Recommend a microscope for capturing dslr images please

[shawngibson]

<p>Hey all, been a while...hope you're all well:) Apologies for not being around, not that anyone missed me lol.</p>

<p>I'd like to capture microscopic images onto a dslr sensor. Nothing crazy, an average APS-C sensor would do. People make adaptors to do this.</p>

<p>My confusion revolves around the microscope. I'd like to get close enough to get decent images of single cells. Not spectacular images, just decent ones, for example, of a bacterium or an average eukaryotic cell. </p>

<p>I see that 400x gets you to the cell level, and 2000x gets you a pretty decent view, but are those numbers just digital zoom? </p>

<p>If I were to spend say $750 on a microscope that had an attachment to hook up a camera, am I anywhere close to catching say the faint borders of a cells' nucleus?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Shawn</p>

 

[SCL]

<p>You can do it with a $400-500 used microscope of terrific quality. I picked up a Leitz for my grnadson...mechanical stage, Abbe condenser, binocular with an eyepiece tube for mounting a camera, 3 achromatic objectives including one oil immersion one....cost including shipping was about $450. It looked brand new, was smooth as butter, and made me think back to the much more primitive ones I used in school and the research lab I worked in. Do an Ebay search....you'll find lots to choose from. A word of caution....when you get beyond 4-500x magnification your DOF is extremely narrow, and in order to get good resolution and light transfer, you need to use an oil immersion lens and Abbe condenser....there is a learning curve. I used to use a much less sophisticated microscope to photograph all sorts of bacteria and things like live paramecia, volvox & stentors. If you really get into it, and want to shell out a litle more, you can get aprochromatic objectives, which offer better resolution (less chromatic aberation) by correcting for more colors.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>A cheap microscope will promise 2000x. A good microscope might deliver 400x. It works like that for telescopes too. I suggest you do some research of cellular microscopy to see what else is involved in sample preparation, as well as the hardware needed for observation.</p>

<p>Single cells are mostly transparent, and hard to observe using simple transmitted or reflected light. Usually special illumination techniques are need, including polarization, dark field and phase contrast. Above 400x, you usually find oil immersion objectives, which use mineral oil to "connected" the microscope with the subject.</p>

<p>There is almost no limit you can spend on hardware, ranging from a $100 beginners model to a $5000 trinocular research unit. IMO, you can have a lot more fun with a 50x binocular inspection microscope than at 400x, examining ordinary objects like minerals and insects. You should be able to find something in your price range that will get the job done, depending on the features you need. Go for the best quality you can afford, or arrange a soft spot on the desk to pound your head.</p>

<p> The depth of field is very shallow above 50x or so. With focus stacking software, including Photoshop, you can make some spectacular images of static objects. It could be fun, and definitely challenging.</p>

[shawngibson]

<p>>> A word of caution....when you get beyond 4-500x magnification your DOF is extremely narrow, and in order to get good resolution and light transfer, you need to use an oil immersion lens and Abbe condenser....there is a learning curve.</p>

<p>Is this a camera, microscope, or fine-tuning thing? I've never looked at biota under a microscope before:( I've been looking from a phylogenetic point of view, i.e. theory. I'd like to see the differences microscopically.</p>

<p>Is oil immersion/Abbe condesnser a way to get very close, if you know what you're doing?</p>

<p>Shawn</p>

[shawngibson]

<p>>>I suggest you do some research of cellular microscopy to see what else is involved in sample preparation, as well as the hardware needed for observation.</p>

<p>I will do that, thank you:)</p>

[SCL]

<p>With an oil immersion objective (lens) you use a thin oil between the front of the lens and the top cover on the slide, also often between the top of the condenser and the bottom of the slide....the purpose is to narrow the dispersion of light rays and provide a brighter field to illuminate the subject - usually used for objective lenses of 97x magnification (ie when used with a 10x ocular (eyepiece) - 970x magnification).Your microscope has a knob to raise or lower the objective into approximate position, and then you use a fine tuning knob to achieve actual focus. As Edward mentions, unless you are delaing with already prepared slides, you will need other gear to view certain specimens...I won't bore you with details, but a good book on microscopy should give you some idea of how to achieve a variety of results. Kodak used to produce a nice one called Photomicrography...sore of a primer on how to get started, but there are lots of others out there. If you're in the uSA, Edmund Scientific probably has most of what you will want or need after getting the svope.</p>

