New member from Pittsburgh

[clengman]

Hi,

Just wanted to write a quick post to introduce myself. I'm a researcher in an immunology lab at a hospital in Pittsburgh. In my career in biology research, I've had access to a range of pretty nice optical equipment. My main rig now is a Zeiss Axio Observer used mainly for epi-fluorescence. (Trying to get the boss to spring for an ApoTome to go with it. We'll see if that happens. )

I have a 7-year-old daughter who displays a great interest in biology and all sorts of creepy-crawlies. We got a toy microscope (a QX7 digital microscope) a couple years ago and we've had fun with it, but I'd really like to find a nice and serious instrument to take our home explorations further. I came across this forum as I've searched for information on what kind of equipment is available to hobbiest microscopists. I'm getting closer to being ready to make a purchase and I thought I'd go ahead and register on the forum in case I need some quick advice on any ebay listings I might come across.

I'm still pretty torn between some of the affordable used equipment that I'm seeing on ebay and the new instruments from Amscope. A T490 looks like a pretty good value to me, and would be easy to upgrade with Plan/phase objectives and a phase turret if I decide to do that at some point. It also comes with an adapter that I can use to mount my micro four thirds camera right out of the box (I have a c-mount adapter for the camera already.)

On the other hand, for a similar initial outlay I could get something like an olympus BH with plan objectives. My concerns with that path are that 1) Many of the scopes I see with a trinocular head have the photo port, but don't have a photo tube mounted. I'm not sure how to locate parts to adapt the port to my camera with adjustment to make it parfocal to the eyepieces. 2) If I wanted to upgrade with a phase condenser I just don't know much about what parts are compatible with which older scopes, and if, for example, I wanted a used set of phase objectives and a phase condenser from one of the major manufacturers it looks like it'll be considerably more expensive than the phase kits from Amscope.

Your forum has been a great resource already and I'm looking forward to chatting with you all about this fantastic hobby.

Best Regards,

Carl

[Hobbyst46]

I have a 7-year-old daughter who displays a great interest in biology and all sorts of creepy-crawlies. We got a toy microscope (a QX7 digital microscope) a couple years ago and we've had fun with it, but I'd really like to find a nice and serious instrument to take our home explorations further

IMO,
An upgrade to a "real" microscope is a very good decision. However, many children get bored with the microscope after the initial wave of excitement. The challenge is to maintain their curiosity and motivation over time (say, at least for 1-2 years). So one needs to concentrate on the specimens and methodology rather than on the technical features of the instrument. For the enjoyment of the kid, I would buy a new microscope.

[zzffnn]

Carl,

We had almost the same background, except that I have a 7yo son. Even our majors (your immunology vs my micro+immu ) and m4/3 cameras are about the same.

I have been in this hobby for about 4 years. Was a researcher for a long time.

AmScope T490 looks OK and easy to start. But its condenser mount may not be easy to DIY with a different brand of condenser, when you upgrade. And I don't know how easy it is to upgrade its light source, to say, 100w light.

With Olympus BH, upgrades are limited only by your budget, skill or patience. Different head / attachment configurations, such as teaching head, epi fluorescence, or DIC are available. None of those is available from AmScope.

I have a Nikon Optiphot, which is similar to Olympus BH. Alan Wood is the go to source for Olympus scopes. Had I knew him when I started, I would have started with Olympus (instead of the slightly cheaper Nikon) just because of how much documentation he has made available. You can email Alan directly too, if you don't find what you need.
http://www.alanwood.net/photography/oly ... copes.html

I use a teaching head for imaging; bino teacher's head for eyes and mono student head for m4/3 afocal camera with 30mm lens over 10x visual eyepiece. Olympus should have a similar rig, if you cannot find a trinocular photo head/tube.

In the following thread, you can see how my rig used to look like: http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... g+labophot

What has been changed included:
Now my camera uses simply step-down lens ring adapters and glue to connect to eyepiece (instead of that Orion adapter, which is heavy and not convenient). And I use a mono head (dual bino head was there just for demo purpose). I also upgraded to Optiphot from Labophot (to get swappable objective turrets).

