..</p>

<p>Any, and all suggestions would be greatly appreciated, especially any books that you might suggest to read..</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for your help in answering these questions..</p>

<p>Bruce</p>

<p>I did a lot of medical microscopy years ago and we used 35mm or glass plates. Point being that there were many specialised microscopy films made....and indeed could be even made to order, by Kodak, all in 35mm. But no roll film. <br>

If image quality was paramount we used 2x2 glass slides for the dimensional stability and absolute flatness they provided....regards, Bob</p>

<p>Let's talk image circle. The largest typical image circle for a standard light microscope is 26mm. That diameter decreases with increasing power of the eyepiece.<br>

5X (5 power) eyepiece = 20mm diameter image<br /> 10X = 17mm diameter, and so on.<br /> See: http://www.microscopyu.com/articles/formulas/formulasfieldofview.html<br>

As you can see you'll not be getting much image on a big piece of film. That's the main rationale for a smaller camera format.<br /> No idea where you could find an adapter to mount the camera to the microscope's tube. That would be something custom made or jury rigged by your own skills?<br>

For some R&D I had to do on sub-micron to micron sized pigment particles, we made up a microscope/camera arrangement and used shape recognition software and a spreadsheet to do particle size distribution. At my work we used a 10X - 80X optical microscope that had a digital camera affixed to part of the tri-nocular.<br /> When the image is put up on a large monitor, one gets 'secondary' magnification (i.e., the 20mm diameter microscope image would be 'enlarged' onto a 17 inch CRT for example. This nets another approximate 20X or a maximum of ~ 1600X. If you are doing relatively large bits of bugs and such, no need to go much over 20-30X total.<br /> Good luck.<br /> Jim M.</p>

 

<p>The subjects you describe are really a bit large for a normal microscope and objectives. If you project directly on the film, you'll probably be limited by the image circle as described above. The usual solution is the use of a relay lens or eyepiece to project a larger image. I've seen Polaroid adapters for this, so using a 6x6 or 6x7 camera should be no problem if you can work out the adapter system.</p>

<p>Coins are usually done with macro lenses, 4x magnification will fill the frame on mf film. Dead insects, well depending on size, macro lens - up to 40-50x on a compound microscope. A larger problem is supporting a mf camera on an inexpensive frame/trinoc head.<br>

Don't forget you have effectively a 0.nnn mm depth of field at high magnifications, see the tutorial below.</p>

<p> Before, during and after WWII Zeiss, Lietz and others made 4x5 cameras(without lenses) for microscopy, along with special projection eyepieces down to 1.25x to fill the frame. One option on the The Zeiss IM35 microscope was a 4x5 back right on the front of the microscope. There is a 4x5 microscope camera for sale here http://www.optekusa.com/preowned.htm made by Olympus.</p>

<p>For dead insects, go here for a tutorial http://www.krebsmicro.com/</p>

<p>Enjoy, macro/micro photography is lots of fun and there is a whole lot to learn. :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have done photo microscopy with a Zeiss-Ikon microscope and attached Zeiss-Ikon 35mm camera. I would photograph bacteria and the like, which required 1000x oil immersion magnification and greater. Since you want to photograph dead insects, coins, and so forth, a microscope seems way overkill. Some other things that have been mention include the smaller image circle, 35mm scientific film (but not the same amount of varying emulsions in 120 format), and the fact that I have never seen a medium format camera microscope mount (let alone one for a specific camera model).</p>

<p>I do macro work and agree that macro lenses are a waste of my money. Instead of macro lenses, which you do not like anyway, try using extention tubes. It is pretty much the solution to your macro needs.</p>

<p>Depends on what you want to shoot, and how much magnification you need. You can easily get the magnification needed to do coins and bugs with medium format without a microscope at all. You can reverse the lenses, stack the lenses, use special purpose lenses such as m-componon's or leica photars, or just lots of extension. I have a 12mm photar optic which I use fitted to my Rollei 6008 with a shutter adapter that gets incredibly close up but still allows for manual focusing. I think this will do 20x with the bellows. I very often use a 80mm enlarging lens in the same setup for macro work. <br>

