Hello! I'm here to begin Photomicrography

[orangetang]

Hello from Canada,

I stumbled upon a particular SW380T review while looking for information on this open box model, and now here I am. Great information and community so far, and I hope to use it to help me purchase my first microscope and get started in photomicrography. I hope to pair it with an existing DX or FX Nikon body.

If anyone has any suggestions for jumping into photomicrography please let me know. I've read through and have listened to a number of varying opinions on whether to purchase a used scope from the big five (I'm including AO, because why not), or a new scope with the AmScope, OMAX or Swift nameplate on it. I'm currently leaning far to the used scope category as it seems there is a much larger aftermarket, knowledge base and potential for better optical performance with a used Olympus for example.

I see many 'pulled from working environment' student and professional scopes equipped with expensive accessories such as fluorescence, phase contrast, polarizers, etc, for container-auction-prices that look to be in clean condition, though only a small percentage have a trinocular head. I rather take a risk with higher quality trinocular scope and put something together based on knowledge and feedback from those that use this equipment regularly, rather than making purchases blindly.

The goal here is to take micrographs of what lives in my saltwater aquarium. I would like to identify the tiny organisms such as dinoflagellate, diatom, etc, and also create artistically lit, polarized and darkfield images of larger critters like the copepods, amphipods, worms, macroalgae, etc.

[PeteM]

Your budget makes a difference. As does your willingness to do the extra research and work involved in buying a used scope (and getting 2-3x the scope for your money in return).

Given that you have the cameras - do either or both have a live view and silent shutter mode? Vibration is the enemy of crisp micro pictures.

The FX format is great to be used with used big four microscopes and their 35mm film system camera components.

The DX format often works well shooting direct with infinity optics. It's often harder to find a suitable photo relay lens ($$$) to closely match what you see through the binocular tubes and what you image through a trinocular tube.

[orangetang]

I would prefer to use the FX Z6, which should be a good candidate with silent shutter, live view and minimal high ISO noise. Can also remotely capture with SnapBridge.

I would even consider a monocular scope if it is feasible.

[hans]

What lenses do you have? If you already own one known to work for afocal, that might affect choice of microscope a bit.

[orangetang]

I don't have any afocal lenses. A few primes and zooms, none of which I would expect to be of any use for this.

[MichaelG.]

I don't have any afocal lenses. A few primes and zooms, none of which I would expect to be of any use for this.

.
A prime lens, focussed at, or near, infinity is used for ‘afocal’ photomicrography ... it simply photographs the output from the eyepiece.

There are many threads on the forum that discuss afocal technique ... but you might start here:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7871

MichaelG.

[orangetang]

In that case I have an AF Nikkor 1.8D 50mm (52mm filter) and a Sigma Art 1.4 50mm (77mm filter) for primes.

I see an earlier Nikkor 50mm lens being used here with a 52mm afocal adapter on 8x and 10x eyepieces is yielding decent results.

[hans]

50 mm should be a good focal length for FX. I have been using a DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G on DX D5100 and it works nicely. In my case with 10X eyepiece the 20 mm diameter intermediate image ends up 20 mm * 35 mm / (250 mm / 10) = 28 mm on the ~29 mm diagonal sensor. https://krebsmicro.com/photomic1/photomic1.html has good background info and explains the calculations. Also explains the other potential problem -- even if the focal length is appropriate the entrance pupil may be too far inside the lens such that it is not physically possible to get close enough to the eyepiece to avoid vignetting.

Probably best to try to find examples using your exact lenses, if possible. Alternatively, since your profile photo is astronomical, maybe you have a telescope eyepiece with similar exit pupil height and AFOV as typical microscope eyepieces, that you could do some preliminary experimentation with?

I have heard of some cases of zooms working, but they are much more likely to have the entrance pupil/vignetting problem. (Both mine do.) Worth looking into any you have that cover that focal length range, though.

[orangetang]

Thanks for the info everyone, this method isn't something I had stumbled across previously. I've seen long tube adapters on proprietary stands that adapt a microscope objective to a camera busy directly, but nothing with a standard camera lens between the objective and body.

I had a browse for anyone using the same lens for this purpose and came up empty handed. The 1.8D is one of the more inexpensive and less likely to be used by someone investing into their niche of photography. Additionally it seems this adapter is tricky to find.