[clengman]

Thanks both of you for the input. I have to say, I agree with both of you. Isn't that always the problem?

I do think it's pretty unlikely that we will ever have the budget for DIC or epi-fluorescence. For right now I'm mostly interested in simple dark field for pond water microorganisms and tardigrades and such.

I would like my micrography setup to work well. I'm wondering, zzffnn, why you've decided to go with afocal instead of direct projection? My understanding is that the m43 sensor is a good match for the image circle for most microscopes without any additional optics.

Hobbyst46 - You make a great point that my daughter is not going to be as interested in the equipment as she is in the stuff that's under the objective. I'm always looking for sources with suggestions for interesting specimens/experiments. Do you know of any good books?

[apochronaut]

One of the negative aspects of cheaply made microscopes that gets overlooked, is their poor parcentering. This is something that name brand manufacturers are fastidious about, even to the point of specifying the tolerances they adhere to in brochures. Chinese microscope brochures never mention it and for good reason : they can be over 100 microns off between objectives because one way they make a cheaper instrument is by cutting down on the finishing of their casting and machining.

Poorly parcentered optics can be very frustrating for a child. Something seen with a 40x objective can easily be no longer there with the 100x. I would highly recommend one of the better precise scholastic instruments from the past, made by a reputable manufacturer. There are lots of well serviced ones out there and many can be improved substantially in the future to perform at a laboratory level, way beyond the potential of most Chinese scopes, that cost 3 times as much.

[zzffnn]

Carl,

Getting CA free image from direct projection method requires objectives that are self-corrected. Those objectives are expensive (over $80 each, easily) and don't offer features that I need at my budget (I need water immersion objective that costs less than $150 each).

Well implemented afocal rig can be indistinguishable from direct projection rig.

Pond water protists and olarization microscopy (vitamin C or Tylenol crystals) are always fun to start with. Squeeze water from pond vegetation and you would likely see some protists there.

[clengman]

One of the negative aspects of cheaply made microscopes that gets overlooked, is their poor parcentering...

Huh. That is something I hadn't considered. Thanks for mentioning it.

There are lots of well serviced ones out there and many can be improved substantially in the future to perform at a laboratory level, way beyond the potential of most Chinese scopes, that cost 3 times as much.

I'm interested in which models you're referring to here. I've searched extensively and wouldn't expect to find anything very good, even if used, for 1/3 the cost of the AmScope model I'm considering.

[clengman]

Carl,

Getting CA free image from direct projection method requires objectives that are self-corrected. Those objectives are expensive (over $80 each, easily) and don't offer features that I need at my budget (I need water immersion objective that costs less than $150 each).

Where do you find lists of parts that include these specs? I look on ebay and very seldom find much detailed information on particular items. It's a pretty frustrating exercise trying to cross-reference every listing.

Pond water protists and olarization microscopy (vitamin C or Tylenol crystals) are always fun to start with. Squeeze water from pond vegetation and you would likely see some protists there.

These are at the top of the list.

[zzffnn]

Most detailed information would have to come from your own research and experimentation/experience, or from highly experienced forum members. Most eBay sellers do not have such information.

Edit: you can try direct projection yourself and see if you are happy with its imagery. At low objective NA of 0.4 or less, some objectives do not need that much eyepiece compensation/correction.

[Hobbyst46]

Do you know of any good books?

Regretfully, I cannot recommend books because I jumped from high-school microscopy classes to focused research, so I am led by my own imagination and subjects suggested by others. I think that in addition to "critters", plants offer a wealth of subjects (pollen, stomata, leaf epidermis, root ends, algea,...), insects (wonderful info, even when you dislike them personally), brownian motion, hairs - I am just scraping from above...

Some super-looking photos from such studies have been displayed in this forum - real appetizers!!

