Looks promising. There's obvious banding though.
For 5x at f/2.8 ( which my be slightly sharper, or not ) I'd start at 20 micron slices,
for 5x at f/4, 40 micron slices.
Those should get rid of the banding, then I think it'll pretty good.
Lighting for macro photography of fern gametophytes
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Hi,
I wondered if I could ask a question about example images?
I'm submitting a grant proposal in couple of weeks to request funding to buy microscope objectives to make a setup similar to Chris Slaybaugh's bratcam. I've been writing a presentation to justify my application, and I've struck a problem.
I have two wonderful photos that were taken with upright microscope setups (Charles Kreb's nettle trichome, and one of Des Calladhan's moss images). However, I don't have a really fabulous example of a plant structure taken with a horizontal setup like the bratcam.
I have a nettle trichome that Chris Slaybaugh took with the bratcam, but it doesn't quite sock me in the eye in the same way as Charles Kreb's nettle trichome does. I'm concerned that the judging panel will look at my evidence and say that it doesn't make sense to fund a horizontal setup and that I should look elsewhere to get the larger amount of funding to get an upright microscope setup.
My samples don't really make sense for an upright as they need to be sitting flat with the camera to the side. Also I'd ideally like a portable setup for teaching, and I've already built or bought everything except the tube lens and objectives.
I wondered if anyone might know of a really amazing plant image from a horizontal setup that I could show the panel, as an example of just how fabulous a horizontal setup with microscope objectives can be?
Thanks a million!
Jen
I wondered if I could ask a question about example images?
I'm submitting a grant proposal in couple of weeks to request funding to buy microscope objectives to make a setup similar to Chris Slaybaugh's bratcam. I've been writing a presentation to justify my application, and I've struck a problem.
I have two wonderful photos that were taken with upright microscope setups (Charles Kreb's nettle trichome, and one of Des Calladhan's moss images). However, I don't have a really fabulous example of a plant structure taken with a horizontal setup like the bratcam.
I have a nettle trichome that Chris Slaybaugh took with the bratcam, but it doesn't quite sock me in the eye in the same way as Charles Kreb's nettle trichome does. I'm concerned that the judging panel will look at my evidence and say that it doesn't make sense to fund a horizontal setup and that I should look elsewhere to get the larger amount of funding to get an upright microscope setup.
My samples don't really make sense for an upright as they need to be sitting flat with the camera to the side. Also I'd ideally like a portable setup for teaching, and I've already built or bought everything except the tube lens and objectives.
I wondered if anyone might know of a really amazing plant image from a horizontal setup that I could show the panel, as an example of just how fabulous a horizontal setup with microscope objectives can be?
Thanks a million!
Jen
Actually, please don't worry about answering the above. I've thought a lot about it, and I don't think I'll submit a proposal just now. There are too many technical things I need to improve before I feel ready to ask other people to chip in money towards my rig. I'll just stick with the MP-E for now.
Hi,
I've been doing some technical comparisons between the MP-E and a microscope objective mounted on a Canon 100mm f2.8 macro lens.
The microscope objective is a Nikon Plan Fluor 10x/0.30 Ph1 DLL infinity/0.17 WD16.0mm.
The focus stacking was organised either by my home built labophot + Raspberry Pi setup, or by using the internal stepper motor in the 100mm lens as indicated in each case.
I photographed a tiny piece of organza netting (the sort used to make bridal veils).
All photos were lit by desk lamp, setup as shown.
Here are the photos:
Canon 5d MkII + MP-E (x5) + 20 micron steps on my labophot/Raspberry Pi setup.
Full size:
50%:
100%
Canon 5d MkII + MP-E (x5) + 2x teleconverter + 5 micron steps on my labophot/Raspberry Pi setup.
Full size: [to be edited in once stacking finished]
50%
100%
Canon 5d MkII + Canon 100mm f2.8 lens + 10x Microscope objective + 20 microns on Raspberry pi setup.
Full size: [to be edited in once stacking finished]
50%
100%
Canon 5d MkII + Canon 100mm f2.8 lens + 10x Microscope objective + Internal lens stepper motor on largest steps, driven by EOS Utility software
Full size:
50%
100%
Canon 5d MkII + Canon 100mm f2.8 lens + 10x Microscope objective + Internal lens stepper motor on medium steps, driven by EOS Utility software
Full size:
50%:
100%:
I've been doing some technical comparisons between the MP-E and a microscope objective mounted on a Canon 100mm f2.8 macro lens.
The microscope objective is a Nikon Plan Fluor 10x/0.30 Ph1 DLL infinity/0.17 WD16.0mm.
The focus stacking was organised either by my home built labophot + Raspberry Pi setup, or by using the internal stepper motor in the 100mm lens as indicated in each case.