Just for fun here's a two shots of a bird feather probably about 1.5 inches across the width. The first shot is taken with a 150mm apo macro, and the second is a close up of the fine part of the feather barbules.</p>

<p>Http://www.eh21.com/RolleiMacroExamples/GH-150mmAPO--012978.jpg<br>

Http://www.eh21.com/RolleiMacroExamples/12mm photar-013063.jpg<br /></p>

<p>OK, I'm going to break this up into several parts: why a microscope, why not a microscope, how to use a microscope, and how to do coins and insects. Also bear in mind that I've been doing serious macro for 20+ years, but only owned a decent scope for 6 months, and most of what I tell you about scopes is "fresh" learning from getting my own up and running. And I'm going to ramble at length, in my wizfaq style, because I'm writing a book on macro photography, and this will help my thought process.</p>

<p><strong><em>Why a microscope</em> </strong><br>

OK, you spelled some things you wanted to do (insects, coins) but also talked about other needs for a microscope. So, why a scope, and what can you do with it?</p>

<ul>

<li>Scopes do high magnification. The scope magnification is specified kind of strangely, a combination of objective (the lens that faces the subject) and occular (the eyepiece) magnification. It's pretty easy to get up to a couple of hundred times magnification, and with a little work, you can do over 1000x.</li>

<li>Scopes are stable and strong. They hold the subject, eyepieces, and camera in strict relation to each other, and are less prone to having the subject or camera get "bumped" and taken out of focus.</li>

<li>Scopes are convenient for multiple magnifications. They typically have a bunch of objectives in a turret (I have two different turrets, each loaded with five objectives), so you can go click, click, click, from 5x to 10x to 20x to 40x to 60x magnification. </li>

<li>Scopes focus easily. Much easier than trying to focus regular macro lenses on a camera, and way easier than extension tubes and bellows. </li>

<li>Scopes can do things you simply can't do any other way. My scope can do epi-illumination, it has beam splitters that allow it to shine a light down through the very same lens that's taking the picture, which is perfect for imaging coins and other shallow metallic objects. in fact, it does two different kinds of epi (bright field and dark field) and two different kinds of trans-illumination (light shines up through a semi-transparent subject). It can also do advanced things like "differential interference contrast", which lets me get pictures of things that are normally totally transparent. </li>

</ul>

<p><em><strong>Why not a microscope</strong> </em><br>

Conrad is correct, a microscope is "overkill" for most insect work, and coins.</p>

<ul>

<li>Scopes can't do low magnification easily. My lovely Nikon Optiphot 88 trinocular with my lowest power objective (a 5x) will fill the frame (whatever size frame it is) with about a 3mm object. That's great for details on coins (I have a collection of the word "God" taken from all denominations of US coins, don't ask why), and small insects. Lower power objectives actually cost more than higher power ones, and the scope's illumination systems typically can't handle them. Nikon makes a 2.5x objective, but it won't work with the darkfield epi mode, and I believe it requires you to replace parts of the substage (under the subject) illumination system if you want to do trans-illumination. There is a 1x available, but it is even more cumbersome (no epi modes work, at all, and you definitely need to replace the substage condenser). It is impossible, no matter what I change or reconfigure, to image an entire US quarter on the scope.</li>

<li>A microscope typically also sucks for photographic lighting. I can light an insect 4 different ways, a coin two different ways, but all those ways are "clinical", boring from an artistic standpoint. I have an assortment of LED lights of various sizes, shapes and colors that I use for more "artistic" endevours. </li>

