Hello from Buenos Aires

[Javier]

Hello to every one,

My name is Javier and I'm from Buenos Aires, Argentina. I started microscopy a few months ago. I am totally new to microscopes and the microscopic world, but not to optics. My main hobby is amateur astronomy and I have been observing for 12 years. I did some astrophotography for a couple of years, but I no longer do it.

I have been learning a lot from Oliver's YT channels, and I'm looking forward to learning from this nice community.

Regards,
Javier.

[deBult]

Ha Javier,

Welcome, please share some pictures of the scope you are using.

Best, deBult

[Javier]

Ha Javier,

Welcome, please share some pictures of the scope you are using.

Best, deBult

Thank you!

I posted a picture of my microscope here: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=10622

[deBult]

Ha a “Franken-scope”: nice.

Note: The 40* objective is very sensitive to correct coverglass thickness, so maybe try another brand?

Best, deBult

[Javier]

Ha a “Franken-scope”: nice.

Note: The 40* objective is very sensitive to correct coverglass thickness, so maybe try another brand?

Best, deBult

Indeed!

I'm not sure what you mean by the coverglass thickness correction... I guess it's an issue of the focal point? How is this related to the field of view of the EP?

Sorry about the questions...

[Bemoc]

Javier, you are a tricky one. I understand one finds many more aliens in the microscope than the telescope, yes?

[Javier]

Yes, of course...

[Javier]

FWIW, the different eyepieces did modify the focal point of the objectives. With the ES, the focal point is almost the same from the stock eyepiece, but not quite. I noticed this might be an issue with the 40 an 100 x objectives because the field lens is to close to the cover glass. I had yet to gain some experience to fully understand how this minimum change of the focal plane might affect the views with the high mag objectives.

Thanks for your inputs!

[deBult]

Ha a “Franken-scope”: nice.

Note: The 40* objective is very sensitive to correct coverglass thickness, so maybe try another brand?

Best, deBult

Indeed!

I'm not sure what you mean by the coverglass thickness correction... I guess it's an issue of the focal point? How is this related to the field of view of the EP?

Sorry about the questions...

Most 40* objectives require the use of a coverglass . The coverglass is part of the optical system and computed for 0.17 mm.
Most (cheap) coverglasses have a thickness ranging from 0.13-0.17mm.
Marienfeld (or Zeiss) have 0.170 mm with a range of 0.5 um.
Incorrect thickness (or no coverglass at all) causes los in sharpness.

[Javier]

Ha a “Franken-scope”: nice.

Note: The 40* objective is very sensitive to correct coverglass thickness, so maybe try another brand?

Best, deBult

Indeed!

I'm not sure what you mean by the coverglass thickness correction... I guess it's an issue of the focal point? How is this related to the field of view of the EP?

Sorry about the questions...

Most 40* objectives require the use of a coverglass . The coverglass is part of the optical system and computed for 0.17 mm.
Most (cheap) coverglasses have a thickness ranging from 0.13-0.17mm.
Marienfeld (or Zeiss) have 0.170 mm with a range of 0.5 um.
Incorrect thickness (or no coverglass at all) causes los in sharpness.

Thank you!

I thought you were talking about the 40-degree eyepiece, not the 40x objective. Rookie mistake! I read more about cover glass thickness correction and I think I am beginning to understand it. I guess the different thickness of the cover glass causes different refraction index of the light cone (maybe?)

I should follow your advice and try another brand.

Regards!

[Jerome Hubbard]

Hello

[75RR]

.
Not something you should bother with now, but at some point - should your interest in microscopy take hold, and preferably after you have upgraded to a better microscope,

you may want to invest in a micrometer and/or purchase cover slips by number.

It is worth noting that the higher the magnification/numerical aperture the higher the setup requirements.
.

[Javier]

.
Not something you should bother with now, but at some point - should your interest in microscopy take hold, and preferably after you have upgraded to a better microscope,

you may want to invest in a micrometer and/or purchase cover slips by number.

It is worth noting that the higher the magnification/numerical aperture the higher the setup requirements.
.

Thank you!

My coverslips are labeled 0.13 to 0.17 thick. It seems like a sophisticated issue to be worried about right now when my microscopy skills are around 0; but at the same time, the 40 x seems to be the worst of all four objectives. I have read that this distortion can be an issue with the higher NA, dry objectives.

I wonder how my microscope objectives compare in quality terms to those achromatic objectives I see on many branches. Are they much worse? Is it worth upgrading or they are about the same?

Objetivos.jpg (35.83 KiB) Viewed 7087 times

[75RR]

They will do for now while you learn the ropes.

Have you seen this document?