I'll have a read of the article linked above and do some research today on the topic. Measuring exit pupil height for example isn't something I have fine across before. I don't own any microscope or telescope eyepieces to experiment with, and I'm also in the North Sea at work for the time being so don't have access to any lenses other than a 24-70mm I brought with me. I do however own a spotting scope with a removable eyepiece that may give an indication as to whether one of my lenses would work in such a way. It sounds like it will come down to trial and error, and for the cost of this adapter that would be an appropriate risk - should I be able to find one.

The comet was shot on a tripod, no fancy adapting required. I suppose this is all the same as holding a camera phone behind a pair of binoculars or spotting scope to take a photo of distant objects. It's a trial and error process of gripping the eyepiece and holding the phone against a meaty part of your hand to act as a flange, trying to keep the optic centered and at an appropriate distance to get a bright image that fills the frame with minimal vignetting. Except in this case we're trying to figure out exactly what will work ahead of time.

I'm not opposed to purchasing an old 50mm Saturday as the ones used in the example, though the screw on clamp send like a less than ideal adapting method

I do have two zooms that cover that focal range, an FX 24-70mm and DX 16-85mm, but they're fairly large in filter diameter compared to the little 50mm.

[PeteM]

Your Z6 should be a great choice for microscopy.

If your budget for a microscope is also in the $1.5-2K range, a relatively modern infinity scopes such as an Olympus BX or Nikon Eclipse would pair well with it. Both have readily available photo relay objectives and adapter tubes meant for SLR's and DSLR's. Not sure where the image plane is on your camera, but you'd likely need to just space it a bit further back?

In this case you wouldn't need to introduce a regular camera lens. Rather, the image path would be direct from the objectives (which in these modern scopes are fully corrected), to a 2.5x photo relay eyepiece captured in an OEM (Nikon, Olympus, etc. ) adapter, then direct to your sensor.

Many people use something like a high definition screen for viewing and focusing, so you wouldn't necessarily even need a regular trinocular microscope head -- just the maker's telan lens fitted to the stand's dovetail. For Olympus, this is there U-TLU. That would be a clean installation and likely save some $$$.

[orangetang]

A couple of potential afocal adapters to be used with a 52mm filter thread as discussed above.

The first shown here is essentially what was used in the example given above. This particular filter adapter will accept a 1.25" (~31.75mm) eyepiece. My understanding so far is that this style of adapter is designed for use with telescope eyepieces that are typically larger than those on compound microscopes, but perhaps similar to some binocular models.

The two main issues that seem to come up are:

Compatibility between the adapter, eyepiece and lens: If the adapter can be mechanically mated to the desired eyepiece, there is no guarantee that it will yield an acceptable quality of image. Vignetting and aberration may be issues even if this style adapter can grip the eyepiece, which would be a result of a bad choice of lens. For ~$20 I'm willing to give this a try.

Usability: If the above tests pass, the question of whether the adapter will move around and damage the piece over time would determine if it is feasible to use or not. I'm sure a permanent eyepiece could be sacrificed for such a purpose in the worst case scenario of epoxy.

I personally feel that for ~$20 dollars if a good image quality is achieved there is a certain amount of screwing around that will be acceptable. Additionally, it seems like creating a sleeve to fit the two together with or without the clamping screws is probably a good option. I see in the demonstration that cellophane was used to protect the eyepiece from damage and also secure better grip.

Three Questions:

1. Why not buy an adapter such as this, this or this M42 adapter with an M42/52mm adapter ring to use instead? The clamping style of all three may have more contact area and grip without the the risk of screw damage and the adapting ring would only add a couple of mm to the length for a female adapter and nothing for a male thread.

2. Is Zeiss going to be the only option for this test, or other manufactures using eyepiece optics of similar dimension and lens construction?

3. While this seems to be by far the least expensive option to take potentially high quality photomicrographs, does anyone want to push me in another direction? Any reasons?

[orangetang]

Thanks PeteM

If your budget for a microscope is also in the $1.5-2K range, a relatively modern infinity scopes such as an Olympus BX or Nikon Eclipse would pair well with it. Both have readily available photo relay objectives and adapter tubes meant for SLR's and DSLR's. Not sure where the image plane is on your camera, but you'd likely need to just space it a bit further back?

I would be hoping to start under $500 dollars as I'm not sure this is a hobby I'll pursue long term. I have an FTZ adapter that would essentially make the mirrorless camera into a standard F mount Nikon DSLR as far as any adapter or tube would be concerned.