[shawngibson]

<p>>>Single cells are mostly transparent, and hard to observe using simple transmitted or reflected light. Usually special illumination techniques are need, including polarization, dark field and phase contrast. Above 400x, you usually find oil immersion objectives, which use mineral oil to "connected" the microscope with the subject.</p>

<p>If I want to see a flagellum, or maybe a nucleus, how does this work out?</p>

[SCL]

<p>Best to add gelatin to the water to slow down its movement, and then a little water based dye to provide color contrast.</p>

[Laura Weishaupt]

<p>For comparison I'm posting 3 micrographs. The first is Hypocrea at 10X mounted in KOH. It shows the ostioles (the roundish structures) nicely.</p>

<p>All of these were taken with a digital microscope camera mounted into the ocular of a Wolfe digital microscope. The scope uses Motic software and the camera uses ToupView software. The camera went back to school and I don't recall the brand. I can get that information this evening.</p><div></div>

[Laura Weishaupt]

<p>I'll get these resized for viewing, but the larger image is better in these cases.<br /> Next is a conidiaphore at 40X mounted in Cotton Blue.</p><div></div>

[Laura Weishaupt]

<p>Next is the same structure in detail at 100X oil immersion.</p><div></div>

[Laura Weishaupt]

<p>My experience with this camera is very limited and the work at 100X could be better, but you can get the idea of these magnifications. These were taken through the 10, 40 and 100X objective lenses on the microscope. I do like the digital scope because I can view slides on the computer screen. The scope software can capture the view, and it isn't bad. However, the camera I used is much better. I found it best to focus through the scope, then mount the camera to take photos.<br>

Here is smaller version of the 40X image.</p><div></div>

[Laura Weishaupt]

<p>Here is a smaller version of the 100X image</p><div></div>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Dark field and phase contrast illumination are techniques designed specifically to view transparent objects, and living cells tend to be nearly transparent. With transmitted light, you see vague shadows of the real structures. A shallow depth of field doesn't help either, so in viewing you tend to scan with the fine focus as well as a micrometer platform. I think you will find textbooks on microscopy not only useful, but fascinating.</p>

<p>From time to time, "Scientific American" and "National Georgraphic" feature articles on photomicroscopy as art. There's no end in sight for you ;)</p>

<p>https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=AwrBT4chueVVS4kApCNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0N2Noc21lBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNwaXZz?p=microscopic+art&fr=sfp&fr2=piv-web</p>

[Edwin Barkdoll]

<p>You first need to establish the scale of the objects you want to photograph, whether you want transmitted or reflected light (e.g. a dissecting scope). Practically speaking you won't be able to visualize much about bacteria other than to see if they are rods or cocci (round) or if they have certain staining characteristics. Ditto for flagella or cilia. Anything smaller that 5um you'll need oil immersion, realistically. I would start with bigger things and work your way down.</p>

<p>I would not even consider dark field, polarization, phase contrast, Nomarski etc at this point. They can be expensive and temperamental to get good results and there are much cheaper ways to visualize single cells - many stains are available that are routinely and effectively used to examine single cells. For example, the ubiquitous haematoxylin and eosin or methylene blue stains that are used in every clinical lab which stain to varying degrees nuclei and some organelles. These stains can be an inexpensive, effective and aesthetic tool particularly for beginners. (BTW there are some toxic stains out there so know what you are using). There are also "optical staining" techniques like Rheinberg illumination which is a variant of dark field - relatively cheap setups are available on *Bay.</p>

<p>If you really intend to get good photomicrographs you will ultimately spend more than $750, so, to start read up on scopes (e.g. http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html), decide what you want to start with: scale and transmitted or reflecting (or both). Once you are sure spend some time on an auction site and check out prices - they can fluctuate a lot even for the same scope. There are bargains to be had but you may have to assemble by bits and pieces - over time I've cobbled together a nice Zeiss polarizing scope inexpensively. You can start with a good body - Nikon, Olympus, Zeiss and add on many features (polarizing, DIC etc) as you become more proficient. <br /> In addition to the above link try:<br /> https://www.microscopyu.com<br /> Attached is a handheld (phone just held up to the eyepiece) iPhone photomicrograph at about 40x of diatrizoate meglumine crystals in polarized light. Also a methylene blue stained root cross section (macro-nikkor)</p><div></div>

