Newbie to it all :)

[Aenima]

Hi

Before i head over to the beginner section to try and get a handle on the subject, i thought i'd introduce myself here


Being based in the UK with an interest in astronomy, i spend a laughable amount of time actually DOING astronomy and the rest spent wishing i had a better hobby!

I love ALL sciencey stuff, but mostly nowdays, and especially with astronomy (and soon hopefully microscopy), i enjoy the photographic aspects and being able to record images of what i see at/in the eyepiece.

https://flic.kr/p/Tg73qe an example from my astrophotography on flickr

Increasingly i've been considering trading one of my telescopes for a microscope in the hopes of being able to make use of cloudy nights but continue to pursue my passion for science and photography, and of course visually it would be equally fascinating to watch tiny things up close

So i would be hugely grateful for any assistance, advice or a nudge in the right direction from those in the know.

Many thanks in advance,

Regards,

Jay

[charlie g]

Welcome, Jay! The big picture entails microscopy world views and astronomy world views to my minds eye.

I reside in finger lakes/US..almost a 'cloud machine locale'..but still lots of astronomy if I err..get my seat outdoors when things are going on and seeing is good. Then there is: http://www.cloudynights.com , please go to this community soon.


Enjoy this forums microscopy, visit issues of this forums online 'zine': "Microbe Hunter.com magazine...for sense of microscopy world views.

Please enjoy our forum sharing, Jay. charlie guevara, finger lakes/US

[Aenima]

Thank you Charlie!

I already visit CN forum every now and then, there are some very knowledgeable astronomers/astrographers there for sure.


Love the solar shot btw!

Thanks again for the response and info

[JimT]

Jay, quite a few folks in this forum are or were also astronomers (Me included).

I got tired of cloudy nights and light pollution and decided to look at small things real close as compared to very large things very far away.

Also got tired of having to stay up until 12:00-1:00 AM because of Daylight Savings Time

Welcome to the forum.

JimT

[zzffnn]

Welcome to the forum, Jay!

[Aenima]

Jay, quite a few folks in this forum are or were also astronomers (Me included).

I got tired of cloudy nights and light pollution and decided to look at small things real close as compared to very large things very far away.

Also got tired of having to stay up until 12:00-1:00 AM because of Daylight Savings Time

Welcome to the forum.

JimT

thanks Jim,

I wasn't too sure at first whether there would be any crossover between the two hobbies - i mean there are similarities - using and enjoying precision optics, and a love for science. But there could also be obstacles like familiarity with the subject matter and the common misunderstandings, it might be a different world entirely.

I mean i made the classic mistake of calling it microphotography when asking about the imaging side on a facebook group and immediately felt embarrassed - just like when people call astronomy 'astrology' - its cringeworthy to those involved in it.


I have a basic understanding of how the microscope works but thats it, nothing more in depth.

I really want to get into the *clears throat* Photomicrography aspect, as well as the biology and learning to identify what i see in, say, a sample of dirt or pondwater - i actually read on here yesterday that some guy found a tardigrade seriously didn't realise you could do that, i always thought you need a SEM grade lab thingy to see them, so as i'm a big fan of those little guys i was very excited to read that.

(I believe if ever we do find life elsewhere it'll be something like the extremophiles, or possibly a tardigrade type organism.)

So yeah, no shortage of interest in the science, but i do value the ability to take good quality images as well, and hope to approach both with equal enthusiasm.

I have the camera side already - DSLR, CMOS webcam, or a cooled CCD - from the astro hobby, its just the (micro)scope aspect i need to learn and then buy the closest to a suitable model as budget allows.

Many thanks for the welcome.

[75RR]

Hi Aenima - Welcome

... and learning to identify what i see in, say, a sample of dirt or pondwater

Have a look in the Resources (online, books etc.) section, plenty of useful information there.

... its just the (micro)scope aspect i need to learn and then buy the closest to a suitable model as budget allows.

You might find this article useful:

Choosing a first Microscope: http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/art ... oscope.pdf

Note: After looking at your images in your link I am going to add these two links:

Textbook on Microscopy: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4731
and
Photomicrography - Mounting a Camera; viewtopic.php?f=15&t=882

Had thought that astrophotography (outside Hubble) basically consisted of fuzzy images of planets - turns out that is not so - though I did notice that you included one ;)

[btschumy]

Aenima,

Welcome. I'm another that does astronomy and microscopy. Good to have something to do on cloudy nights or during the day.

Bill

[Johann]

Welcome Aenima,

Your photos are amazing - i did not know that is the level of detail one can see as an "amateur" astronomer.
I assume, as in the microscope world, it takes experience, skill and good equipment to take quality photos like that - very cool.

