Re: Re: Re: MINERAL PHOTOGRAPHY
I started out with and old pre WWII Zeiss Ikon 120 camera that my father owned. When I joined the Navy in 1966 and headed overseas, I bought a Nikon F3 and assorted lenses. With a few exceptions I have stayed with Nikon. My first digital was an Olympus C700 with a 10X optical zoom. My wife likes that one because of the zoom. It seems hard to find one with 10X zoom anymore. The next digital was a Nikon 5200. My wife and were off on different trips and I needed a camera so I got the 5200. My wife does like that as it is nice and compact for hiking. It has a decent macro range. There is quite a difference in how the Olympus C700 and the Nikon D50 handle color reproduction. The 5200 also has much less problem with chromatic abberation or color fringing.
One of the lenses I had for the F3 was a Micro Nikkor 105mm f2.8 lens. I used it as a primary lens and also on bellows for photographing micro minerals. I purchased the digital version of the lens for the D50. It cost more than the camera. I much prefer the digital method for micro and macro mineral work as you don't have to wait for the film to come back and than have to reshoot if things weren't right. Of course, there is the cost of processing. In the MR article Jeff Scovil mentioned something on the order of a $12,000 per year savings in developing costs by do some of his work in digital format.
I use an Epson RX580 printer which has six individual color cartridges. I have been very happy with the results. This model also allows scanning and copying. To save on ink cartridges, I use an HP 2600N color laser for non photo printing as the cost of laser printing is much cheaper. Yes, you can take the card from the camera to most any store that offers photo printing and have prints made. They are very acceptable in the standard print size. You can also put the images on a CD and take them to be printed.
I will be getting another digital camera as I am tired of taking the D50 off the scope for other work. It semms that no matter how careful you are about removing it and replacing it, you need to tweak it back in so it is parafocal with the oculars.
In the future I will get a new microscope that is better suited for photography and leave it set up for that. It is definatly worth waiting to have the money to get a quality scope. I was very pleased when I got the EMZ-5TR. It was much better than the old scope I had been using. In going back over my collection I found numerous interesting things I had missed. It was not just a matter of having more magnification but also in havinf more light pass through.
From Doug Merson - June 09, 2007 at 11:44:50