</ul>

<p><em><strong>How to shoot with a microscope</strong> </em><br>

Conrad got that one, too. The trinocular tube holds an additional eyepiece called by several names, depending on what you read: a "relay lens", a "projection eyepiece" or a "photographic eyepiece". This eyepiece has to match the objectives that you are using, because microscopes work as two lens systems, each objective (the little lens that faces the subject) has certain aberrations left uncorrected to simplify its design, and the matching occular (eyepiece) is tuned to correct these. No two microscope manufacturers agree on what aberrations to correct in the objective and what to correct in the eyepiece, so the end result is that if you use an Olympus eyepiece on a scope with Nikon objectives, you will get poor image quality. And periodically, the scope manufacturer changes their own idea of what's the proper correction, so my scope loaded with Nikon CF objectives requires a CF-PL projection eyepiece.</p>

<p>Jim noted the field size. My scope, I believe, has a 22mm field (a narrow field is common with scopes that can do epi-illumination, shining a light down through the objective and onto the subject). That is why the magnification of the eyepiece is chosen to specifically match the field sized of the scope to the diagonal of your film format. I have two projection eyepieces, a 2.5x and a 4x. The 2.5x is perfect for use with a 35mm camera or a full frame DSLR. It takes the scopes 22mm field and bumps it up to 55mm, which means a 43mm diagonal 35mm frame is a good fit in the "sweet spot" of the field. The 4x gives me 88mm, which is good for MF up to 6x7. There is an 8x and 10x in the Nikon line, for 4x5.</p>

<p>Now his observation about "the main rationale for a smaller camera format" is a little off base. In ages past, the 4x5 was "the" format for microscopy because of two things:</p>

<ol>

<li>A quickly developed negative could be "read" with the naked eye on the same light panel you read an x-ray with.</li>

<li>The tonality of the smaller formats sucked, and large format images had a smoothness that was quite desirable for publication </li>

</ol>

<p>At that time, 35mm was good if you wanted to save money, or were going to make enlargements. And MF was, then as now, a "spork", not a "good spoon" and not a "good fork", so that's why you're not seeing all that much literature on it. Now, of course, we get our "instant gratification" from digital cameras on a big screen, and the tonality of small format films has greatly improved, so the lightweight, versatile 35mm camera is king.</p>

<p>Jim's observation about custom made adapters is a little off base, given the budget, you can buy whatever you need. I'll pick on Nikon, because my own scope is a Nikon Optiphot 88, and I know the Nikon system a bit better than Oly, Zeiss, AO, etc. You connect a trinoucular scope to a camera with an adapter that is actually a rather complicated little box. My box is a Nikon UFX. It's a very fancy, deluxe box that probably cost $3000 new. I paid $50 for it on the bay back in June. The typical box has:</p>

<ul>

<li>a tube sticking out of the bottom that mates to your scopes trinocular tube or "photo port". Mine, obviously, mates with a Nikon tube. Every scope manufacturer used to have a different size tube. Were my scope newer, it would have an ISO standardized port, and you can mix and match photo gear and scops from newer manufactueres. (but the eyepiece still has to match your objectives. No getting around that) </li>

<li>a mount of some sort on top that attaches the camera to the box. My UFX has a premanent Nikon F mount. There's another Nikon system called FX III, that box is much larger than my UFX, and the top has interchangeable adapters for 35mm, medium format, and 4x5. Just load in the appropriate eyepiece (2x for 35mm, 4x for MF, 10x for 4x5), attach the appropriate camera or 4x5 film back, and you're off. A used FX III costs a lot more than a used UFX. Probably at least $100. ;) </li>

<li>a low vibration leaf shutter, because an SLR's shutter and mirror are like an earthquake at microscope scale. My UFX has this, so does the FX III. An MF system absolutely has to have this, because you don't get your lens's leaf shutter, and a MF focal plane shutter and mirror is not just an earthquake, it's an 8.3 on the Rhicter scale, and destroys villages. </li>

<li>an exposure meter </li>

<li>controls on the side or front of the box, for reading the meter, adjusting the shutter speed, etc. The UFX is more sophisticated, the box connects to a large controller that sits on your bench next to the scope, and controls all camera functions (film advance and reqind, etc) in addition to metering and shutter.</li>

<li>there's almost always has a tube sticking out the side or front of the box that holds a sideways mounted "focusing eyepiece", because the scope's main eyepieces are typically not "parfocal" with the camera adapter, i.e. if you're in focus in the main eyepieces, you could be out of focus at the camera. The focusing eyepiece is parfocal with the camera.</li>