[apochronaut]

One of the negative aspects of cheaply made microscopes that gets overlooked, is their poor parcentering...

Huh. That is something I hadn't considered. Thanks for mentioning it.

There are lots of well serviced ones out there and many can be improved substantially in the future to perform at a laboratory level, way beyond the potential of most Chinese scopes, that cost 3 times as much.

I'm interested in which models you're referring to here. I've searched extensively and wouldn't expect to find anything very good, even if used, for 1/3 the cost of the AmScope model I'm considering.

Ebay can be daunting and it is true that many instruments are missing eyepieces or objectives or other key components. However, often an instrument like that will be in the 80-100.00 range and it is easy to find the missing optic(s) quite cheaply for certain models that have been widely sold. In the case of used biological microscopes AO is the way to go. Most of the other brands are much more expensive and offer no particular advantage. AO and the subsequent branding, Reichert were very well built and the optics they made in any class, are as good as any and better than some. A CH is close but once the trinocular head is on there, they usually jump quite a bit in price.

I am assuming that you are planning on paying around 275.00 for one of those T 490 microscopes?

I will go with that because they are available for about that price.. So, the T 490 is a physically smallish 4 achromat objective equipped, trinocular head microscope with a 20 watt halogen illuminator. It claims to have a simultaneous eyepiece view and camera view but I can't find the details of how the image is split. With such set ups, the split is usually 20/80, with 20% going to the camera. The trinocular port is a simple 23mm port that can take an eyepiece or a 23mm nose of a digital microscope camera. You will need to make sure that the camera added to that microscope has a compatible relay lens for the micro 4/3s and is perfectly parfocal with the eyepieces. Probably Amscope has a camera that is or can be made so but if you go with the 4/3 camera, it will take some fiddling to get everything right. At 20% of the light going to the camera, there could be some problems with insufficient illumination under certain conditions and with a maximum of 80% going to the eyepieces, brightness with the 100x objective could be compromised at times too. Amscope has a history of overstating the capabilities of their products.
Cheap achromat optics from China are not great but with another 200.00 thrown into the pot, you could get 18mm f.o.v. plan optics that would be better.
It would be surprising if the optics were well centered or the build quality was very good, throughout the instrument.


Comparable or better instruments on ebay.
1/2 the price of the above , complete and built to last.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/AO-Series-4-Tr ... Sw301aaj1b.
This one is being sold by someone I have corresponded with, so I know that his knowledge and description are reliable but I am not out to promote for him. This is about 3 to 4 times the microscope that the Amscope is. The coarse focus and fine focus are separate but that ends up being inconsequential in use due to their proximity. Fine focus is 1 micron . The trinocular port takes an eyepiece for a relay lens. Optically, they are excellent and the instrument is built with old world craftsmanship and is super precise. The nosepiece and objectives are very well centered and parfocal. Options exist for some fluorite lenses and a full set of apochromats The apochromats show up frequently and are now in the 50.00 range per. The 20mm f.o.v. is not plan but is very close. I use one of these for phase contrast microscopy regularly and the slight , non-plan performance level is not really that noticeable. Phase set ups can show up cheaper than the new Amscope ones are, from time to time.

There are more modern AO infinity corrected series 10 or 100 trinoculars around too, which are 10 times the microscope that that Amscope is. Many are missing something but the missing components are readily found. Bear in mind that these microscopes are the technical equivalent of Chinese microscopes well in excess of 1000.00 and they would have to be really good ones too...Motic or some other factory branded model. I have yet to be convinced that ANY Chinese microscope, aside from some higher end ones with planfluor or planapo objectives( Motic) can equal most of those made by the major companies over the past 50 years.

Finding a complete binocular is a little easier and then you can keep your eyes peeled for a trinocular head for the future. They can usually be had for about 75.00.

AO 150's are an achromat system usually, with an 18mm f.o.v., so are roughly equivalent to the T490 in specs. but of much better construction, with a wider potential f.o.v. and readily available planachro optics at ridiculously low prices. They can receive and benefit from any of the more advanced plan AO infinity corrected 34mm parfocal optics, which will be far superior to those on the Amscope.
Here is a good example; twice the microscope of the T490 at 1/4 the price. A trinocular head can be found, if you watch out for one.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Reichert-Jung- ... SwWLBaCw1e

[clengman]

Apochronaut,

Thanks for the great information. That series 4 has been on my watch list. I've looked at a couple one-tens as well. I guess the big thing that was holding me back from looking at them seriously was that I was unsure about how easily I'd be able to use the trinocular port.

I noticed in the catalog and parts list for the 110 that there is a TV camera adapter tube. I was wondering if that might have c-mount threads and if it uses the c-mount flange-to-film distance standard. If so I think I should be able to mount my camera that way? I have a c-mount lens adapter.

Do you know if the 110s rely on an eyepiece or projection lens for best ca correction?

Thanks again!

[clengman]

Okay, so what's the deal with this one: https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre ... 2989055574

I'm seeing a lot of microscopes now that are based on what looks like the same frame with various head configurations. Are these Series 10?

Does anyone see any obvious problems with this one? I see a condenser, transformer, lamp seems to work, full set of plan objectives, two eyepieces? Am I missing something?

[zzffnn]

Okay, so what's the deal with this one: https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre ... 2989055574

I'm seeing a lot of microscopes now that are based on what looks like the same frame with various head configurations. Are these Series 10?

Does anyone see any obvious problems with this one? I see a condenser, transformer, lamp seems to work, full set of plan objectives, two eyepieces? Am I missing something?

Yes, it is a series 10.

That seems to be a good deal. But seller has 75% positive rating and very few feedbacks. (S)he seems to be a surplus dealer, who may not have tested the scope fully.

One eye tube is not perfectly round, though may be reparable.

Ask if focus mechanism and mechanical stage are working perfectly. Anything thing not working, ect. Get it all in writing. That way you can easily return it, if anything does not match up. Don't forgot return shipping (which may be on buyer) won't be cheap for a heavy scope.

[clengman]

Thanks, zzffnn. Good advice.

[apochronaut]

Okay, so what's the deal with this one: https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre ... 2989055574

I'm seeing a lot of microscopes now that are based on what looks like the same frame with various head configurations. Are these Series 10?

Does anyone see any obvious problems with this one? I see a condenser, transformer, lamp seems to work, full set of plan objectives, two eyepieces? Am I missing something?

I passed that one by, when I scanned through what was available because of the lack of a trinocular on it. I also thought you might be put off by the out of round ocular tube. Such damage, means the instrument has had a drop or a serious bang. The possibility of the head being out of collimation is therefore pretty high. However , it does have a second head and the likelihood of it too having sustained enough of a shock to skew the light paths is low.

One nice aspect of those older AO infinity scopes is the teaching head, which has two possibilities for your purposes. If both heads are o.k. and even if not, a second head can be had quite cheaply( I have one , if you need it), you have an excellent tool for working with your daughter. There is a pointer in that set up, so it will likely be great for that. Also though, by removing that second head you can use some specialized adapters to mount a camera at the teaching head dovetail, by passing the need for a trinocular. I can help you with the adapters, since I proposed the versions and reviewed the blueprints for the after market AO adapters made by Raf Camera.

Regarding the trinoculars for both the series 4 and the series 10. There are two factory set ups.
. One is a dedicated relay lens, shutter, camera flange device that can be adapted to use a digital camera. It takes some fiddling, some of the aforementioned adapters are useful too but the system was never set up to capture the entire microscope field. You get about 50% with a full frame camera( 35mm equiv.) but with a micro 4/3 it would be a lot better.You have to lock the shutter open or remove it.