[IanW]

I agree with the above - stunning astrophotography! I too have a telescope but it's either overcast (North West England), too cold/windy or too late before it gets dark enough in Summer:-)

There are no such limitation with your microscope. With your evident skills in photography, you should go far.

[zzffnn]

Jay,

I am highly impressed by your astro images, especially the whirlpool galaxy, moon mono and rosette repro.

May I email you 2 logistics questions regarding astrophotography? My email is
zzffnn at h0tm8il d0t c0m. Please replace 0 with o and 8 with a. Thank you.

I can help you with microphotography, if you like. I wish I live in UK, that way we may even work out a trade.

[Aenima]

Hi

Thanks guys for the kind words regarding the astro stuff in my link


Haven't quite worked out using multiple quotes in the reply so will just thank Johann IanW zzffnn btschumy JimT Charlie 75RR for the welcomes, kind words and useful links

And of course zzffnn i will email you with questions or advice depending which subject

Been into (or obsessed with) astronomy/astrophotography for about 4 years now, very slow progress with the UK weather. Judging by the amazing work found on here and elsewhere online it seems the microscope based imaging is every bit as wonderful and requiring a similar level of skill and commitment.

I kind of view extreme macro (photography) as maybe a middle ground and am curious about the difference between the biological type microscope and the stereo microscope - when it comes to 'low power' and getting a good look at a larger 3D object like a crystal. Versus observing cells and microorganisms - are the two that separate so that using a stereo microscope Is limited in magnification to the point where you'll need two instruments for the full range, or are they just different ways to view things and a stereo microscope can actually use high magnification if needed? If its anything like astro most people have two scopes to cover the bases, although a single high quality scope can do quite a fair job of both.


Thanks

[zzffnn]

Jay,

Most serious macro / micro photographers use compound microscope objectives for high magnification (>=3x on sensor) and macro lens or reversed copy/enlarger lens for <= 2x on sensor.

For mineral micro clusters, magnification ranges from 0.5x to 20x on sensor, but mostly 0.5x-5x on sensor. You want no-cover type metallurgical compound objectives for crystals, rather than 0.17mm corrected biological objectives, when you use an objective more powerful than a 10x NA 0.25 objective. At or below 10x NA 0.25, it does not matter much.

For pond water protists, you need 0.17mm cover corrected biological objectives, once you go over 10x NA 0.25. You may be able to use one scope for both crystals and pond protists (for example, Nikon Optiphot can do it by changing stage height), just switch different types of objectives.

Most microscopists use a dissecting (stereo) macroscope for sample preparation and casual viewing. Macroscopes don't do photography well, in general, due to their low resolution (numeric aperture). But you do need a macroscope to prepare your sample, prior to photographying them. At above 1x on sensor magnification though, you are much better off using camera macro lens or compound objectives/microscopes for photography, assuming you do stacking.

You would want to think about what subjects you want to view or photograph under a microscope. For example, is your favorite subject closer to:
1) mineral crystals, flowers, dead insects; or
2) fast moving live protist; or
3) non-moving microscopic subjects, such as plant sections, mounted diatoms; or
4) all of them?

Do you want mostly photography and minimal viewing, or equal amount of viewing and photography?

Your answer to these questions will narrow down your equipment choices.

For example, some vintage microscopes don't offer simultaneous eye/camera view/recording, that would make it difficult for video-taping fast moving pond protists. As another example, if you want to photograph crystal/flower/insect and don't need much of (visual/eyepiece) viewing time, then you may want to use a macro stacking rail, instead of a microscope.

[Aenima]

Jay,

Most serious macro / micro photographers use compound microscope objectives for high magnification (>=3x on sensor) and macro lens or reversed copy/enlarger lens for <= 2x on sensor.

For mineral micro clusters, magnification ranges from 0.5x to 20x on sensor, but mostly 0.5x-5x on sensor. You want no-cover type metallurgical compound objectives for crystals, rather than 0.17mm corrected biological objectives, when you use an objective more powerful than a 10x NA 0.25 objective. At or below 10x NA 0.25, it does not matter much.

For pond water protists, you need 0.17mm cover corrected biological objectives, once you go over 10x NA 0.25. You may be able to use one scope for both crystals and pond protists (for example, Nikon Optiphot can do it), just switch different types of objectives.

Most microscopists use a dissecting (stereo) macroscope for sample preparation and casual viewing. Macroscopes don't do photography well, in general, due to their low resolution (numeric aperture). But you do need a macroscope to prepare your sample, prior to photographying them. At above 1x on sensor magnification though, you are much better off using macro lens or compound objectives/microscopes for photography, assuming you do stacking.