[Edwin Barkdoll]

<p>root</p><div></div>

[shawngibson]

<p>Wow, brain melt.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone.</p>

<p>I think it's been clearly established that in order to get any cell-level image that is full of information, is beyond both my budget and my knowledge.</p>

<p>However, that doesn't leave me dead in the water.</p>

<p>I'd also like to be able to view impressions of macroscopic fossils in detail, for example, casts of Ediacaran and Cambrian fossils. And I'd like to be able to look closely at the parts of extant arthropods. </p>

<p>So I am guessing that a 50x magnification is best for that.</p>

<p>The entire point of all this is, I'd like to take a snapshot of whatever I compose on a slide, so that I can later turn it into a painting.</p>

<p>I don't want to rely on internet images, as I prefer to be the photographer of my paintings.</p>

<p>The learning about biology aspect seems unfeasible given the monetary and (microscopy) knowledge constraints, but that won't stop me from being a geek:)</p>

<p>On that note, would something like this (link below) suffice? If not, please make a product recommendation. I will learn as I explore, but right now I just want a solid purchase to get me started:)</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00AEJ9FJ4/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00AEJ9FJ4&linkCode=as2&tag=bestcompoundmicroscopes-20</p>

[shawngibson]

<p>I just ordered this as a starting point:</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B005LIG4RE?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00</p>

 

[Edwin Barkdoll]

<p>If you are interested in macroscopic fossils and/or arthropods a dissecting/stereo microscope (reflected light rather than transmitted) in the range of 1-50x magnification might be more appropriate than a compound microscope with minimum of 40x magnification.</p>

<p>I'm not sure you will easily be able to attach a DSLR to it.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, post some photos of what you shoot.</p>

[shawngibson]

<p>Thanks Edwin. I figure at a $300 buy in, and a lot of prepared slides available on the web, and life itself available to be bottled up and taken home, I can't go wrong at this point.<br>

I have lots of lights available, so hopefully for things that aren't on slides, I figure I can create my own light source(s).</p>

<p>What I don't understand yet, is if I can fit something like a cockroach or fruit fly under the microscope, or a small fossil. I assume I can. I also assume that the smallest magnification will be 40x. So, if I can drop the 'base' (if I may call it that) so that the lens is as far away as possible from the specimen, I assume that means I might be able to view, say, just the head of a bug?</p>

<p>I got so frustrated at my lack of knowledge here, and all of the fast reading became a blur. So I purchased the one linked above hoping it will be a good starting point. That's all I want at this point, because I have a lot to learn.</p>

<p>Shawn</p>

 

[shawngibson]

<p>Question, do microscopes work in the same way as a camera lens as regards depth of field? I am still dealing with an aperture in order to make the DoF larger or smaller, yes?</p>

<p>So much to learn...</p>

[Rick Bortnick]

<p>Shawn,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Question, do microscopes work in the same way as a camera lens as regards depth of field? I am still dealing with an aperture in order to make the DoF larger or smaller, yes?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Technically yes, in practice no. The aperture on the microscope is more to control the amount of light reaching your eye than to control depth of field. While closing it down does increase depth of field, it is so slight at the higher magnifications as to make no difference. The depth of field decreases as magnification increases. One of the properties of the microscope.<br>

It is more akin to walking outside into the summer noon day sun from a darkened room. Too bright, can't see much ... put on some sunglasses & its quite different.</p>

<p>On the subject of light, something you should be aware about digital microscopes, the software automatically adjusts/compensates the light. Look at your software manual to take control of the settings. The scope you ordered looks like a reasonable student grade microscope. The software that comes with it looks average (That is not a bad thing, remember it is for science students. It will do quite a bit for you.).</p>

