Using a Microscope for Photography

[Murtasma]

I've been thinking about purchasing a microscope and an adapter to take pictures of super tiny things you can't see with your eyes. I was curious if anyone else out there is doing this and any tips of gotcha's you could give me while I research more on this topic before I decide what I want to get.

[mrteacherdude]

I don't know if this will help out or not, but...

Digital Microphotography
Introduction to digital photomicrography

I wish I could offer you extensive hints and tips, but the only microscope I have ever used to take relatively decent quality stills had a sensor system built into the scope, so no external camera was required. Come to think of it, I did play around with an early digital camera many years ago by simply holding the camera lens against the ocular, and that worked ok for small, low quality pics that could be placed on the web for illustration purposes. But that's not what you're looking for, is it?

I'm not sure if you have actually been shopping for scopes yet or how much experience you have with them, but if you are trying to get something that is truly microscopic, and you are attempting to get photos of things like cells, material fibers, hair, etc, you'll want a microscope, not a dissecting scope. The first link at the beginning of this post shows a setup and sample images taken with a dissecting scope. The magnification is much greater in the true microscope and the light shines through the object you are viewing. The second link introduces using a microscope.

If you are only looking for 10x magnification (maybe more on some scopes), and you want to see magnified surfaces of objects, then a dissecting scope would be what you want. Light is reflected off the surfaces of objects rather than shined through the objects. The DOF with a microscope is relatively shallow and decreases rapidly with increasing objective length (magnification), while the DOF of a dissecting scope is greater (but has lower magnification).

If I were going to set myself up with a microscope for photography purposes, I would purchase a decent scope to begin with. Vendors will often list different grades such as elementary school, high school, etc. The bare minimum I would want is high school, but would prefer the university grade. They are more money but well worth the extra cost due to better and more diverse optics as well as being more durable and precisely built. Some of the better scopes also provide a variety of light filters underneath the stage and may provide a few different light options. Professional grade would be awesome, but they are quite expensive.

This may sound like an odd thing to want, but I personally would not have one without a good quality mechanical stage. This type of stage makes maneuvering a slide much easier and more precise. Personally I can't stand the stages that just have the two clips on them.

Also, I would purchase the type that is generally used for teaching/demonstration purposes. This may be referred to as a trinocular scope because it has a binocular for viewing with the eyes, and a third ocular sticking up from the top of the scope. The third ocular would traditionally be used so a student could come by and view what the instructor is viewing, but turns out to be a convenient place to attach imaging equipment such as still cameras or video cameras, and it will be out of the way and relatively easy to manage. If the scope is tuned properly, the image in the third ocular should be the same as that seen in the other ocular. One old setup I had used a scope like this with a surveillance type video camera mounted to the trinoc which then sent the signal to a television so students could see what I was looking at. Bottom line of this particular ramble - get the trinoc if you're serious, I think it will be worth it.

I'm guessing that there is at least one person who participates in this forum that has extensive experience with just what you are thinking about getting into. Hopefully that person sees this post and chimes in.

[Murtasma]

Great links and information! I've been reading a lot on microscope and I think I've decided to stick to a higher quality scope that goes up to 400x. 1000x I think its too much to start with and from what I've read there isn't a whole lot to look at with these magnification levels with out having a different type of scope like a SEM or TEM. 1000x scopes also add cost to a setup where that money could be better spent on specimen samples, a good mechanical stage (read up on this and agree that a precession one is necessary especially when working at 400x and above) and higher quality objectives.

For now I'm looking at purchasing a scope with a single eye piece to help save money on cost. Something with filters on the bottom stage would be awesome but I haven't been able to find one in my price range yet which is 300 - 400 for the microscope.