first attempt!

Images made through a microscope. All subject types.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

mayapapaya
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:08 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

first attempt!

Post by mayapapaya »

Howdy! So I thought I'd go ahead and post some shots. These are my very first photographs and I still have a lot of refining to do, but not bad considering my limitations. Some things I need to work on are lighting and getting better objectives so I can bump up the mag. For now these are all 10x or random things I found around the outside of my house.

This is a Zeiss Standard 16 with a Zeiss 10x achro objective. Nothing fancy. I did some light trickery to get that sort of neon glow on a few. Focusing proved to be difficult at times so there are some outer areas that are out of focus. I also noticed that the external lamp source I was using to give that effect wound up leaving a sort of white haze in a few spots. Let me know what you think! (the limit is 6/day......right? :P )

Image
Crystallized Sweet N Low

Image
Wing of a beetle

Image
A decaying cocoon

Image
Innards of the tip of a weed

Image
Roach wing, my favorite of the bunch.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 22449
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

These are looking very encouraging. Quite good for first photos!

> the limit is 6/day......right?

Correct, though to be completely honest we don't police that very carefully especially in the Microscope forum. It's mainly to have a number so that if somebody starts flooding the galleries or overloading the server, we can throttle them down. We routinely approve people who ask to post more on occasion as long as their average stays in bounds.

One thing you might consider is to post larger images. We can get a much better idea of image quality that way. The forum allows up to 1024 pixels on each axis. What fits well on most screen is up to 1024 wide but no more than 850 or so high.

--Rik

Charles Krebs
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Contact:

Post by Charles Krebs »

Very good start! You should be pleased.

How did you finally decide to couple/use the camera?

mayapapaya
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:08 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

Post by mayapapaya »

charles, i have to say that i've been secretly stalking your work for quite some time and use you as my apex to one day reach :) well, i've simply fashioned some extension tubes and dropped them on top of the body, sans binocular head. this works okay, i can see everything clearly and focus by looking through the camera eyepiece and making my adjustments that way. this has been leaps and bounds better than the crappy amscope slr adapter i purchased awhile ago.

i tried a method that Pau suggested which was to keep the zeiss eyepieces in and just sort of close in with the camera. i noticed in his pics that he used a dslr lens in between. i tried this and got awful results. perhaps i misunderstood the method but no matter what, everything seemed to blur.

the next thing i will try is eliminating the 35mm lens between the camera and microscope. the big issue with this afocal method (is that what it's called?) is that i don't have a trinocular head so getting the angle and distance is really tricky. I like being able to view things through the camera itself when focusing versus the old method of using an adapter and relying on the secondary eyepiece for focus. never ever worked. so i'll try this way by removing the lens and seeing if i can get the distances and angles just right as to get a nice field of view and decent clarity.

the method i use now i feel works quite well and would be stellar if i got the lighting right and practiced my focus stacking so the focus intervals were exact. also a remote to trigger the shutter would help immensely (though i've seen improvements in setting the mirror lockup function). the big thing is, this only works well at 10x and below. forget about 40x. i have what appears to be a nice neofluar objective that looks like total crap when used this way. i'm coming to grips with the fact that the zeiss compensating eyepiece is an essential part of this process.

i've been toying with the idea of building an adapter. assuming i kept the binocular head onboard, i'm wondering if there's a way to build something that can incorporate my existing 10x eyepiece. in other words, it pops into the existing slot and at the other end, where your eye would be, is some sort of adapter locked onto it that has an adjustment that shifts the camera forwards and backwards as to get the accurate distance, mimicking the distance of your eye. is this possible? does it already exist?

Mitch640
Posts: 2137
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:43 pm

Post by Mitch640 »

From what you wrote, I am quite sure you will need either a "projector" lens, which is a lens that goes into the trinocular tube if you had one, and so is between the light path from the slide and your camera sensor. It looks like an ocular and an ocular will work in a pinch. But while Nikon for example, makes a 10x projector lens, the best one is their 2.5x.

I have an Olympus base with no head on it and have been considering using it like you do, without a head. I have not done it yet, but it would need some way to adapt a way to hold the projector lens just above the arm, at I assume 160mm or so, then more space above the lens to add the proper distance between the projector top lens and my sensor.

Try and find a trinocular head though, it will make things so much easier than trying to build an adapter. You could try mounting the camera the proper distance from one of your binocular eyepieces, but I have tried that with various cameras, and it is an exercise in futility, even with two tripods. And oh yeah, do not use any camera lens in line. They are not made for that nor will work. :)

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 5696
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Post by Pau »

The simple coupling you used for this pictures is called direct projection. Of course it works, but because the objectives do need secondary corrections at the eyepiece the periphery of the image can't be good.
It will work perfectly with full corrected objectives like Nikon CF
mayapapaya wrote:...
i tried a method that Pau suggested which was to keep the zeiss eyepieces in and just sort of close in with the camera. i noticed in his pics that he used a dslr lens in between. i tried this and got awful results. perhaps i misunderstood the method but no matter what, everything seemed to blur.
This is the right method, and is the only one used in all the original zeiss dedicated cameras and camera adapters of this era. May be your problems come from an inadequate camera lens or its position over the eyepiece. What camera lens do you use?
Remember: the eyepiece must be high eyepoint type (I think yours are), the lens must have the entrance pupil not too recessed (many zooms are not adequate, but others are), the camera lens must be focused to infinite and with its diaphragm wide open and the camera lens must be well centered and postioned as close as posible to the eyepiece.
mayapapaya wrote:the next thing i will try is eliminating the 35mm lens between the camera and microscope. the big issue with this afocal method (is that what it's called?) is that i don't have a trinocular head so getting the angle and distance is really tricky. I like being able to view things through the camera itself when focusing versus the old method of using an adapter and relying on the secondary eyepiece for focus. never ever worked. so i'll try this way by removing the lens and seeing if i can get the distances and angles just right as to get a nice field of view and decent clarity.
This is eyepiece projection, another classic method. But with a 10X eyepiece to get good focus and coverage you need to place the eyepiece in higher position than normal and you need to focus the microscope at different distance than designed. Despite this caveats some members like Arturo get excellent results with this approach.
mayapapaya wrote:the method i use now i feel works quite well and would be stellar if i got the lighting right and practiced my focus stacking so the focus intervals were exact. also a remote to trigger the shutter would help immensely (though i've seen improvements in setting the mirror lockup function). the big thing is, this only works well at 10x and below. forget about 40x.
Yes, the right illumination technique is as much important (or more) than the equipment. And its importance dramatically incrases with the objective power
What camera doyou use?
mayapapaya wrote:i have what appears to be a nice neofluar objective that looks like total crap when used this way. i'm coming to grips with the fact that the zeiss compensating eyepiece is an essential part of this process.
Yes, the effect is often more noticeable with high power better corrected objectives.
mayapapaya wrote:i've been toying with the idea of building an adapter. assuming i kept the binocular head onboard, i'm wondering if there's a way to build something that can incorporate my existing 10x eyepiece. in other words, it pops into the existing slot and at the other end, where your eye would be, is some sort of adapter locked onto it that has an adjustment that shifts the camera forwards and backwards as to get the accurate distance, mimicking the distance of your eye. is this possible? does it already exist?
Ther are at ebay some old desing adapters that keep the eyepiece inside, but in principle I recommend you again to work the afocal setup.
Pau

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic