Home
Offline
Hi Everyone,
The Amscope Canon EOS Camera Adapter system arrived so I mneeded to test it. It includes a 2X optical lens assembly screwed onto a Canon EOS byonet adapter, and two differen front adapter sleeves that serve to adapt the optical lens end into a 30.00 mm diameter opening of the trinocular tube or into a 30.50 mm diameter eyepiece soccket of a binocular head ( I'll post more photos of the adapter system later when I have time).
I connected the camera end to my canon 6D and removed the C-Mount adapter from the trinucular tube end and attached the adapter to the tube's end. I then used a stained Dafnia prepared slide ( Amscope) on the stage. Using a Zeiss Achroplan 10x/0.25 objective and breightfield illumination.
I focused the Dafnia image using the eyepieces and took some photos using the shutter button on the camera and monitored the resulting photos on the camera's screen. It soon became obvious that the Camera does not reach focus when the eyepiece image is perfectly focused as it should. By Manually holding the camera and raising the adapter to different distances above the trinoc tube's opening I determined that the camera should be moved much higher than the adapters allow. It became clear then, that I will need some kind of intermediate adapter that would allow me to hold the camera 2X adapter at a higher position than my current trinoc tube will allow. I will probably have to machine a variable distance adapter to the adapter (It seems like every adapter must have a smaller adapter piggybacked top of it "ad nauseam" …..
).
However, since the major point of the whole thing was to check if I can replace my somewhat oldish CMOS Video camera to gain better resolution and details, I wanted to verify that At least I can get a somewhat decent Photo with the 2X magnification of the adapter withour excessive vingetting on the Full frame sensor. So in order to check this I used some available other tubes to just manually hold the camera and adapter at what seemed like the proper distance top reach focus and Manually snapped some pictures.
Please note that I did not bother with optimizing illumination or trying to fing the best shooting parameters, the sole purpose of the experiment was to see how much vingetting I get in the Frame to determine if I can live with it ( by cropping later) – my worry was that since the adapter was designed for APSC sized imager, it may unnaceptably vignette on a Full frame sensor.
Below is a picture of what I got.
As you may see in the resized picture, There is some vignetting but I think I can live with this.
So basically Once I machine the additional adapter I am sure that I will be able to perform the focus matching of eyepiece Vs. Camera precisely and then proceed to optimize exposure, vibrations, illumination and other factor to achieve tolerable results after cropping.
I apologize for the picture quality but it was taken just to proove a point and is posted only to describe the problem with matching the adapter and a possible solution to it
So far so good.
here is another picture taken manually with Hand held camera using a 20X /0.5 Neofluar objective ( brightfield)
I am quite happy with the resolution and level of details under such non-optimal conditions.
Sorry but I must be doing something wrong as even small resized pictures of 140Kb cannot be uploaded !
Could a moderator or someone else tell me what's wrong ? or fix the problem if it is not on my side ?
What is the permissible size to upload ? It is indicated that 2,000,000 bytes ( 2Mb) are allowed, I am trying to post 120Kb and it won't show a picture in the post but will show some kind of empty space and "attachment" which cannot be opended ??
Thanks
OK – fixed the problem with the filename now that I am at my desktop again.
Thanks to Oliver for diagnosing the file problem and notifying me.
As you may see in the resized picture, There is some vignetting but I think I can live with this.
So basically Once I machine the additional adapter I am sure that I will be able to perform the focus matching of eyepiece Vs. Camera precisely and then proceed to optimize exposure, vibrations, illumination and other factor to achieve tolerable results after cropping.
I apologize for the picture quality but it was taken just to proove a point and is posted only to describe the problem with matching the adapter and a possible solution to it
So far so good.
Hi Everyone,
The Amscope Canon EOS Camera Adapter system arrived so I mneeded to test it. It includes a 2X optical lens assembly screwed onto a Canon EOS byonet adapter, and two differen front adapter sleeves that serve to adapt the optical lens end into a 30.00 mm diameter opening of the trinocular tube or into a 30.50 mm diameter eyepiece soccket of a binocular head ( I'll post more photos of the adapter system later when I have time).
I connected the camera end to my canon 6D and removed the C-Mount adapter from the trinucular tube end and attached the adapter to the tube's end. I then used a stained Dafnia prepared slide ( Amscope) on the stage. Using a Zeiss Achroplan 10x/0.25 objective and breightfield illumination.
