• Home
  • About Alex Wild
  • Articles
  • Galleries
  • Myrmecology News

Myrmecos Blog

the little things matter

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Stephen Colbert Spills the Beans…
Guest Blogger: Charles Darwin »

SLR vs microscope for imaging museum specimens

February 11, 2009 by myrmecos

A few years ago I needed to image some ants for a short taxonomic paper.  Lacking a decent specimen imaging system (like Entovision), I decided to snap the photos at home using my standard macro gear: a dSLR with the Canon MP-E lens.  The images turned out fine and were published in Zootaxa with the paper.

Later, the Antweb team imaged the same species using their standard set-up: a high-res video camera on a Leica microscope, focus-stacking the images with specialized software.  I decided to compare the two.  Here they are (click on each to view the uncompressed file):

antwebapicalis1

Pachycondyla specimen imaged by Antweb using a microscope, video camera, and image stacking software

Pachycondyla specimen imaged with Canon MP-E 65mm lens on a dSLR

Pachycondyla specimen imaged with Canon MP-E 65mm lens on a dSLR

How do they look?  Well, the Antweb image has smoother lighting and a limitless depth of field.  Points to Antweb.

But the antweb shot is also a lot smaller.  The video camera is tiny compared to the SLR’s massive sensor, and a close-up look reveals that the SLR captured considerably more detail.  Consider:

enlargement of propodeum, microscope image w/ image stacking

enlargement of propodeum, microscope image w/ image stacking

enla

crop of propodeum, Canon MP-E 65mm lens on a dSLR

Score for Canon.

My point isn’t to disparage the museum-grade scope/image-stacking systems.  Rather, it is that not all specimen imaging situations require them.  Image quality is a product of  many parameters (lighting, optics, sensor, software etc.) that interact with each other in complex ways.  Some imaging situations fall into an area where the cheap SLR gear (well, cheap at $3000) outperforms the $40,000 professional grade museum systems.

In this case I was imaging a relatively large insect, and I had a lens designed to produce a sharp image over an acceptable depth of field for an object of that size.  For a small ant, there is no question that the image-stacking system would produce a superior image.

Finally, since I’m not a huge fan of dead bugs on pins, here’s a healthy, happy, living Pachycondyla apicalis worker from Panama.

apicalis2

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Ants, Science, Taxonomy | Tagged Canon, entomology, imaging, microscopy | 6 Comments

6 Responses

  1. on February 11, 2009 at 9:28 pm ihateaphids

    Hmmm. not a huge ant IDer, but the SLR seems to capture greater detail at a particular point, but the scope image seems to have focus (at a lesser detail) over the whole individual? Is this an accurate statement? What I mean is that it looks like the scope captures more characters overall, with somewhat less closeup detail, compared to the camera which has greater detail in some areas but lesser focus in others (e.g. legs, antennae). It seems a set of images would be needed for each specimen.


  2. on February 11, 2009 at 11:50 pm jewishscientist

    Another plug for the use of the SLR is that, as you show, it lets you photograph live animals. It’s my experience that when you go around looking for ants… they don’t quite look the same in the leaf litter as they do on a pin! Live shots help capture things like posture and relative distances a lot better than the standard museum preps.


  3. on February 12, 2009 at 8:37 am James C. Trager

    Alex — You write “For a small ant, there is no question that the image-stacking system would produce a superior image.”

    Really? — I’ve never been particularly happy with the automontaged images of small ants I’ve tried to study closely. I think they suffer from the same lack of fine scale resoution as the AntWeb image above. One can’t see the fine contours of the cuticle, the pubescence, coarseness of the pilosity, etc.

    I’d like to see a comparison like that above illustrated for small ants, too. It would also be of interest to see comparison of ants with different surface textures, e.g. a shiny Solenopsis vs. a similar sized attine, or with different densities of pubescence, e.g. among Paratrechina spp.


  4. on February 12, 2009 at 11:25 am cicindela

    As someone who regularly images preserved beetles, I would say that magnification is quite important, but lighting is a significant factor. Museums generally have very specialized lighting while a dSLR needs some tinkering to get similar results.

    All in all, I think that, as Alex shows above, that a dSLR does capture good enough detail and that, when paired with image stacking software, the results are equivalent to an museum setup.


