I've been trying to get my Nikon D810 36MP camera to record what I see through the trinocular port of my compound microscope. When using a DSLR or mirrorless camera, a relay lens is required; in my case, it is a 2X magnification lens.
So...what better way to practice than to look at the hairs on a housefly's wing through a 40X microscope objective with a 10X eyepiece?
The need for the number of megapixels for a microscope camera is far and away different than the need, or desired, for conventional photography where "more is better". So...is my 36MP enough or is it more than needed?
The objective used is the determining factor as to how resolute (measured in microns) it will be. It can be determined using the following information, calculations, and steps for those interested.
The determining factors of the microscope objective are the Numerical Aperture (NA), Wavelength of light (use an average of 0.55 microns for standard light).
The 40X plan microscope objective I used for this image has a 0.65 NA which plays an important part in resolution.
The resolution of this objective can be calculated by using the following formula:
Part One: Determine what the microscope objective can resolve.
Resolution in microns (d) = wavelength of light / (2*Numerical Aperture)
d = (0.55) / (2*0.65)
d = (0.55) / (1.3)
d = 0.715 Microns
Part Two: Determine what micron size is required (40X objective with a 2X magnification adapter)
Microns Required = (Resolution of the Objective x Magnification of Objective x Magnification of Adapter) / 2
Microns Required = (0.715 x 40 x 2) / 2
Microns Required Pixel Size = (57.2) / 2 = 28.6 microns
Part Three: Determine the number of pixels needed vs what the camera has (D180 Full Frame camera used)
Sensor Size 36mm x 24mm
Width = 36 x 1000 = 36000 microns Height - 24 x 1000 - 24000 microns
36000 / 28.6 = 1258.7 pixel width
24000 / 28.6 = 839.1 pixel height
1258.7 width x 839.1 height = 1056175.17 pixels or only 1.05 megapixels is required.
The math is to confusing and the resulting information doesn't mean anything to me. All I can say is cool shot Sippy
Curmudgeon wrote:
The math is to confusing and the resulting information doesn't mean anything to me. All I can say is cool shot Sippy
Thanks, Curmudgeon. I provided the technical info to illustrate that there is no need for large megapixel cameras when connecting them to a microscope. To me, it was counter-intuitive to me at first for I thought that seeing something at a higher magnification and higher resolution would take a higher resolution camera...which it does not.
Actually, as the microscope magnification increases, the required amount of megapixels decreases. I wanted to prove it to myself (I tend to be a bit stubborn at times according to the Better Half) so I had to learn the basic concepts of it and I wanted to share it with others that may venture into microscopy someday.
I skipped the math and went straight to the image. Very nice.
kpmac wrote:
I skipped the math and went straight to the image. Very nice.
Thanks, Kpmac. Through the years I have learned that in order to control something, I must first understand it. I find this to be as true in my ventures in macro photography as it was in my career. I often wondered how long Mosses would have wandered through the desert if he had a map and understood how to read it.
sippyjug104 wrote:
I've been trying to get my Nikon D810 36MP camera to record what I see through the trinocular port of my compound microscope. When using a DSLR or mirrorless camera, a relay lens is required; in my case, it is a 2X magnification lens.
So...what better way to practice than to look at the hairs on a housefly's wing through a 40X microscope objective with a 10X eyepiece?
The need for the number of megapixels for a microscope camera is far and away different than the need, or desired, for conventional photography where "more is better". So...is my 36MP enough or is it more than needed?
The objective used is the determining factor as to how resolute (measured in microns) it will be. It can be determined using the following information, calculations, and steps for those interested.
The determining factors of the microscope objective are the Numerical Aperture (NA), Wavelength of light (use an average of 0.55 microns for standard light).
The 40X plan microscope objective I used for this image has a 0.65 NA which plays an important part in resolution.
The resolution of this objective can be calculated by using the following formula:
Part One: Determine what the microscope objective can resolve.
Resolution in microns (d) = wavelength of light / (2*Numerical Aperture)
d = (0.55) / (2*0.65)
d = (0.55) / (1.3)
d = 0.715 Microns
Part Two: Determine what micron size is required (40X objective with a 2X magnification adapter)
Microns Required = (Resolution of the Objective x Magnification of Objective x Magnification of Adapter) / 2
Microns Required = (0.715 x 40 x 2) / 2
Microns Required Pixel Size = (57.2) / 2 = 28.6 microns
Part Three: Determine the number of pixels needed vs what the camera has (D180 Full Frame camera used)
Sensor Size 36mm x 24mm
Width = 36 x 1000 = 36000 microns Height - 24 x 1000 - 24000 microns
36000 / 28.6 = 1258.7 pixel width
24000 / 28.6 = 839.1 pixel height
1258.7 width x 839.1 height = 1056175.17 pixels or only 1.05 megapixels is required.
I've been trying to get my Nikon D810 36MP camera ... (
show quote)
Fantastic image!!!
This is why I will not even try to go beyond what am doing at this time {I know my limits } and this is way beyond them.
Keep up the fantastic work, I do enjoy it.
Hum, a lesson in aerodynamics... Perhaps there is an evolutionary reason for how the hair is oriented..
Nice, but the microscope doesn't stack up to your rail work - pun intended!
Manglesphoto wrote:
Fantastic image!!!
This is why I will not even try to go beyond what am doing at this time {I know my limits } and this is way beyond them.
Keep up the fantastic work, I do enjoy it.
Thanks, Manglesphoto. I'm getting some photography things ready for the cooler weather to come.
dpullum wrote:
Hum, a lesson in aerodynamics... Perhaps there is an evolutionary reason for how the hair is oriented..
Thanks, Dpullum. Until recently, I really didn't care that a housefly had hairs on its wings for all I wanted to do was swat them.
ecobin wrote:
Nice, but the microscope doesn't stack up to your rail work - pun intended!
Thanks, Elliott. Although the compound microscope is far and away more resolute allowing us to see things that are not visible to an unaided eye, they do have its limitations.
Great image but I am dizzy !!! Thank you for sharing. Shang.
shangyrhee wrote:
Great image but I am dizzy !!! Thank you for sharing. Shang.
Thanks, Shangyrhee. It was an experiment using my DSLR attached to my microscope to see what I could do with it.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.