Is anyone able to help advise on microscope choice?

[freddydeeble]

Hi,

If anyone as a few minutes to advise a newcomer it would be much appreciated

I am completely new using a microscope to take photos but Ive been infected by the desire to start- ive done a fair bit of macro with a reversed lens (budget constraints).

I already have a dslr that I plan on adapting to the microscope in order to take the shots but I am quite lost when it comes to which microscope will be decent.

From what ive read it seems best to get a second hand big brand, is anyone able to advise me on whether this one looks like a good choice?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Leitz-Werzlar ... 2a4a3ad270

I have a budget of around £250.

Thank you

[Pau]

Hi freddydeeble, welcome aboard!

To recommend a good microscope is a delicate matter, there are so many options!. Looking for a good used instrument from the big names seems a very good idea

About the linked SM lux it's a good classic instrument, but I can't recommed it for several reasons
- The focusing mechanism is pretty weird: you have a single knob for both coarse and fine focus: you need to use it for coarse focusing until just passed the focus point and then rotating it in the oposite direction it does fine focusing for a short travel. IMO it's a pretty unique and stupid design, much less comfortable than the classic independent or geared controls designs and almost useless for focus stacking (most other Leitz models have excellent focus mechanics)
- It's binocular: trinocular (with a camera port) is much more convenient for photo although usually more expensive
- The objectives are low end and not original, you can have mismatch issues with the eyepieces
- The eyepieces have small pupil, so not very comfortable for use and not convenient to make photo arrangements.

Being in the UK as it seems you will have many other options. A good idea could be to contact with the Quekett microscopical club
http://www.quekett.org/

[Olympusman]

I agree with Pau on holding out for a trinocular. It will really make life much easier. And the small pupils on those eyepieces look like you will get a very narrow angle of view (and fatigue).

Mike

[freddydeeble]

Pau and Olympusman, thank you, wow! This is my first foray into the world of online forums and i just cannot believe there are such amazingly knowledgable people willing to give up their precious time to help strangers! Its incredible! Thank you thank you thank you!!

About the linked SM lux it's a good classic instrument, but I can't recommed it for several reasons
- The focusing mechanism is pretty weird: you have a single knob for both coarse and fine focus: you need to use it for coarse focusing until just passed the focus point and then rotating it in the oposite direction it does fine focusing for a short travel. IMO it's a pretty unique and stupid design, much less comfortable than the classic independent or geared controls designs and almost useless for focus stacking (most other Leitz models have excellent focus mechanics)

Ok thanks so much, details like this are so useful because I would never have known it and focus stacking is exactly what I want to do.

It's binocular: trinocular (with a camera port) is much more convenient for photo although usually more expensive

I agree with Pau on holding out for a trinocular. It will really make life much easier. And the small pupils on those eyepieces look like you will get a very narrow angle of view (and fatigue).

Ok, If what I've read is correct trinocular is when you have two eyepieces and a camera one too? This would be better I'm sure because it would be less hassle but I'm worried this will push the price up loads? I was thinking of just doing it afocal through the eyepiece, so that the chromatic aberration is taken care of in the eyepiece without having to buy more equipment. Is this a bad idea?

The objectives are low end and not original, you can have mismatch issues with the eyepieces
- The eyepieces have small pupil, so not very comfortable for use and not convenient to make photo arrangements.

Ok billiant to know, thanks

Being in the UK as it seems you will have many other options. A good idea could be to contact with the Quekett microscopical club
http://www.quekett.org/

Thank you, checked it out and it proved very useful.

I have a few more questions if thats alright;

My main aim is to take photos of this kind of subject

http://www.nikonsmallworld.com/techniqu ... ed-light/7

or

http://www.nikonsmallworld.com/gallerie ... etition/33

now I know this is an incredible photo and i will never be able to achieve this level of quality but my intention on showing it is to illustrate that i want to take photos of things which are not on a slide with a light shining through them so my question is;

if I plan to take photos of a subject matter than i cant shine light through, I assume I will need an external light source anyway; in light of which should I go for a cheaper microscope with no integrated light?

and Is a compound microscope what I want for this kind of thing?

my next question is if the photographer who took that photo above had a bog standard microscope costing around £2-300, would they have been able to take the image above? if not what would stop them? (what I'm really asking is if I buy one for that kind of price will I outgrow its capabilities?)

Through the link you sent me I found another website , usedmicroscopes.co.uk with some second hand microscopes on, I know its a lot to ask but are you able to tell me which, if any, of these in the photos below would suit my needs?









or this

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Carl-Zeiss-Je ... 27f691bdd7

Im sorry for the length of this post, I may have overstepped the mark of how much advice I can ask for but Im new to this and don't really know - if you have the time to give me a few answers I would be so grateful

Freddy

[Olympusman]

If that image of a mite is yours, that is a very respectable image for a novice.
Keep up the good work. One of the hallmarks of microscopy is patience.