I photographed a tiny piece of organza netting (the sort used to make bridal veils).
All photos were lit by desk lamp, setup as shown.
Here are the photos:
Canon 5d MkII + MP-E (x5) + 20 micron steps on my labophot/Raspberry Pi setup.
Full size:
50%:
100%
Canon 5d MkII + MP-E (x5) + 2x teleconverter + 5 micron steps on my labophot/Raspberry Pi setup.
Full size: [to be edited in once stacking finished]
50%
100%
Canon 5d MkII + Canon 100mm f2.8 lens + 10x Microscope objective + 20 microns on Raspberry pi setup.
Full size: [to be edited in once stacking finished]
50%
100%
Canon 5d MkII + Canon 100mm f2.8 lens + 10x Microscope objective + Internal lens stepper motor on largest steps, driven by EOS Utility software
Full size:
50%
100%
Canon 5d MkII + Canon 100mm f2.8 lens + 10x Microscope objective + Internal lens stepper motor on medium steps, driven by EOS Utility software
Full size:
50%:
100%:
Canon 5d MkII + Canon 100mm f2.8 lens + 10x Microscope objective + 20 microns on Raspberry pi setup.
Full size:
50%
100%
I checked and the 2x teleconverter doesn't mount between the 100mm macro lens and the Camera body, because there is a big lens sticking out in between the teleconverter and 100mm lens that makes the two incompatible.
It seems to me from looking at these that I should just stick with the MP-E without the teleconverter and concentrate on using small steps (5 microns or less) to get good stacking.
I'd be really interested to know if this same subject comes out much better for someone like Charles Krebs who uses microscope objectives on an upright microscope, or for someone with a horizontal setup and the Mity objectives. I'd be really happy to post the subject to anyone who didn't mind taking comparison shots.
Full size:
50%
100%
I checked and the 2x teleconverter doesn't mount between the 100mm macro lens and the Camera body, because there is a big lens sticking out in between the teleconverter and 100mm lens that makes the two incompatible.
It seems to me from looking at these that I should just stick with the MP-E without the teleconverter and concentrate on using small steps (5 microns or less) to get good stacking.
I'd be really interested to know if this same subject comes out much better for someone like Charles Krebs who uses microscope objectives on an upright microscope, or for someone with a horizontal setup and the Mity objectives. I'd be really happy to post the subject to anyone who didn't mind taking comparison shots.
Fibres are hard to photograph without using contrast enhancing techniques in micrography - see how they show tham at http://www.microlabgallery.com/ClothingFiberFile.aspx
I think the sharpest things I'm seeing in your images are specular highlights - reflections - which always tend to look "fairly sharp".
If you diffuse like crazy, the contrast gets so low you don't see much.
I think the sharpest things I'm seeing in your images are specular highlights - reflections - which always tend to look "fairly sharp".
If you diffuse like crazy, the contrast gets so low you don't see much.
Chris R
Are you sure that you have the 100mm Canon at 2.8 (manual or AV set) and focused to infinite? There is lots of vignette, likely too much.
BTW a 200mm tube lens is much more adequate, specially for FF
In any case I think that a 10 0.30 objective must deliver sharper image. My CFI plan achromat 10 0.25 does with more pixel dense sensor.
BTW a 200mm tube lens is much more adequate, specially for FF
In any case I think that a 10 0.30 objective must deliver sharper image. My CFI plan achromat 10 0.25 does with more pixel dense sensor.
Pau
Hi Pau,
Do you think a 200mm tube lens would do better then? That was the question I was trying to answer really. I'm wondering whether to try to buy a 200mm prime lens or set up a tube lens with raynox. The easiest mechanically for me would be to buy a Canon-EF-200mm-f-2-8L-II-USM-Prime-Lens. It's a lot of money though, if I'm not certain that the objective will give me a really sharp image.
Thanks!
Do you think a 200mm tube lens would do better then? That was the question I was trying to answer really. I'm wondering whether to try to buy a 200mm prime lens or set up a tube lens with raynox. The easiest mechanically for me would be to buy a Canon-EF-200mm-f-2-8L-II-USM-Prime-Lens. It's a lot of money though, if I'm not certain that the objective will give me a really sharp image.
Thanks!
Trying to keep equipment, technique and subject, separate...
Printed paper would test the equipment and technique more rigorously. DIfferences should be clear.
I've been looking at a plastic "store" cards, (or, eg, an Amazon gift card) which are flatter than paper, but have black spotty-printing on them.
To get the best detail from your particular subjects I expect you'll have to spend time testing the lighting setup. Perhaps there's something morphologically similar but more readily available, which you can do that with.