<li>an arrangement of prisms or mirrors to allow you to route light to either the camera or the focusing eyepiece. On my UFS, that's also powered and controlled by that wonderfully complicated desktop controller.</li>

</ul>

<p>And yes, things like the UFX are up on the bay constantly for under $100, which is barely enough to even get someone talking to you about custom building a simple adapter tube.</p>

<p>That's how you decide what brand of scope you're going to get. You watch the bay for a while and see how often that brand of scope comes up, what sort of accessories come up, objectives, photo eyepieces, etc.</p>

<p>Or you just go ahead and get a Nikon, because they're the <strong><em>coolest of the cool</em> </strong> .</p>

<p><em><strong>Coins and bugs</strong> </em><br>

Seriously, although the scope is cool, and can do a lot of amazing things, what you probably want for your work is a bit different. I'd suggest you look at "bellows" for your MF body. The bellows is a device that allows you to extend a lens farther from the body (increasing magnification). A good bellows also incorporates a "focusing rail", which allows you to move the whole system (camera + bellows + lens) closer to the subject or farther away. This is how you focus macro, moving everything together. Pentax makes quite a nice bellows.</p>

<p>With a bellows you use lenses you're probably not familiar with. I have a set of Zeiss Luminars, they're off little things that look sort of like microscope objectives. They have objective mounts (the RMS "Royal Microscopy Society" mount, to be precise) and I can even mount them on my microscope, although they're hard to use on it. My set is 63mm, 40mm, 25mm, and 16mm. 16mm is a bit much for medium format. Heck, even the 25mm is probably a bit much. The 63mm is "the" coin lens, a typicaly 6x7 bellows will let you rack the lens over a range from 200 to 400 mm from the focal plane. That puts the 63mm at 2x to 5x. That's nothing like 2x on the scope, it's 2x onto the negative. 2x fills the frame with a big 35mm coin like the new US dollar or a Loonie, and 5x will do details on a dime. The 40mm will do finder details on any coin. You need a 100mm lens of some sort to image a larger coin like an old fashioned US dollar.</p>

<p>For lower powers, I use recycled enlarger lenses (got to use them for something, I guess, now that film is dead). You can get them dirt cheap, wonderful Nikon or Schneider lenses for 10 cents on the dollar on the bay, and sometimes free in the "real world".</p>

<p>There's a third alternative that I forgot to mention. There are actually "macroscopes". They look like a weird cross between a large bellows and a microscope. Nikons is called the "multiphot". Leica's the "Aristophot". They're a sturdy stand like a microscope column, a base like a focsing stage (but bigger than normal), a head that holds a 35mm, MF, or LF camera, and a bellows where the microscope would have a body. A big bellows. The Nikon multiphot bellows covers a range from 200-700mm. The Aristophot is smaller, either 450mm or 600mm. In any case, it's still bigger than an MF bellows. A complete Multiphot or Aristophot weighs under 100 pounds, you can get it up onto the bench with one or two people. (My microscope, in comparison, weighs about 30 pounds)</p>

<p>Those Photar lenses that Eric mentions were actually designed to be part of the Aristophot system. The lenses that match the Nikon Multiphot are called "Macro Nikkors". My Luminars went to an enormous Zeiss photographic microscope called the "Ultraphot". You don't want an Ultraphot, it weighs (if memory serves) about 1000 pounds, and is a floor standing instrument, not a bench instrument. It looks like a cross between a microscope and a bridgeport milling machine.</p>

<p>And, a parting thought. Check out the "<a href="http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/">photomacrography</a> " forum...</p>

