Teeny tiny photography challenge!

March 31, 2008 2:55 PM

Photography/Microscopy mash up. My labmates and I are looking for a way to take pictures of crystals under the microscope. We are not a microscopy group. Scientists and/or macro enthusiasts please help!

We have talked to a heavy hitter group (CCD's, detailed cellular photography) and a more casual user (point and shoot camera, pictures of crystals used for X-ray crystallography, micrometer scale on up) This is a totally weird and specific question, but the hive mind tends to have totally weird and specific answers ;)

Our crystals will also be on the micrometer scale, and we're looking at this company which offers a variety of adapters for point & shoot cameras to slide into the microscope eyepiece. The X-Ray crystallography group uses an adapter from this company and a Nikon 8400 from a few years back (2004). Right now we're looking at the Nikon P5100 as a contender, and something that would be a present-day comparison to the 8400. I don't think we want to go the DSLR route on this one, because the camera and microscope adapter are going to be hella expensive for the amount of use it is going to get.

My questions are:
1) Does anyone have experience with this? We have a pretty small sampling of setups and I wouldn't mind a few more opinions, from scientists or macro enthusiasts.
2) Is the Nikon P5100 a decent camera? Is there a better Nikon P&S we should be looking at? Or should I try to talk my boss into getting a Canon G9? (Why yes, I'd like that camera in the lab for selfish reasons) Any camera recommendations must have a microscope adapter available either on this site or elsewhere.
3) Any other tips for a camera/microscope mash up?

Thanks!

posted by sararah to Technology (9 answers total)

Can you tell us more about your microscope?
posted by mr_roboto at 3:47 PM on March 31, 2008

Best answer: I take photos of nannofossils, which average ~5-10 microns. I've used both the Nikon 8400 and Nikon P5100 on a Zeiss at 1250x. I can send you some photos demonstrating the difference between the two if you like.

What kind of microscope are you using? What is your magnification? What kind of objective? Also consider if the adapter will work for the microscope you're using. I would contact your microscope rep and get their opinion about the adapter before you buy it. For our microscope we had to have the adapter made especially.

The best camera I've ever used was an Olympus microscope camera with an Olympus microscope, but if you're not planning to get much use out of it, a microscope camera wouldn't be the way to go due to expense. Could you rent or buy time on a microscope with a camera attachment instead?

Also consider how you will view the images before you take the photo. Do you have a system in place for that?
posted by barchan at 4:04 PM on March 31, 2008

Response by poster: It is a stereo microscope sort of similar to this one and I am not completely sure of the zoom on the eyepiece...and I can't run up stairs since I just got home ;) I think the eyepiece has a 30mm inside diameter, and I can check on the zoom later tonight or tomorrow.
posted by sararah at 4:06 PM on March 31, 2008

30 years ago I got some pretty good pictures of protein crystals (for x-ray crystallography) through a microscope using a 35mm rangefinder camera on a tripod lined up with the microscope eyepiece. No adapter was used. It took a few minutes to get the alignment right. To get the focus right I opened up the back of the camera and focused it like you would with a view camera (except that the main focus control was the one on the microscope). You won't be doing it this way of course, but my point is that if you are just doing this as a one-off or just occasionally, then you might be able to get away without an adapter, though you may want to borrow someone's old film SLR so you can see to focus.
posted by DarkForest at 4:10 PM on March 31, 2008

I'm guessing you don't want to get a scientific CCD for your microscope for cost reasons? Otherwise my advice would be along the lines of what you probably heard from the heavy hitting research group you talked to.
posted by pombe at 5:35 PM on March 31, 2008

You could call the doctors in the pathology lab at your local hospital and explain your research. If you can get them interested in your project, they might let you have some time with their photomicrography equipment at the end of their business days at no charge.
posted by bbranden1 at 6:33 PM on March 31, 2008

I've also tried the ol' holding up the camera to the scope trick. I simply held up a digital camera to the eyepiece and took a photo (examples here, here, and here). These examples are on the millimeter scale, though. The trick was making sure no light went through the other eyepiece and as little light as possible through the eyepiece the camera was against.

I doubt that would work on a micron scale, but anything is worth trying!
posted by barchan at 8:58 PM on March 31, 2008

If the amount of light is an issue, use a longer exposure. Using a film camera can be a help here. When I did this, I couldn't meter the light, so I just bracketed the exposure +/- 5 or so stops from my estimate. Using an old film camera with a shutter release cable can be a help here. Oh, and keep the aperture wide open.
posted by DarkForest at 4:28 AM on April 1, 2008

Response by poster: Yeah our microscope is just a stereo microscope with 40x zoom. Basically we are looking for size information and to take pictures throughout the crystallization process and watch the crystals grow. This is the same setup the crystallography group we talked to has. Detailed information is not necessary.

I currently own a DSLR with a 50mm f/1.4 as my only lens, but I could try to set it up with my tripod and take a picture without an adapter. As far as viewing these goes, I am assuming we will just connect it to someone's laptop in the lab or bring the camera down to our offices and transfer photos.
posted by sararah at 11:57 AM on April 2, 2008