Brian Valentine ("Lord V") has a subject you may recognise, here http://photography-on-the.net/forum/sho ... ?t=1471682
If you can't reproduce his results, ask him, he's a friendly chap.
If you can't get good detail with a 100mm "tube" lens, a 200 won't be a "solution".
The Canon 200mm you mention is way more costly than you'd need. A reversed Raynox would be fine. Saul here, does well with a Sigma lifesize adapter lens which is 52mm each side and often under £20 on ebay. (Search user Saul, Sigma)
Printed paper would test the equipment and technique more rigorously. DIfferences should be clear.
I've been looking at a plastic "store" cards, (or, eg, an Amazon gift card) which are flatter than paper, but have black spotty-printing on them.
To get the best detail from your particular subjects I expect you'll have to spend time testing the lighting setup. Perhaps there's something morphologically similar but more readily available, which you can do that with.
Brian Valentine ("Lord V") has a subject you may recognise, here http://photography-on-the.net/forum/sho ... ?t=1471682
If you can't reproduce his results, ask him, he's a friendly chap.
If you can't get good detail with a 100mm "tube" lens, a 200 won't be a "solution".
The Canon 200mm you mention is way more costly than you'd need. A reversed Raynox would be fine. Saul here, does well with a Sigma lifesize adapter lens which is 52mm each side and often under £20 on ebay. (Search user Saul, Sigma)
Last edited by ChrisR on Sun Dec 04, 2016 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Chris R
Thanks Chris. I can't get that URL to work. What should I be looking for there?
If I'm making a tube lens, do I need to use special bits like in ChrisS's Bratcam, or can I use just any extension tubes, and do they need to be really exactly 200mm long? I'm unsure about how to make a 200mm tube lens once I'm taking into account the thickness of the raynox and the adapters. That was why I was thinking of the 200mm Canon lens, which would at least be the right length, and also I could use for other photography projects. I had also wondered about an old manual Olympus Zuiko 200mm prime which would be cheaper and would be optically fantastic for other photography projects and which would be exactly the 200mm that I need. Sorry if this sounds daft, I'm uncertain about how to make a tube lens, but keen to bash on and get results. Thanks!
If I'm making a tube lens, do I need to use special bits like in ChrisS's Bratcam, or can I use just any extension tubes, and do they need to be really exactly 200mm long? I'm unsure about how to make a 200mm tube lens once I'm taking into account the thickness of the raynox and the adapters. That was why I was thinking of the 200mm Canon lens, which would at least be the right length, and also I could use for other photography projects. I had also wondered about an old manual Olympus Zuiko 200mm prime which would be cheaper and would be optically fantastic for other photography projects and which would be exactly the 200mm that I need. Sorry if this sounds daft, I'm uncertain about how to make a tube lens, but keen to bash on and get results. Thanks!
Sorry, the link acquired a full stop.
It should work now.
Certainly a camera lens is less faffing than using a separate optic and tubes to get it to focus to infinity. But once set up you could swap the two Raynox close-ups which are 125mm and 208mm, for different magnifications.
Recheck the FAQ, "How can I hook up a microscope objective to my camera".
Or any good make of prime camera lens should work.
For now I'd go back to the 100mm, be sure it's at infinity. It should mostly cover 24 x 36.
It should work now.
Certainly a camera lens is less faffing than using a separate optic and tubes to get it to focus to infinity. But once set up you could swap the two Raynox close-ups which are 125mm and 208mm, for different magnifications.
Recheck the FAQ, "How can I hook up a microscope objective to my camera".
Or any good make of prime camera lens should work.
For now I'd go back to the 100mm, be sure it's at infinity. It should mostly cover 24 x 36.
Last edited by ChrisR on Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chris R
It will cover much better the sensor (maybe the full sensor). Be aware that when you use a 100mm as tube lens you're shooting at 5X trying to cover a 26x36mm sensor with an objective designed to deliver 10X with a 200mm tube lens covering a circle of 25mm diameter: you're forcing it too much outside its capabilities.jsp wrote:Do you think a 200mm tube lens would do better then?
The image at the center will no be better, in fact, because the NA is the same the center will look much sharper at 5X but at your posted images it doesn't look very sharp. Maybe something is wrong in you method (vibrations....) I asked you some questions...
.That was the question I was trying to answer really. I'm wondering whether to try to buy a 200mm prime lens or set up a tube lens with raynox. The easiest mechanically for me would be to buy a Canon-EF-200mm-f-2-8L-II-USM-Prime-Lens. It's a lot of money though, if I'm not certain that the objective will give me a really sharp image
Others have answered it. A good 5X or 10X microscope objective used properly will be sharper than the MP-E at 5X + teleconverter
Pau