In this case you wouldn't need to introduce a regular camera lens. Rather, the image path would be direct from the objectives (which in these modern scopes are fully corrected), to a 2.5x photo relay eyepiece captured in an OEM (Nikon, Olympus, etc. ) adapter, then direct to your sensor.

I understand having less elements would potentially have less degradation of the light and should yield a better result. This option might fall into an argument of diminishing returns on optical clarity depending on the scope, optics vs the other option of a simple afocal adapter.

Many people use something like a high definition screen for viewing and focusing, so you wouldn't necessarily even need a regular trinocular microscope head -- just the maker's telan lens fitted to the stand's dovetail. For Olympus, this is there U-TLU. That would be a clean installation and likely save some $$$.

Even easier than using a monitor might be using focus peaking on the camera itself. It will illuminate/outline the areas of an image that are currently in focus. I like the idea of just the small U-TLU adapter vs the long extension tube setups - if this ends up being a 2nd but much more costly option.

-Update- Ordered the afocal 52mm x 1.25" Eyepiece adapter, M42M x M42F 1.25" Eyepiece adapter and two 42x52mm ring adapters for either end of the M42 adapter to experiment with for now.

How about a scope recommendation for a PLAN 10x, 40x-60x dry darkfield w some form of polarizing light / retarders for under that $500 point?

[hans]

The comet was shot on a tripod, no fancy adapting required. I suppose this is all the same as holding a camera phone behind a pair of binoculars or spotting scope to take a photo of distant objects. It's a trial and error process of gripping the eyepiece and holding the phone against a meaty part of your hand to act as a flange, trying to keep the optic centered and at an appropriate distance to get a bright image that fills the frame with minimal vignetting. Except in this case we're trying to figure out exactly what will work ahead of time.

Yeah, same basic situation, except the much smaller sensor/lens on phone cameras means vignetting due to exit/entrance pupil positions is less of a problem.

I do have two zooms that cover that focal range, an FX 24-70mm...

If that is the F2.8G, the larger aperture compared to less expensive zooms possibly helps with the vignetting issue. But as far as I know, no reason to think it would be a better choice than the 50 mm 1.8 unless you want to try to capture the entire image circle, or someone has already demonstrated that it works.

Usability: If the above tests pass, the question of whether the adapter will move around and damage the piece over time would determine if it is feasible to use or not. I'm sure a permanent eyepiece could be sacrificed for such a purpose in the worst case scenario of epoxy.

Not sure it is a good idea to try to support a full frame camera/lens on the eyepiece alone. If the camera is going to be directly attached to the microscope it seems more common for people to use a relative large diameter tube directly from the lens filter thread to the microscope head with the eyepiece inserted into a smaller diameter flange/shoulder somewhere inside. Mechanically similar to the official photo eyepiece adapter/mounts Pete mentions. For example: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=10550

3. While this seems to be by far the least expensive option to take potentially high quality photomicrographs, does anyone want to push me in another direction? Any reasons?

Besides cost as Pete mentioned I would say it mainly depends on how inclined you are to view the optical tinkering as an enjoyable part of the hobby vs. just wanting to get on with the photography.

[orangetang]

After the discussion here so far I feel that I'm on the path to just "get on with the photography".

I agree that hanging the camera off of an angled eyepiece isn't a good option. I only plan on utilizing the trinocular port, OR, a vertical monocular scope for this.

The 24-70 is the F4 and the objective would be too large. The 50 mm is what I'll try for now.

[orangetang]

With the afocal semi-sorted for now, I could use some assistance on what specific microscopes to look for.

[orangetang]

With the afocal semi-sorted for now and in the mail, I could use some assistance on what specific microscopes to look for.

Eyepieces:
Reading through 20 something threads it looks like any high eye-point eyepiece should theoretically work, but there seems to be more Zeiss 8x KPL and Zeiss 10X KPL W eyepieces being than those from other manufacturers. Another additional mention might be the Leitz Periplan 10x /18 or Zeiss Projektiv 4:1.

Are these all 23mm, and is it recommended to stick to one manufacturer through the optical train?

EG: Zeiss eyepiece / microscope / opbjective / condenser?


Microscope Wants:
-Drop/slide in polarizing filters. I don't want to play with cellophane sheets
-A rotating stage may be handy as the afocal adapter may not rotate all too easily.
-Contrast manipulation
-Darkfield filter holder that can be used with polarizer at the same time - if that's a thing.
-no external power supply.
-Trinocular tube that accepts an eyepiece.