<p>I remember using a low magnification stereo microscope some 40 years ago. It was more like a huge, sophisticated loupe rather than a microscope. I believe it was an Olympus. It was ideal for studying small objects like coins and insects. Like most Olympus microscopes it could be equipped with a dedicated camera. The camera was simple: a box with a shutter and 35 mm film. The camera was from the half frame (18*24 mm) Olympus PEN line. It was connected to the microscope by a T-shaped optical system including a and viewfinder and a light metering cell wired to a separate meter . The optical system had a 3-way optical switch: 1) 100% of light rays to the viewfinder, 2) 75% to the viewfinder and 25% to the lightmeter for metering, 3) all light to the camera for exposure.<br>

This is the present day version:<br /> http://www.olympus.co.uk/microscopy/22_SZX10.htm <br /> This one is too expensive off course but its predecessor can be found cheap. Make sure to get a complete set with all bits and pieces. The metering cell could be pulled out and is likely gone missing by now ......<br>

Ferdi.</p>

 

<p>Thank You!!! Thank You!!! Thank You!!! To everyone that took the time to answer..</p>

<p>A special thanks to Mr. Wisniewski for the primer on photo microscopy..This is exactly the kind of information I was looking for..I am going to bookmark this thread for future reference..When will your book be available for purchase?..Sometime soon, I hope?..</p>

<p>As regards to my using a Pentax 67II camera on a Nikon rig similar to the one you described, "Is this possible?"..Or, would a "calmer", less vibration-prone medium format camera be in order?..Multiple brands of medium format cameras are not possible from a financial standpoint at the present..</p>

<p>Insects, coins, and other similar objects would be my initial focus as regards to photo microscopy..After I learned on these types of objects I would also be interested in photographing much smaller objects that would require slide mounting..I was always interested in biology in school..</p>

<p>In the back of my mind before starting this thread I had the crazy idea to take interesting 6x7 color slides through a microscope that could be projected for viewing..I fully understand how ambitious of an undertaking this is..I just wanted to know if it was at all possible, particularly if it could be accomplished with the Pentax 67II camera?..</p>

<p>Thanks again to all that responded!!!..</p>

<p>Bruce</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Bruce,<br>

I'd like to throw my $0.02 worth in, too.</p>

<p>First, I have a Pentax 67II set up and have been able to shoot a lot of different things with it - landscapes to macro. You might consider using the following with the P67II, and possibly working your way up to the microscope:</p>

<p>135mm or 100mm macro lens(es);</p>

<p>macro extension tubes (pentax makes/made a set of three of these for the P67 systems); there's also helicoid tube, but I have no experience with that...</p>

<p>P67 bellows - awesome! (might cost you $200 - $800 on ebay, when you can find 'em)</p>

<p>and, if you have all of the above, then use them in combination! The extension tubes and bellows work best, it seems to me, with the macro lens.</p>

<p>When I set up my P67II on the bellows (or, my Pentax K20D), it becomes a very unstable monster. I attach one tripod to the bellows, and then a second tripod to the camera body - try adjusting all of that! ;) And, as others have said, you'll need extra light (possibly a flash), as well as the mirror lock-up. Oh, and when you get all of this mounted, the bellows can have a tendency to creep, so you may not have it in focus when you want it!</p>

<p>Frankly, I've had more luck and better enjoyed myself when I connect my P67 bellows and macro lens to my K20D digital camera - I get immediate feedback and the images are meeting my needs (stock). For most of the images that I want, I've been getting "sufficient" magnification in this manner.</p>

<p>As others have pointed out, you might get sufficient magnification for your needs if you purchase a dissecting scope. These look like a simpler microscope, usually with a flat stage on the bottom, and typically the magnification is under 40x, and even under 10x.</p>

<p>However, this past summer, I purchased a used microscope and a mount that fits my Pentax K20D. I haven't had a chance to put it through its paces yet, as this is more of a winter project. But, I have similar interests as yours and want to see what else I can capture. For my K20D, I also have the P67 adapter that allows me to put my P67 lenses (and, bellows and extension tubes) onto my K20D...</p>

<p>Good luck,</p>

<p>Tim!<br>

Tim@TimMulholland.com</p>

 