Ok, i only fully understood half of that, but it sounds like i'm going to need two microscopes anyway, for various purposes, and general use. I'm not aiming to view crystals specifically, its more an example of different size scales i was picturing when thinking of which type of microscope i might need.

I think i have a slight inkling of what the aperture might mean, with respect to resolution, and detail.

With telescopes the larger the aperture - width of the main objective lens or mirror - the more light you collect, and the more light the more detail. Although using cooled cameras (stacking) and super long exposures can really make a difference, allowing small scopes that have a low magnification - therefore a wider FOV - can be used for faint objects with minimal signal/light incoming.

But generally the more aperture, more light collected - the better. Detail and resolution increase with aperture.

But as for the 'NA' (guessing numerical aperture, different or the same as just plain aperture?) or the other microscope optics terms not too sure about. Will have to try and look into it

But huge thanks for the info, it'll very likely make way more sense the next time i read it!

[Aenima]

Yeah, i would think, until i actually try it - and figure out what appeals, i should aim to cover a wide range - all of the above.

My current interest is obtaining striking images - at the cost of visual observing, when it comes to astro. I can imagine a similar scenario unfolding with microscopy, but i could be quite wrong there - i likely won't know until i try.


I've been using a celestron digital microscope with LCD, its the one that has the big round ball on top. Unfortunately its not very good, low quality glass is my guess, and the objective tends to hit the slide before it hits focus :/


But it was fun.

and the idea of the subject being alive and well is interesting, as opposed to a cross section of dead matter - but which will interest me with regards to photography is something else i won't really know until i try.

I've just started researching and asking advice in advance, as i usually jump in the deep end and regret it later.

[zzffnn]

Jay,

High NA is equivalent to low F stop number for camera lens. Low NA is equivalent to high F stop number.

High NA = better light gathering = better resolution = shallow imaging depth

I added some more comments in my previous post. Please consider those.

Some live microscopy subjects move and won't allow you to use long exposure or do many stacking.

[zzffnn]

Jay,

Please do a search of "darkfield diatom" in this forum, using both of the keywords (don't use only one).

The images you would find may look like astrophotography.

Member Rod has made quite some darkfield diatom images. He is into astronomy as well.

The Celestron digital microscope is probably not very good. Though if you could not focus onto a pond water sample, you might have a slide that was too thick (having too much water or too much vegetation).

[zzffnn]

Jay,

Here is some of Rod's work:

Darkfield:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3962&p=36162&hilit=Pensacola#p36162

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3919&p=35756&hilit= ... and#p35756

This is phase contrast, which may look like stars in night sky too:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3987&p=36366&hilit=Pensacola#p36366

[hkv]

Welcome to the forum! Amazing images on your flickr page! It is sort of funny, but shapes repeat itself in the macro and micro perspective. I noticed your amazing image of a spiral galaxy and noticed the similarities with a photo I took on a micromollusk, just a few millimeters in size.

Whirlpool galaxy - 60,000 Light years in diameter



Micromollusk (snail) - 2 mm in diameter

[Aenima]

Wow, nice image indeed!

Looks like similar examples from the golden ratio spiral - like the fractal thingy where patterns repeat from the micro scale to the massive scale, say in crystals and mountains.

So yeah, thats a fantastic image, and very interesting - i saw the diatom shots too - i guess darkfield is just what it says, the field is dark while the subject is highlighted.?


I can't really pick a favourite or specific type of view/object/scale for now so will look into getting a 'general' or multipurpose/versatile instrument to begin with, hopefully reasonable quality at reasonable cost - then worry about branching out (or in!) later.


Thanks

[hkv]

Wow, nice image indeed!

So yeah, thats a fantastic image, and very interesting - i saw the diatom shots too - i guess darkfield is just what it says, the field is dark while the subject is highlighted.?

Dark field is a technique where you block direct light from hitting the subject and hence you get a dark background. Very useful and normally gives beautiful colors. It is done by inserting a dark field stop (a small black disc) in the condenser. The image I posted is not dark field. It is done using fluorescent light at 400 nm (UW light). Then the snail fluoresce back at a longer wavelength. The red and orange dots are chlorophyll. The background obviously gets dark as empty space does not fluoresce.

I can't really pick a favourite or specific type of view/object/scale for now so will look into getting a 'general' or multipurpose/versatile instrument to begin with, hopefully reasonable quality at reasonable cost - then worry about branching out (or in!) later.