I focused the Dafnia image using the eyepieces and took some photos using the shutter button on the camera and monitored the resulting photos on the camera's screen. It soon became obvious that the Camera does not reach focus when the eyepiece image is perfectly focused as it should. By Manually holding the camera and raising the adapter to different distances above the trinoc tube's opening I determined that the camera should be moved much higher than the adapters allow. It became clear then, that I will need some kind of intermediate adapter that would allow me to hold the camera 2X adapter at a higher position than my current trinoc tube will allow. I will probably have to machine a variable distance adapter to the adapter (It seems like every adapter must have a smaller adapter piggybacked top of it "ad nauseam" …..).
However, since the major point of the whole thing was to check if I can replace my somewhat oldish CMOS Video camera to gain better resolution and details, I wanted to verify that At least I can get a somewhat decent Photo with the 2X magnification of the adapter withour excessive vingetting on the Full frame sensor. So in order to check this I used some available other tubes to just manually hold the camera and adapter at what seemed like the proper distance top reach focus and Manually snapped some pictures.
Please note that I did not bother with optimizing illumination or trying to fing the best shooting parameters, the sole purpose of the experiment was to see how much vingetting I get in the Frame to determine if I can live with it ( by cropping later) – my worry was that since the adapter was designed for APSC sized imager, it may unnaceptably vignette on a Full frame sensor.
here is another picture taken manually with Hand held camera using a 20X /0.5 Neofluar objective ( brightfield)
I am quite happy with the resolution and level of details under such non-optimal conditions.
Thank you Gekko,
I am still debating whether I want to use the Canon 40D or the Canon 6D for microphotography using the amscope 2X adapter.
On one hand,I like the high resolution and better sensitivity (and ISO range) of the 6D sensor (and it does fantastic High Definition video to boot).
However, the smaller sensor (APS-C size) of the 40D will obviate the need for cropping the pictures ( Which may be particularly annoying if I do video with the 6D).
It seems that the only way to decide is to try both cameras on the same object at identical illumination and see for myself which camera delivers an overall better result (I suspect that it cannot be predicted without doing the actual test and comparison and seeing whether the eye can discern any substantial differences).
Another solution to using the 6D ( If I determine that it gives better results) will be to use an optical adapter with a magnification above 2X ( I guess 2.5X will probably work). However, my searches on the web have not come up yet with any such adapter of reasonable quality at a price that would not make it necessary to mortgage the house). – I am beginning to feel that I may be close to biting more than I can chew at the present, so maybe I should try to optimize what I have before I go completely berzerk in another buying spree.
Once I figure out my preferred photography setup and make the necessary adapter(s), I'll be in a better position to start playing with different illumination methods ( Darkfield, Brightfield and Rheinberg, for the moment – I still have not succeeded in laying my hands on proper phase stops for PC).
Any opinions, advice, criticisms and tips will be highly appreciated. 
Hi LKOLTON,
Regarding the choice between the 40D and the 6D, only you can determine that to your own satisfaction. I can say this, for what it is worth: because you have both a 40D and a full-frame 6D, I surmise that you are an avid photographer and use your camera regularly. I also think that it would be rather inconvenient to install and adjust the camera on the microscope to take photomicrographs, then remove it and use it for general photography, only to repeat the process over and over. For microscope pictures that are mainly intended for viewing on the web (as opposed to making very large prints), you don't need a resolution of more than about 3 to 4 Mpixels, even if you crop. For your general (or specialized) photography the advantages of the full frame are fully realizable. WIth that kind of reasoning, I would attach the 40D (semi-)permanently to the microscope, and use the 6D for all other work. From the little I know, I would think that the main advantage of the 6D for microscope work is the better dyinamic range, so if microscope photography is your main interest, it may make sense to use the 6D for that. For videos, you will need some editing software in order to cut out parts where not much happens or where the critters swim out of the field of view, &c., and in order to shorten it to a few minutes, and the software may provide provision for cropping. I use Adobe Elements Premiere, and it does allow cropping. To summarize: my opinion (right or wrong) is that the advantages of the 6D over the 40D for phtography or macrophotography might be greater and more discernible than its advantage for photomicrography. I hope others will offer more insight than I can.
Hi Gekko,
Thanks for the valuable insights and interesting comments.
While I do dabble in regular photography ( Family, Nature, Travel and portrait, mainly), I am in no way an avid or even semi-pro photographer or particularely experienced in this field.
The 40D was bought a few years ago for both regular photography but also with an intention to use it for astrophotography as it has a live view function which is quite important for focusing before doing long exposures. As such- at least one of the cameras will be used also for astrophotography and low resolution stellar spectroscopy on a regular basis ( I dont know which of the cameras, yet).
While it indeed will be very convenient to have a camera semi-permanently mounted on the microscope, taking the camera on/off the adapter is no big deal for me. As long as the adapter remains attached to the microscope, I dont see a big difficulty in removing and attaching the camera (considering the fact that I may probably have to refocuse each time I change objective). I think since I will probably want to use the 6D for spectroscopy work ( due to higher sensitivity and lower noise of the imager) it does make more sense to use the 40D on the microscope.
OTOH, If I get hooked on microphotography and start doing more serious work it may be more convenient to have one of the camera's semi-permanently mounted (probably the 40D).
I'll work this out as I experiment further with both cameras.
LKOLTON said:
As long as the adapter remains attached to the microscope, I dont see a big difficulty in removing and attaching the camera (considering the fact that I may probably have to refocuse each time I change objective).
I don't quite understand that statement: do you mean that, with camera attached, you need to readjust the height of the camera each time you rotate the lens turret to a different objective? Once the camera is adjusted to be parfocal with the eyepiece using the lowest power objective, it should remain parfocal when using any other objective.
gekko said
LKOLTON said:
As long as the adapter remains attached to the microscope, I dont see a big difficulty in removing and attaching the camera (considering the fact that I may probably have to refocuse each time I change objective).I don't quite understand that statement: do you mean that, with camera attached, you need to readjust the height of the camera each time you rotate the lens turret to a different objective? Once the camera is adjusted to be parfocal with the eyepiece using the lowest power objective, it should remain parfocal when using any other objective.
Gekko,
I was under the impression that since I use objectives from different makes (Olympus and Zeiss) they may not be perfectly parfocal.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Thanks
LKOLTON said
gekko said
LKOLTON said:
As long as the adapter remains attached to the microscope, I dont see a big difficulty in removing and attaching the camera (considering the fact that I may probably have to refocuse each time I change objective).I don't quite understand that statement: do you mean that, with camera attached, you need to readjust the height of the camera each time you rotate the lens turret to a different objective? Once the camera is adjusted to be parfocal with the eyepiece using the lowest power objective, it should remain parfocal when using any other objective.
Gekko,
I was under the impression that since I use objectives from different makes (Olympus and Zeiss) they may not be perfectly parfocal.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Thanks
True, if we are talking about readjusting the microscope focus. I was thinking about readjusting the camera height to obtain the same focus as seen through the eyepieces, using Zeiss objectives. However, I don't really know what happens when you use an Olympus infinitity-corrected objective on a Zeiss infinity-corrected microscope; as I indicated before, with infinity systems, the objectives are specific to the microscope, so the use of Olympus objectives on a Zeiss stand may not give you optimum results, but I don't know how much (if any) image deterioration occurs. I hope someone more familiar with these will offer more information.
"Presented in Table 1 are the specifications, including tube lens focal lengths, parfocal distance, and the objective thread type, of infinity-corrected microscopes offered by the major manufacturers. Although both Leica and Nikon use a tube length of 200 millimeters and an objective thread size of 25 millimeters, the objective parfocal distance is significantly greater with the Nikon CFI60 system. Olympus and Zeiss use a shorter tube lens focal length (180 and 165 millimeters, respectively), but both companies have standardized objective thread sizes and adhere to a parfocal length of 45 millimeters."
Meiji Techno use a tube lens focal length of 200mm and as far as I know do all the corrections in thair objectives. if some one out there knows other wise please let me know.
Gekko and Molehill,
This "minefield" is one of the reasons I was commenting on the fact that while Zeiss is a respectable choice, I may have given up some future flexibility by locking myself into buying objectives and other accessories proprietary to Zeiss ( which is a sure a way to make my bank manager very worried). Figuring out what parts are usable for a particular microscope may indeed be quite confusing and I wish I knew all this at the time of purchasing ther microscope. However, the opportunity presented itself and was too good to pass. I think the best thing to do is stick strictly to original parts recommended by the manufacturer to my specific microscope model. This, however, has the associated penalty of waiting till such parts surface on the used market bas I can't afford to buy new at Zeiss prices.
I received the microscope with an Olympus Achro 40X/0.65 Ph2 ∞/0.17 objective (and some other original Zeiss infinity objectives) which means someone was using this objective with the microscope (perhaps not for critical phase contrast work, possibly due to differences in phase annuli parameters- I don't know how critical these are to PHACO imaging), perhaps it was used just for brightfield.
When using the Olympus objective just for brightfield visual observing it gives quite a decent view, but I'm no expert on this and I don't have any other Zeiss 40X objective to compare it with.
However, in order to avoid any future problems I mean to buy used Zeiss phase contrast objectives ( First candidates will be a 40X EC plan neofluar and a 10X EC Plan neofluar), this may take some time because currently they go used on eBay for $500-1900 which is way beyond what I want to invest at this stage ( It does not make sense to pay for a single objective more than I paid for the entire microscope system). I will have to wait for an opportunity to come by to get these at at lower prices (I know it can be done because I managed to snag a very neat 20X neofluar at a resonable price, so I believe its a matter of patience and persevering in my search).
Incidentally, after seeing the fantastic images posted by some members here using DIC (Nomarsky) optics I realized I might want to do some DIC imaging ( in the future). However, DIC objectives and prisms are so expensive that I thought I may this time look for a complete DIC microscope ( with objectives included) of an older 160mm tube design because I consistently see many objectives and other accessories foe 160 tube length old microscopes being relatively frequently offered on eBay at very reasonable prices, so if I ever do get into DIC micrography I would probably try to get a complete DIC microscope from one of ther Big four but with the older 160 mm non infinity type optics. I think that by doing that I may not be sacrificing too much on optical quality or performance while gaining the advantage of a much larger market of used parts at more reasonable prices.
If I ever manage to find the original Zeiss phase annuly and sliders for the Axiostar Plus, I may be in a better position to check if the Olympus Phase objective is compatible with the Phase system of the Zeiss Axiostar.
As usual, your thoughts and comments about all this are very welcome.
Hi LKOLTON,
To be practical, I think you should try the Olympus objective with bright field illumination and if it gives you good results, then that is what matters. If you get a Zeiss phase-contrast condenser (or sliders for your current condenser), you might even be so lucky that one of the settings (annuli) might even work with the Olympus lens, but I don't think you should count on it. The same if you use an Olympus annulus used with the Zeiss condenser, because the Zeiss condenser will probably not be identical to an Olympus phase condenser. I think that the solution is really to sell the Olympus objective and replace it with a Zeiss objective.
Nomarski (DIC): As you say, these are usually quite expensive. Perhaps you can consider (at least until such time as you get a DIC system) the Universal Gradient Filter (UFG) by "Litonotus" (see below). For example, the following images by seb28 on this forum were taken using UFG. As you can see, the results are amazing and very similar to DIC:
http://www.microbehunter.com/f…..nia-pulex/
http://www.microbehunter.com/f…..era/#p1939
If you are interested to see more images and information about the filter by its inventor, "Litonotus", here are some links:
http://www.photomacrography.ne…..sal+filter
Nomarski (DIC): As you say, these are usually quite expensive. Perhaps you can consider (at least until such time as you get a DIC system) the Universal Gradient Filter (UFG) by "Litonotus" (see below). For example, the following images by seb28 on this forum were taken using UFG. As you can see, the results are amazing and very similar to DIC:
Thank you Gekko for unearthing this very useful and interesting information
gekko said
Hi LKOLTON,
To be practical, I think you should try the Olympus objective with bright field illumination and if it gives you good results, then that is what matters. If you get a Zeiss phase-contrast condenser (or sliders for your current condenser), you might even be so lucky that one of the settings (annuli) might even work with the Olympus lens, but I don't think you should count on it. The same if you use an Olympus annulus used with the Zeiss condenser, because the Zeiss condenser will probably not be identical to an Olympus phase condenser. I think that the solution is really to sell the Olympus objective and replace it with a Zeiss objective.
Nomarski (DIC): As you say, these are usually quite expensive. Perhaps you can consider (at least until such time as you get a DIC system) the Universal Gradient Filter (UFG) by "Litonotus" (see below). For example, the following images by seb28 on this forum were taken using UFG. As you can see, the results are amazing and very similar to DIC:
http://www.microbehunter.com/f…..nia-pulex/
http://www.microbehunter.com/f…..era/#p1939
If you are interested to see more images and information about the filter by its inventor, "Litonotus", here are some links:
Hi Gekko,
Thank you very much for your comments and useful links.
Regarding the Olympus objective, I am probably going to sell it after I get a decent zeiss with similar magnification. If I do that I will compare it with the zeiss. However , since I intend to buy a neofluar objective, I don't this would be a fair comparison, the Olympus being an achromat while the neofluar may be a superior optic.
Regarding the universal filter, this looks very interesting and very useful device and worth looking into.
In one of the links there is mentioned a similar device using polarizers and some oriented polymer filters to control the color and contrast by putting this assembly under the condenser. The device costs about $45 including all the polarizing filters and holders.
