Microscope Photography

[JTG1]

<p>This is really cool. Makes one want to dabble.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2008/11/joys-of-microscope-photography.html">http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2008/11/joys-of-microscope-photography.html</a></p>

<p>~Jack</p>

 

[bms]

<p>How cool is that! Thanks for sharing. For dabblers, I bet these microscopes are real cheap... :)</p>

[umesh_bhayaraju]

<p>the electronic microscopes...probably costs just 100K pounds. :). We can tell the scientists, we can take better pictures with nikon and canon macro lenses :)....no need for electron or ion scopes. I bet the guys who are doing research on those are having hard time explaining what they are seeing. lol</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Awsome stuff! :-)</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>It is not that expensive to experiment with. A few years ago I talked with the folks at <a href="http://www.opticsplanet.net">http://www.opticsplanet.net</a> and they recommended <strong>Lomo</strong> microscopes as the best value. So I bought a set along with the necessary accessories such as a Nikon eyepiece/adaptor, some sample slides, etc.</p>

<p>I recall the whole pkg was not very costly. See: <a href="http://www.opticsplanet.net/lomo-microscopes.html">http://www.opticsplanet.net/lomo-microscopes.html</a></p>

<p>By the way, you can subscribe to the <strong><em>Microscopy Today</em></strong> Magazine for free. See <a href="http://www.microscopy-today.com/">http://www.microscopy-today.com/</a></p>

<p>Have fun - now you have reminded me to take it out of storage,<br />Mary</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Mary, why would you put Nikon eyepieces on a Lomo scope?</p>

<p>Microscopes are compound systems, each manufacturer designs eyepieces and objectives as matched sets, and they both match a particular tube length. My Optiphot 88 uses Nikon CF objectives and eyepieces and has a 210mm tube. When I first got it, it had newer CF-I eyepieces, a match for a different (newer) CF-I "infinity optics" eyepieces and a different tube. (not to mention a "tube lens", which CF-I scopes like the Optiphot 200 have, but my old Optiphot 88 lacks.</p>

<p>And the quality of my photographs improved dramatically when I replaced the Zeiss and Olympus "projection eyepieces" in the trinocular head with Nikon PL-CF projection eyepieces. Not that Zeiss and Oly don'y make some great objectives and eyepieces, it's just the Nikon eyepieces match my objectives. Because microscopes always have both an objective and an eyepiece, scope manufacturers take advantage of this and do part of the optical corrections (Chromatic aberration, field flatness, etc.) in the objective, and the rest in the eyepiece. Because all manufacturers have a different idea on how to do these corrections, you end up in the situation I described, the Zeiss projection eyepiece on the Nikon CF objectives leads to heavy color fringing.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>I bet these microscopes are real cheap</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You would be amazed. All my gear came from the bay of "e". I paid about $600 for my Nikon Optiphot-88 trinocular (dual eyepiece head with a tube for attaching a camera) with both trans (light shines through the subject) and epi (light shines "on" the subject, like "regular" photographers do) illumination systems, with three nice Nikon CF objectives. Another $80 each for two more objectives for increased magnification, $75 for a well used Nikon UFX photographic system to attach a DSLR to the scope (including a low vibration leaf shutter, and additional focusing eyepiece), and about $50 each for two projection eyepieces to go in the UFX. I can shoot at magnifications from 12.5x to 320x, focus stack, light images 4 ways, cut in linear or circular polarizers as desired.</p>

<p>For a grand total of $935, which is less than I paid for a 200mm f4 micro-nikkor.</p>

<p>If you want to get an idea of what people can do, often un the cheap, check out the <a href="http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/">photomacrography forum</a> . One regular participant there, Charles Krebs, has won that Nikon "Small World" photo contest shown in the blog that Jeff pointed us to, multilple times. I don't think he's the only "Small World" winner participating in that forum.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p><< Mary, why would you put Nikon eyepieces on a Lomo scope? >></p>

<p>I meant the piece that connects a Nikon camera to the microscope. Maybe it should be called an adaptor? Anyhow, I briefly played with it and it has been in storage for a long time. So I can't remember the specifics.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>OK, Mary, I get it now. Yes, "adapter" works for me. Nikon calls the piece that connects my scope to the camera by some very pretentious name like "UFX Microphotographic System". "Adapter" is easier.</p>