<p>Hey Bruce, you're quite welcome.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As regards to my using a Pentax 67II camera on a Nikon rig similar to the one you described, "Is this possible?"..Or, would a "calmer", less vibration-prone medium format camera be in order?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The camera system really doesn't matter. The box (Nikon calls it a "micro photography system", but that takes too long to write, I'll just say "box") provides you with the low vibration shutter, exposure meter, shutter button, etc. Nikon, Oly, Zeiss, AO, etc. all have "boxes", but I'm most familiar with Nikon "FX" boxes. I can't tell you for sure whether Oly, Zeiss, AO, Swift, etc. boxes can accommodate a Pentax 6x7.</p>

<p>There were three series of the "FX" electronic boxes, the original had no number, then came the II, and the III. The original and the II can work with MF, but I despite finding cryptic references to a "roll film adapter", I believe the III can't. So you want something "pre III", either the original or the II.</p>

<p>There were a grand total of 12 different versions of the "pre III" boxes, and they all take the same top tube, and can all use the same MF and LF adapters (but the 35mm cameras are different between the different systems).</p>

<ul>

<li>AFX, AFX-II, AFX-IIA, AFX-DX is the "low cost" setup. </li>

<li>HFX, HFX-II, HFX-IIA, HFX-DX is the "mid line"</li>

<li>UFX, UFX-II, UFX-IIA, UFX-DX is the "high end" with the spot and center weight meter, film advance control (only for the 35mm body), and exposure memory.</li>

</ul>

<p>There is a MF adapter for these "pre III" boxes: I have seen pictures of it, but never actually held one. I'm not sure what MF systems these adapters are for, my first guess would be Blad. You will have some slight problems with a Pentax 6x7. Nikon appears to have designed their pre-III photographic system to accommodate 6x6, at most. The registration distance is fine for Blad (the tube piece of cake for any 645, a touch too long (but within the range where you can compensate) for a Pentax 6x7, and totally unusable for Mamiya RB or RZ.</p>

<p>For about 20 years, all the pre-III Nikon scope boxes used the same adapter tubes, everything is compatible. The top of the box has a 72mm male thread. It is a metric "coarse" thread, 1mm pitch, not compatible with the 0.75mm "fine" pitch thread on filters. (that's a shame, if it did, we could get this going a lot cheaper). A short adapter tube connects that 72mm thread to your camera of choice. For a Nikon F mount 35mm camera, the tube is 34.4mm long, from the flat bottom flange to the flange of the F mount. The Nikon registration distance is 46.5mm, and the Pentax 6x7 is 84.95mm. The difference between the Nikon register and the Pentax 6x7 register is 38.45mm, which is 4mm longer than you've got. So, you would have to have someone make up the very shortest Pentax mount to female 72mm, then you've got to pull the focusing eyepiece out on the box a few mm to compensate.</p>

<p>They all cost the same on the used gear market, so if you're going Nikon, you might as well go for a top of the line UFX box, and try to get a II, IIA, or DX. Controllers are much easier to find than heads, so if you see a head and matching controller, go for it. If you see a head without a controller at a good price, go for it, because you'll be able to find a controller for it easily. You'll see a ton of controllers without heads, leave them alone.</p>

<p>I'm trying to get some more information on the MF adapters.</p>

<p>This thread is a must read for any macro photographer. Joseph good luck on your book. I have learned a lot from your post.<br>

Meanwhile, here is a book I really like:<br>

Macrophotography: Learning from a Master : Ronan Loaec, Gilles Martin<br>

See <a href="../photography-education-forum/009JS9"> here</a> .</p>

 

<p><!--StartFragment-->

<p >The above points are great. For what it is worth, I have helped some organizations successfully install the Phase One P30 medium format digital back onto microscopes. Although classified as 645 back the P30 imager is smaller than true 645. The P30 CCD is 44.2 x 33.1 with a pixel count of 6496 x 4872. The 31.6 megapixel P30 and P30+ are the right size for many scopes. You get just a bit of vignetting in the corners. If anyone is interested in obtaining a similar system, please contact me offline. Sincerely, Mark</p>

<!--EndFragment--></p>