Mike

[freddydeeble]

No sorry if I didn't make it clear enough, not my image that, found it on the nikon small world photography website, just wanted to use it to illustrate the type of image Im aspiring to be able to create.

[NikonUser]

For the type of subjects you want to photograph you do not want a microscope!
You need a decent lens, 4x microscope objective and/or a good enlarger lens, and some extension.
Also some type of way to move the camera or subject in small increments (say 20µ).
Lots and lots of examples of the equipment here on MPG.net

[ChrisR]

Hi Freddy
On an Admin note, you've almost certainly broken the photographer's copyright by using his image. You can post a link to an external image.
Could you replace the photo with a link? Ask if you need help.

I'd guess the picture of the moss and mite is a few millimeters across. That puts it just about on the boundary between what you'd want to do on a microscope, and what's easier on a camera with tubes/lenses mounted on it.
A much bigger subject becomes impossible on a microscope, and smaller is doable on a camera "rig", though they need to get quite sophisticated. Have a look in the Sticky thread showing what "Setups" people have worked with:
http://photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6070

It's a big subject, there's a lot to cover. Refining your needs/budget will help. It needn't cost a fortune, but it can!

Stereo microscopes look appealing but the photo quality can be less than you'd perhaps like. It's relative - if you only want pictures for web /Powerpoint illustrations then life is easier.

[freddydeeble]

Hi ChrisR,

Oops, thanks for pointing this out, my bad, I have amended it.

Thanks for your advice, interesting to know that if I wanted to go smaller than the mite image I could still do it just with a camera, albeit with a good setup. Thanks also for the link, I will peruse that thread shortly.

Thanks also nikonuser, both of you seem to be saying the same thing that a microscope is not necessary - with regards to what you say I need, when you say lens do you mean macro lens? And then would the 4x objective fix onto that via an adapter?

[flynet]

Apologies from a recent beginner for commenting in this thread. I went through this process last year, with satisfactory results.

I think you have to decide on what exactly you want to achieve. In my case I wanted to take photographs through a microscope. These photographs were to show reasonably clearly the structure of fly genitalia, the study of which I have been doing for 50 years, illustrating my taxonomic papers with drawings done with a camera lucida. They would possibly replace the drawings. I was not interested in taking close-up shots of living flies, or of whole flies, as the family I study all look very similar and require genitalia study for ID,

I contacted Brunel Microscopes (UK) and specified my requirements. They recommended buying a good camera with the ability to see and manipulate the image on a computer monitor. This was a Canon EOS 1100D. My budget for a suitable microscope was limited. I only had a good stereo and an old Watson. The compound microscope Brunel SP27 cost under £200.

A photo taken with this equipment is

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=26265

This photograph is about X100, the end part of the leg of a fly which has these boomerang structures underneath the last segment. It has not been observed, as far as I know, on any other species, and is only present in the female, purpose unknown.

It seems to me that there are basically two different systems to take photomicrographs. With a system using a camera with a macro lens with or without a microscope objective lens attached. This can be mounted on a rail capable of altering the focus for stacking, and with many different ways of illumination. This quite different from attaching a camera to a microscope with transmitted light and the object on a slide.

The latter method is helped by previous experience in dissecting, manipulating and processing the object to be photographed, and is an enormous subject.

So I think you have to decide the purpose of your taking microscope photos before deciding on your purchase. It would have made it easier if I could have afforded a trinocular rather than simple monocular, but I doubt if the photos would be better. I might add that it was several months before I managed a reasonable photo, earlier ones were terrible!

[ChrisR]

Freddy - in case you haven't seen it, another long thread to go through is the section's
FAQ: How can I hook a microscope objective to my camera?

Note that the lowest magnification microscope objective (infinite type) you would probably use on a camera lens would be a 4x. That would give you 2x magnification on a 100mm camera lens, and just about cover an APS sensor. (Camera lens doesn't need to be a macro lens.)
If you look at the
FAQ: How do I get a bit more magnification?
you'll see there's some overlap in methods you can use.

I'd suggest you look towards the "Pretty good" rather than the absolute ultimate best, to start with.

[NikonUser]

As an example of the type of photos I believe you want.
Velvet Mite, total length leg tip-leg tip = 9.6mm

Setup: Nikon camera + bellows + Nikon El Nikkor 63mm enlarging lens (reversed).
Flash diffused through a styrofoam coffee cup.
Stacked image using Zerene Stacker

[you can get a huge range of magnification (I can get 1x-60x) using the above setup by just changing the lens]