  5. on February 12, 2009 at 1:06 pm Laurie

    Of course you can manually achieve what the 40,000 video microscope system does with a DSLR and some movement stages (and quite a bit of patience) and get the best of both worlds, the resolution of a DSLR and the depth of focus of the microscope stacking system! (But you do require a dead bug, on a pin or not!)

    See http://www.laurieknight.net for some examples…


  6. on February 12, 2009 at 8:36 pm myrmecos

    Hey Laurie- thanks for visiting! I’ve lurked around your site before, you have some lovely shots!



Comments are closed.


  • This blog is an archive; the Myrmecos blog has moved.

    Please update your bookmarks!
  • Alex’s Galleries

    alexanderwild.com

  • Recent Photos

    Faro de Punta FrouxeiraEnfin tranquille !OrtaköySpringtime - FinallyLUMINOUS LYON - Lyon, FranceSauna
    More Photos
  • Biology Links

    • Tree of Life
    • Understanding Evolution
  • Blogroll

    • Ainsley Vs Livejournal
    • Ammonite
    • Anna’s Bee World
    • Archetype
    • Arthropoda blog
    • Backyard Arthropod Project
    • Beetles in the Bush
    • biodiversity in focus
    • Bug Dreams
    • Bug Eric
    • Bug Girl’s Blog
    • Burrard-Lucas Photoblog
    • Catalogue of Organisms
    • Creature Cast
    • Dan Heller
    • Debbie's Insect Blog
    • Dechronization
    • Drawing the MotMot
    • Entomoblog
    • Evolving Thoughts
    • Fall to Climb
    • Generant
    • Historias de Hormigas
    • Life on Six Legs
    • Macromite
    • microecos
    • mirmekolozi
    • myrmecoid
    • Myrmician
    • Natural Imagery
    • Nature in the Ozarks
    • NCSU Insect Blog
    • No Cropping Zone
    • omit needless words
    • Photo Synthesis
    • Princess Peppercloud
    • Science Blogs
    • Snail’s Tales
    • Stu Jenks
    • The Ant Hunter
    • The Ant Room
    • The Bug Whisperer
    • The Loom
    • This Week in Evolution
    • What's Bugging You?
    • Wild about Ants
    • Xenogere
  • Insect Links

    • Ant Farm Forum
    • Ant Insights
    • Antweb
    • Bug Squad
    • bugguide.net
    • Xerces Society
  • Photography Links

    • Canon Photography Forums
    • Digital Photography Review
    • DIY Photography
    • Igor Siwanowicz
    • Mark Plonsky
    • photo.net
    • Piotr Naskrecki
    • The Strobist
  • Popular Posts

    • Things that look like ants but aren't (Part 2)
    • How to Identify Queen Ants
    • The Rogue Taxonomist
    • What does it mean to be an eyeless ant?
    • Friday Beetle Blogging: The Eyed Elater
    • Friday Beetle Blogging: Palo Verde Beetle
    • The eggs that weren't
    • Friday Beetle Blogging: Nicrophorus orbicollis
    • North America's charming citronella ants
    • Above the Ant Line
  • Recent Posts

    • This blog has moved.
    • Friday Beetle Blogging: The Hollyhock Weevil
    • The Friday Beetle will be late…
    • Bed bugs reach an all-time high
    • Answer to the Monday Night Mystery
  • Recent Comments

    • Donald Byron Johnson on Reader question: who discovered the sex of ant workers?
    • Anonymous on Update on the Rogue Taxonomist
    • Ant on Arizona Daily Star covers “Planet of the Ants”
    • Ga. Girl on Beware the Cow-Killer
    • Anonymous on Beware the Cow-Killer
  • Categories

  • Archives

  • animation Ants aphids arachnids Argentina arizona army ants art Bees beetles behavior biodiversity biology Biology Links bugs Canon carabidae coleoptera copyright Darwin desert diptera E. O. Wilson ecology entomology Evolution fail fire ants Flies formicidae genetics google haiku Harpegnathos imaging Insect Links Insects invasive species lighting Linepithema macro macrophotography macro photography Martialis media miniscule muppets music myrmecology mystery natural history Nature new species odontomachus Parasites Paratrechina pests pheidole Photography Photography business photoshop phylogenetics phylogeny Pogonomyrmex politics predation Scarabaeidae Science SEM social insects spiders Taxonomy termites travel wasps
  • Nature Blog Network
    Add to Technorati Favorites

    Follow this blog

Blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


  • Follow Following
    • Myrmecos Blog
    • Join 90 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Myrmecos Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: