MicrobeHunter.com Microscopy Forum

Thanks for the kind remarks! What illumination was used for photos #1 and #2? Phase? The first two used a mix of lighting. I used the MM-11/Olympus "hybrid" scope that I showed in this thread: http://www.microbehunter.com/microscopy-forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3295&p=29145 This gives me a great deal o...

I would still feel a lot better if you photographed an evenly illuminated white or grey opaque piece of paper/cardboard on the microscope stage. (Or perhaps point the camera+adapter toward an evenly illuminated neutral colored wall several feet away). The color you used is too intense... you want so...

Really nice.

You guys are going to make me rummage through boxes to find my old hand microtome.

A lot of work, but the results are excellent. And if you enjoy the entire process, all the better.

Really well done! This is a subject that is frustrating to do this nicely. Actually brings back memories from many (many!) years ago. When I was in 3rd or 4th grade I had a Swift monocular scope. As a science project I went around and collected all types of pollen and mounted slides with Canada bals...

Very nice! Good job!
(Makes me feel itchy )

These are really nice!

Have to say, you've got that 100X phase contrast really working well.

I think you're going to like your new objective... looks very good right out to the corners. You should try to determine if the uneven background is a camera or a microscope illumination "thing". You might try using the 4x (large working distance)and putting a piece of opaque white paper on the stag...

Very nicely done! Great "internal" detail.

The first four images were collected in Puget Sound, WA using a small plankton net. The last was a piece of alga I scraped off a pier. I have photographed the species (Coscinodiscus sp.) in the first two images several times. On this particular outing there must have been a huge bloom because every ...

Looks like an Aeolosoma worm. (Many species..but possibly Aeolosoma hemprichi)

kit1980 wrote: Pretty scary

Yup... eventually the bacteria and worms win

I`d eventually like to rig up something similar to Charles`s setup where he has the copy stand and bellows unit for his DSLR mounted above his scope, would these objectives suffice for now or what others would I need please?. Do all scope objectives have the same thread size? Any other info on thes...

gekko,

Very good point. Since kit1980 is using a tethered camera it should be possible to focus via a magnified image on the screen directly from the camera sensor.

This thread has wandered back and forth a bit but I find it interesting and I think the subject and discussion could be of use to many. I've looked through it from the beginning and here are some observations and thoughts. I hope they are deemed pertinent to the subject. We're trying to compare two ...

I would really like to see a flat, highly detailed subject that fills the entire frame. The two shots we have seen provide some valuable information but are really not suitable for judging the imaging characteristics. Here's what we see in the corner and center of the scale shot at 200% of the jpgs ...

Fan, All I wanted to do was indicate that all "CF" eyepieces (unlike the objectives) were clearly marked with a "CF". As with most major manufacturers they had a variety of powers, field numbers, and such... but all had the prefix "CF". Here are a half dozen different versions on Ebay right now: 162...

Found it!

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1006/1006.4037.pdf

I could try to remove 0.5x lens, but it's a part of the adapter. Also there are some lenses in the bottom of the head and in the top of neck. No, don't try that. With the sensor size of that camera (and a great many "eyepiece" and scientific cameras) a 0.5X is necessary to "fit" the image properly ...

Yes, very interesting indeed. About a year ago, I read an article( I will try to find it) about a group of researchers in, maybe Taiwan? : can't exactly remember where, that were using a grid of nano particles that acted collectively like a lens; basically a thin layer layed over the object to incre...

Initially... 1. A compatible objective should have 160/- or 160/0.17 markings, anything with the infinity symbol is not compatible with the OMAX. If the Omax is an infinity correct microscope then any objective marked "160/- or 160/0.17 " is not compatible. I don't believe this is the case. Kit1980....

A better comparison can be made in brightfield - perhaps with a Diatom Test Form as the subject or even a stage micrometer. I do agree. I would like to see some brightfield comparisons of a flat static subject in a permanent mount. There really are too many variables in what appears to be a rather ...

Thanks for the kind remarks. Charles! Are those eggs I see? Yes there were quite a few with eggs! What objective NA did you use for that oblique photo? If you increase the NA (at cost of losing focus depth), do you think unwanted shadows will be lessened? The objective used for the first oblique sho...

Second image is clearly better. (Hope that's the new objective )

I am getting the impression that I have missed something in this thread: that the thread is about using objectives as photographic lenses.... ... Since the Omax microscope, presumably has either Korean or Chinese eyepieces, then, is the suggestion that using a Nikon CF objective would work perfectl...

Unless a person stares at edges of a single frame of a perfectly flat subject, (s)he won't notice field flatness issues with focus stacking and direct projection (objective directly to sensor). Absolutely... as long as it is solely a field flatness issue. I've used objectives that required some foc...

The top of the Olympus trinocular tube (on the BH-2 TR30 head) has a circular dovetail. While the "through hole" is the same diameter as the eyepiece tubes, the inner inner diameter of the dovetail section that juts up (about 10-15mm or so...guessing, didn't actually measure it) will not allow a "vi...

Electrical outlets, more electrical outlets.... and then add a few more! ;) ;) Or a nice big power strip or two at the back of your counter a little higher than the counter height. (Not the typical "floor level" outlets like in the boring part of the house). My current space is a converted darkroom....

The fact that Nikon CF objectives are supposed to be chromatic aberration free and therfore not in need of compensation is pretty irrelevant because, first of all, they are not chromatic aberration free, otherwise they wouldn't be called achromats and secondly,the eyepieces for them are still uniqu...

There are a few subjects that just seem to make you smile and become favorites to watch. Volvox, Lacrymaria, tardigrades (water bears) come quickly to mind. Another for me is the colonial rotifer Conochilus unicornis. Here is a link to a video, and five images. The video is helpful to get an idea of...

Keep in mind I can't give you any definitive answers... never used your current optics, and I have only used one of the ones you have listed. #2) is out. Not "CF" and not 45mm parfocal. #3) I have, and have used. This the best "achromat" version of the Nikon CF 160mm finites. As I mentioned earlier ...