Does that narrow anything down? As far as condenser / objectives, I have no idea what I need other than PLAN and 160mm.

[hans]

With the afocal semi-sorted for now and in the mail...

To make sure I am following, the 1.25" eyepiece stuff is for telescopes and you are going to use it to try afocal with the 50mm 1.8D on the Z6?

[orangetang]

Correct. I believe that's what the others are doing. The clamping method is three or four thumbscrews depending on the specific adapter. Since the eyepiece is a smaller diameter on the microscope, a shim around the microscope eyepiece to assist with support seems to be all that is required. One of the adapters I purchased has an elongated contact pad so that may help with securing the required clamping force to stay in position.

This is the link is here for David Walker's method. I'll attach a screenshot.

Untitled-5.gif (112.92 KiB) Viewed 6903 times

Here is an SM-LUX scope on eBay that is caught my attention for the moment. It looks clean and the price is inline with others that don't carry a 'refurbished' description, and also do not have 170mm NPL objectives, which appear to carry a high premium on the used market place. And here's a tri-head...

[orangetang]

Untitled-3.gif (52.12 KiB) Viewed 6903 times

This is the more promising adapter of the two, with M42x0.75 threads on both ends. This should allow the adapter to sit right side up or inverted on the eyepiece, as I can use a ring adapter from either end to mate to the 50mm Nikkor lens.

Update: The dangers of waiting on weather in the North Sea... downtime. After days of surfing eBay and now tonight ~10 hours of staring at the SM-LUX scope before finding another with matching parts and a tri-head, I bought both of them.

Hopefully they arrive, the one is functional and the tri-head is compatible and salvageable. If not, I've got some spare parts out of it. I'm currently trying to find out if there is a way to adapt a polarizer above the objective or not. If not, I can place one in the adapter for the camera at the very least, and run a 2nd on the illumination. Looks like a good shape for it.

Not a lot of information in either auction
My best guess for objectives included:
A 2.5x/0.07 170/-
A 10x/0.25 170/-
NPL 25x/0.50 170/0.17
NPL 40x/0.65 170/0.17
NPL 100x/1.30 170/0.17

LEITZ WETZLAR SM-LUX MICROCOPE FOUR OBJECTIVES
Ernst Leitz 020-441.004 SM Lux with 1 Leitz Objective No Light

Untitled-1.jpg (138.06 KiB) Viewed 6716 times

[hans]

I don't know anything about Leitz microscopes, but the "refurbished" one appears to have AO/Spencer eyepieces. Sometimes compensating eyepieces matched to the microscope are necessary for best image quality, so you may want to look into compatibility and check with the seller.

[orangetang]

Thanks hans, I also picked up on this and have a message typed up but might wait for it to ship before making contact. They do appear to be an AO 10X WF, and I'll be looking for some alternatives, though the parts unit looks to have a pair of Periplan GF 10X that might work for now if they're clear. My understanding so far is that a periplan eyepiece is required for these scopes, which is why a standard camera adapter wouldn't work well or create bad aberration without a periplan eyepiece.

No idea if the purchases were wise or not yet. The trinocular scope has only one objective but otherwise looks complete and was about $100 dollars shipped. If the hed is any good it seems it would have cost me about $400 or more to acquire otherwise - fingers crossed it's useable. If not, I may be able to salvage some expense by parting it out or re-selling. At the very least the extra parts might be useful to me in the future - hopefully. In general my perception so far of the SM-LUX appears it is a student scope comparable to an Olympus CH.

[hans]

Probably a decent chance some parts are interchangeable between the binocular and trinocular heads if necessary. One of my Reichert 400-series trinocular heads came from an incomplete parts microscope like that with bad binocular beam splitter, but the whole binocular assembly can be swapped with with one from a standard head.

I have some periplan eyepieces that came mismatched with an AO 10 microscope. Too bad shipping to Canada seems to be prohibitive at the moment, otherwise we could swap.

[orangetang]

Yes too bad. I felt the shipping prices on the two scopes... Over $150 US dollars!

I started a project thread on photomacrography.net to continue on from this initial hello. The majority of the links here circled back to them as did afocal leitz google searches.

Thanks to everyone again! Once the scope is all dialed in a setup I'll be sharing the results to both forums.

For polarization - likely I'll just use a small camera polarizing filter directly on the light housing, but what is commonly used above the objective? I suppose since a lens will be on the adapter i could try a circular polarizer on the adapter, and potentially use it to rotate the assembly entirely.