Thanks

Good idea

[Aenima]

Thanks, good info

Just saw your flickr shots


Amazing images, and i've seen a handful so far


I think the main points i need are - easy to use for beginners, good compromise of budget and quality, usable for photography if possible, versatile range

I realise some of those might mutually exclusive, as i'm purely guessing and throwing ideas - i don't actually know if such a thing exists


Many thanks for all your responses and info.

[billbillt]

Wow, nice image indeed!

Looks like similar examples from the golden ratio spiral - like the fractal thingy where patterns repeat from the micro scale to the massive scale, say in crystals and mountains.

So yeah, thats a fantastic image, and very interesting - i saw the diatom shots too - i guess darkfield is just what it says, the field is dark while the subject is highlighted.?


I can't really pick a favourite or specific type of view/object/scale for now so will look into getting a 'general' or multipurpose/versatile instrument to begin with, hopefully reasonable quality at reasonable cost - then worry about branching out (or in!) later.


Thanks

They do resemble the Fibonacci spiral:

[zzffnn]

Jay,

As you have said,

"Easy to use" usually means a locked-down, student-proof scope that is not very modular or easy to modify/upgrade. More point of movements means more chance/points to break.

Budget and quality is hard to balance too. Is there such a brand/model of telescope that is a great balance, in that regard? I would like to know for my future purchase.

In UK, your best bet may be Leitz or Zeiss. In US, there is Nikon, Olympus, AO/Reichert, ect.

Initial scope cost may be over $300 USD for a relatively complete scope, but it is worth it, when you upgrade to features like oblique, darkfield, phase contrast, differential interference contrast or fluorescence. The later two may cost over $3000 each. The first two can be DIY for free, up to 40x objective.

[Aenima]

Cheers. something to consider

As far as easy to use goes, i think what i mean is the techniques involved in getting a result - hopefully i can avoid rough treatment or twisting something the wrong way

I will likely get a couple hundred gpb for my telescope, so will probably have a budget around 200-300 gbp. and later will look into saving for upgrades, either a different scope or bits to add on to the first.

The telescope that ticks the boxes is something like the skywatcher ED80 refractor for deep sky imaging. Its a great little scope and inexpensive while punching above its weight optically.


Its weak point will be high power planetary views/images otherwise its a nice imaging scope - i used it for 80 percent of my images.

[zzffnn]

Jay,

As you are in UK, I would highly recommend going to this microscopists' meet in Wimbledon Common on May 20th:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=34157

Join their club for a year or so, go to their meet and you should be able to try out different scopes and meet many highly experienced microscopists there. That Quekett Microscopical Club is one if the best in the world and has a long history too.

[zzffnn]

The telescope that ticks the boxes is something like the skywatcher ED80 refractor for deep sky imaging. Its a great little scope and inexpensive while punching above its weight optically.


Its weak point will be high power planetary views/images otherwise its a nice imaging scope - i used it for 80 percent of my images.

Thank you very much, Jay. I will keep the Skywatcher ED80 in mind. I think I am more into deep sky galaxies over planets.

Does hot/humid gulf coast weather permit deep sky imaging? I vaguely remember member Kurt, who is also into astronomy and lives near me, once said that our Texas gulf coast is better with planetary viewing.

[Aenima]

Hot and humid isn't ideal, but it won't be a deal breaker - and if you have high light pollution you can still do deep sky imaging, but with narrowband filters and long exposures - this will give you great contrast and make light pollution pretty insignificant actually.

You'll need a good mount, this is a definite - a study equatorial mount will be the top priority - something like an Orion ATLAS is ideal - skywatcher NEQ6 in the UK

Its slightly smaller brother the SIRIUS (HEQ5 in uk) is equally stable and either mount will do you well for all kinds of imaging and a decent sized scope.

The key is accurate tracking for long exposures - a smallish refractor will do you for narrowband deep sky, nebulae mostly but also large galaxies like whirlpool, andromeda and pinwheel etc. some of the larger planetary nebulae as well.

The only issue is portability - these mounts aren't for carrying around, if you need to go mobile a different approach is needed.

Hope this helps (i'll also put an email together once i get a spare ten mins on my laptop)


link to the mounts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI-jQY1XdSc

[zzffnn]

Thank you so much, Jay. Let us take it to email, please. I think an equatorial mount should be good enough. I probably don't need high portability/mobility.

[Aenima]

No problem


I was gonna ask, while i'm here, do you mind giving a few links to examples of suitable microscope that you would recommend as good place to start?


Say for approx budget of around 200-300? £ or $ whatever its easiest to work in


I'll happily look at used or new, its just to give me an idea what i'll be looking for when it comes to getting the first microscope


Many thanks