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/index.h ... /intro.htm

[BramHuntingNematodes]

.
Not something you should bother with now, but at some point - should your interest in microscopy take hold, and preferably after you have upgraded to a better microscope,

you may want to invest in a micrometer and/or purchase cover slips by number.

It is worth noting that the higher the magnification/numerical aperture the higher the setup requirements.
.

Thank you!

My coverslips are labeled 0.13 to 0.17 thick. It seems like a sophisticated issue to be worried about right now when my microscopy skills are around 0; but at the same time, the 40 x seems to be the worst of all four objectives. I have read that this distortion can be an issue with the higher NA, dry objectives.

I wonder how my microscope objectives compare in quality terms to those achromatic objectives I see on many branches. Are they much worse? Is it worth upgrading or they are about the same?




Objetivos.jpg

no I wouldn't worry too much about those lenses and more expensive ones tend to be even more finicky and prone to error. maybe instead check what's going with the condenser and the cover slip thickness, maybe get some good professionally prepared slides so you can adjust your scope to some known values or if anything you might want to contact your manufacturer about getting a proper eyepiece

[Javier]

They will do for now while you learn the ropes.

Have you seen this document?

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/index.h ... /intro.htm

Thank you! I started reading the document, very interesting stuff.

no I wouldn't worry too much about those lenses and more expensive ones tend to be even more finicky and prone to error. maybe instead check what's going with the condenser and the cover slip thickness, maybe get some good professionally prepared slides so you can adjust your scope to some known values or if anything you might want to contact your manufacturer about getting a proper eyepiece

I have been examining the condenser issue quite a lot. I can center it with the 10 x objective (by sight, I have not the so called telescope eyepiece), but it doesn't seem to keep that very same position when going the next objective. It also has a slight play that cannot be eliminated. I could work on that, I guess.

Besides, the "top" lens of the condenser has been mounted with a slight tilt. I tried to remove the retaining ring to remount it, but it's very hard to losen, and I'm afraid I will end scratching the lens if I don't use a dedicated tool. Well, the scope is what it is. I didn't expect a high quality instrument at this price.

The professionally prepared slides sounds like a very good idea to work around the setting of my scope.

Thanks again for your advice!

[deBult]

I have been examining the condenser issue quite a lot. I can center it with the 10 x objective (by sight, I have not the so called telescope eyepiece), but it doesn't seem to keep that very same position when going the next objective.

This is a common issue even when using an older research scope.

[Javier]

I have been examining the condenser issue quite a lot. I can center it with the 10 x objective (by sight, I have not the so called telescope eyepiece), but it doesn't seem to keep that very same position when going the next objective.

This is a common issue even when using an older research scope.

Thanks, that's good to know.

Today, I followed your advice and took a very clean water sample from a flower vase to test the 40 x objective. I was surprised by the delivered image. The cellphone adapter works only with the Huygenian stock eyepiece, so I used the microscope as I bought it. I know it is a super beginner image, but I'm very happy for the first time with the 40 x objective and the stock eyepiece (although some contrast is lost using this EP)

So, there you go. My inexperience is playing a big role here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkFfDaHRN4w

[Rapidray]

Welcome to the forum!

[Javier]

Thank you!

[75RR]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkFfDaHRN4w

That is a decent Brightfield image. Now you need to have a look at Oblique!

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/ind ... lique.html

[Bemoc]

Wow Javier, that video is so cool! See? You're a much faster newb than me. Although, I do have about 1000 low magnification shots of critters I cannot ID, in 3D because I was using a 5mp usb handheld. I don';t have a cam for my compound microscopes yet, but sometimes can get a decent shot down the tube from above. Got some critters that I guess are some sort of amoeba in my grand-nephew's blood smear last month... pretty scary. I guess I hope that the slide was just contaminated but his mom is taking to the doctor nonetheless.

[Javier]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkFfDaHRN4w

That is a decent Brightfield image. Now you need to have a look at Oblique!

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/ind ... lique.html

Thank you! I have been trying oblique illumination from the time a got my microscope, a few months ago. I managed to see some decent images on the eyepieces, but not in videos. The illumination of this method is tricky and the afocal technique is somehow rough.

Wow Javier, that video is so cool! See? You're a much faster newb than me. Although, I do have about 1000 low magnification shots of critters I cannot ID, in 3D because I was using a 5mp usb handheld. I don';t have a cam for my compound microscopes yet, but sometimes can get a decent shot down the tube from above. Got some critters that I guess are some sort of amoeba in my grand-nephew's blood smear last month... pretty scary. I guess I hope that the slide was just contaminated but his mom is taking to the doctor nonetheless.

Thank you! I hope your nephew is fine. I decided not to use samples of my own body, and of course noobody else, to examine under the microscope. It's just so easy to make wrong assumptions when you are not an expert. There is so much to look at in nature, anyway.

Regards!