I don't know if anyone ever tried this on their microscopes but it looks very interesting.
I will check this out when I have time.
The Litonotus device is quite ingenious and I may try to fiddle with making one if I have time, while it looks not so difficult to produce the gradients by printing them on a transparency, I am not sure how to mount it under the condenser ( perhaps just putting it on the upper part of the illuminator will be ok?).
Anyhow all this looks like a lot of fun, thank you for pointing it out as a practical means of improving images.
I agree with you that Litonotus's UFG is ingeneous; it is both simple and very effective.
LKOLTON said:
I am not sure how to mount it under the condenser ( perhaps just putting it on the upper part of the illuminator will be ok?).
I believe the UFG, just like a phase annulus, a darkfield stop, or Rheinberg filters, should be in a plane that is conjugate to the back focal plane of the objective. This means that, in general, it should be as close as possible to the condenser iris diaphragm, which, in many condensers, means the filter ring immediately under the condenser iris. In your case, I would guess you should put it in the slot used for inserting the phase annulus, which would be very convenient, as it will allow you to move it in and out and sideways easily to get the different effects (at least I think it will be convenient, as I've not seen your microscope condenser). However, I hope seb28 will comment and correct what I said, as he is obviously the expert here on the UFG.
gekko said
I agree with you that Litonotus's UFG is ingeneous; it is both simple and very effective.
LKOLTON said:
I am not sure how to mount it under the condenser ( perhaps just putting it on the upper part of the illuminator will be ok?).I believe the UFG, just like a phase annulus, a darkfield stop, or Rheinberg filters, should be in a plane that is conjugate to the back focal plane of the objective. This means that, in general, it should be as close as possible to the condenser iris diaphragm, which, in many condensers, means the filter ring immediately under the condenser iris. In your case, I would guess you should put it in the slot used for inserting the phase annulus, which would be very convenient, as it will allow you to move it in and out and sideways easily to get the different effects (at least I think it will be convenient, as I've not seen your microscope condenser). However, I hope seb28 will comment and correct what I said, as he is obviously the expert here on the UFG.
Hi Gekko,
Thank you for your suggestions.
It makes sense to put the UFG in the Slider that sits within the condenser. However, I may encounter a little problem in doing this.
Currently I don't have an original Zeiss Slider compatible with the slot in my condenser. What I have is a non- Zeiss "mock" slider which I bought off an E-Bay seller and which has a round hole in it that receives various darkfield annuli or colored filters. The slider is a simple block made of black plastic with the correct dimensions to fit in the slider slot of the condenser but unlike the proprietary Zeiss Phase or darkfield slider, it does not have any aligning mechanism which will allow for small Left-right adjustments of the filter with respect to the condenser's optical axis. I can move the entire slider (with filter) forward and backwards within the condenser slot, but not left/right. It may be possible to move the entire condenser left/right when the slide with filter is inserted in the condenser, but I am not sure this will help because it might change the proper condenser alignment (this is something that needs to be checked experimentally).
Therefore, my options are:
1)Buy an original Zeiss Slider which allowes left-right alignment of the Filter ( privided I manage to finfd oneon eBay – Zeiss do not make or sell these any more).
2) Improvise by building an adjustable filter carrier to be placed under the condenser.
3) Improvise by building an adjustable "tunable" filter slider to be inserted with the filter into the proper slider slot of the condenser.
4) Find a used proprietary Zeiss Phase/Darkfield turret condenser which might include a mechanism that allows left/right and forward/backword movments of a filter or phase annulus ( I am not sure whether the Zeiss turret condenser is indeed capable of doing this, but I might want to get one anyway for holding several annuli and other stops, so if I can find one I may get it).
Once I make a gradient filter I may experiment, starting with the simpler option to see if it works and only then considering the more complex options.
So I would indeed be very appreciative to have any comments or help from SEB28 or any other member who have used a UFG filter, regarding the optimal or even just passable placement position of the UFGT relative to the condenser. A closeup photo of the arrangement will be most appreciated.
I thank you all in advance for providing any help or pictures of your UFG arrangement.
Best Regards.
LKOLTON
Most Users Ever Online: 149
Currently Online:
9 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 31
Members: 593
Moderators: 0
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 2
Forums: 18
Topics: 1403
Posts: 5585
Newest Members: mariareese, Habibie, EoinFirestorm, Peniko177, Microseeshirt, SteveRichfield
Moderators:
Administrators: Oliver (201)