<p>The 20x eyepiece while nice will need alot of practice. While 2000x sounds good, any vibration will set your eyes to jiggling. Put the scope on a <strong>solid</strong> table. Seriously.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What I don't understand yet, is if I can fit something like a cockroach or fruit fly under the microscope, or a small fossil. I assume I can. I also assume that the smallest magnification will be 40x. So, if I can drop the 'base' (if I may call it that) so that the lens is as far away as possible from the specimen, I assume that means I might be able to view, say, just the head of a bug?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>An entire cockroach, no, fruit fly yes (though you won't see much - specimen too thick). Remember, as was mentioned earlier, you are transmitting light <em>through</em> the specimen. That limits specimen thickness. <br>

As to dropping the base .... no. You can, but your material will be out of the plane of focus.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'd also like to be able to view impressions of macroscopic fossils in detail, for example, casts of Ediacaran and Cambrian fossils.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Casts won't work. Usually casts are solid, again you have to transmit the light. Having said that, if you want to try & play around :) Use low power to focus on a relatively flat area of the cast, get a bright narrow source of light & come in from the side. Deep shadows but you may get what you want.</p>

<p>The only thing that I see that may actually hinder you is the camera - 640x 480 pixels. Nice range ... but as a photographer you will soon want more, for the level of detail you seem to want (Don't we all want better optics?). But that can wait, there are many options. If you plan on making your own slides & live in the States, look at Carolina Biological for supplies. I believe they sell to individuals.<br>

<br />Good luck, have fum, & keep asking questions.<br>

Rick</p>

[shawngibson]

<p>Very helpful, thanks Rick. </p>

<p>So basically, I've purchased a semi-decent microscope for looking at slides with the light only being transmitted from below, and because of the physical limitations of the microscope, I need very thin specimens. If I'm correct, something like drosophila will give me more of a silhouette, yes?</p>

<p>Is it possible to <strong>modify</strong> this microscope to view larger things, i.e. say a cockroach? If I bought a lens that is maybe 10x for example, and created my own light source ABOVE the specimen?</p>

<p>And...can I upgrade the camera? I see that there are Leica/Nikon/etc. lenses that are worth 10x the price of this entire kit. Can I purchase bits and pieces and upgrade as needed...or is this just a student'level compound microscope that will never be able to view a cockroach or a cast?</p>

<p>I bought a fairly decent (I think?) group of slides: </p>

<p>http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B0055E8620?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=od_aui_detailpages00</p>

<p>On a completely different note, since I've not had much luck with Google, can I view various embryos in their stages of development, say a protostome, a deuterostome, etc.? Do such slides exist? For that matter, a chicken embryo through its various stages, and say, a pre-amniote like a frog?</p>

[Edwin Barkdoll]

You already have a 4x objective which with the 10x ocular gives you the minimum 40x magnification, so, you'd need

something less like 1x to give you a system mag of 10x.

 

If you get any other objectives make sure they are compatible with the body, eg tube length.

 

Yes there are many slides of many organisms which can be used with transmitted light. Any histology or biology supply

house will have many. They will often be thin sections unless they are very small organisms.

 

Another gr at pace to start is your local pond water. You may need something like Proto-Slo which increases the viscosity

of the water and slows down the speed of any protists on the water. Otherwise, they can be too fast to observe well.

[Rick Bortnick]

<p>Listen to Edwin. Pond water ...its where a lot of us started. Proto-Slo, slides cover slips, pre-made slides, stains, all can be gotten from any Biological Supplier. Do not bemoan your scope, you will be amazed at what you can see with a little practice.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... because of the physical limitations of the microscope, I need very thin specimens. If I'm correct, something like drosophila will give me more of a silhouette, yes?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True. Try it anyway. If you are thinking of getting anything from a Biological supplier you might be able to get KOH (pellets). Caustic material but a 25% - 40% solution will clear many small insects & plant leaves. You will see the details you want.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is it possible to <strong>modify</strong> this microscope to view larger things, i.e. say a cockroach? If I bought a lens that is maybe 10x for example, and created my own light source ABOVE the specimen?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, but keep in mind the side illumination I mentioned earlier, it works (at least with plant hairs :) ).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... can I view various embryos in their stages of development, say a protostome, a deuterostome, etc.? Do such slides exist? For that matter, a chicken embryo through its various stages, and say, a pre-amniote like a frog?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those slides can be bought, but are not cheap. Know anyone in high school or taking college biology. Standard slides for those classes. Again, if you are in the States look at Carolina Biological. Lots of stuff, good quality, prices reasonable. I use them all the time.</p>