The other makes use of a photo tube, such as the one mounted to the series 4 I sent a link to. With these, the original set up was to have the camera on a separate stand with a focusing bellows. The camera was then critically adjusted over an eyepiece set into the tube. The original photo eyepiece for the series 4 is hard to find. I have never seen one but I have been using a cat.# 1054 photo framing eyepiece from a series 10 through 120 and it works well enough. That's what I use in the 10 photo tube too. You need to make up a D.I.Y. adapter to fit on the tube but I can help with that too. Most of the parts can be found cheaply on ebay from China and one of the adapters from Raf Camera is used too.

The early AO 34mm parfocal infinity system relied on a correcting tube lens which sits in the bottom of the head. Subsequently, the eyepieces do very little correction, except I think inducing some planarity and they are compensating, so the tube lens issues an over corrected image. Later, with the introduction of the D.I.N. optics, the objective became the primary correction point and the tube lens, primarily overcorrects for the eyepiece's natural undercorrection and of course converts the infinity image to a fixed tube image. It's very much a similar but more complicated version of the overcorrection/undercorrection system that all of the older apochromat/compensating lens systems employed.

The series 4 is a modified 160mm tube length system. There is a compensating lens in the yoke above the nosepiece that does at least two things. Firstly, it compensates for chromatic aberration and gives an image freer of chroma , than the native image of the objective. Secondly, it confers some field flattening on the image. For a rugged, user friendly down to earth fairly simple 160mm tube microscope , the series 4 is underrated.

[clengman]

Wow! This is incredibly helpful. You don't know how much I appreciate all this information.

I passed that one by, when I scanned through what was available because of the lack of a trinocular on it. I also thought you might be put off by the out of round ocular tube. Such damage, means the instrument has had a drop or a serious bang. The possibility of the head being out of collimation is therefore pretty high. However , it does have a second head and the likelihood of it too having sustained enough of a shock to skew the light paths is low.

One nice aspect of those older AO infinity scopes is the teaching head, which has two possibilities for your purposes. If both heads are o.k. and even if not, a second head can be had quite cheaply( I have one , if you need it), you have an excellent tool for working with your daughter. There is a pointer in that set up, so it will likely be great for that. Also though, by removing that second head you can use some specialized adapters to mount a camera at the teaching head dovetail, by passing the need for a trinocular. I can help you with the adapters, since I proposed the versions and reviewed the blueprints for the after market AO adapters made by Raf Camera.

I was thinking the same thing about the teaching head.

Regarding the trinoculars for both the series 4 and the series 10. There are two factory set ups.
. One is a dedicated relay lens, shutter, camera flange device that can be adapted to use a digital camera. It takes some fiddling, some of the aforementioned adapters are useful too but the system was never set up to capture the entire microscope field. You get about 50% with a full frame camera( 35mm equiv.) but with a micro 4/3 it would be a lot better.You have to lock the shutter open or remove it.

I certainly am not as knowledgeable as you, but this seems counterintuitive to me. If it is set up to capture half the field on 35mm film, I would think that a smaller sensor (m43 has ~21.6mm diagonal) would see even less of the field.

The other makes use of a photo tube, such as the one mounted to the series 4 I sent a link to. With these, the original set up was to have the camera on a separate stand with a focusing bellows. The camera was then critically adjusted over an eyepiece set into the tube. The original photo eyepiece for the series 4 is hard to find. I have never seen one but I have been using a cat.# 1054 photo framing eyepiece from a series 10 through 120 and it works well enough. That's what I use in the 10 photo tube too. You need to make up a D.I.Y. adapter to fit on the tube but I can help with that too. Most of the parts can be found cheaply on ebay from China and one of the adapters from Raf Camera is used too.

This may be what I end up doing.

The series 4 is a modified 160mm tube length system. There is a compensating lens in the yoke above the nosepiece that does at least two things. Firstly, it compensates for chromatic aberration and gives an image freer of chroma , than the native image of the objective.

So I want to see if I'm thinking about this right. The image circle produced by the series 4 should have a diameter of 20mm, it should be fairly well-corrected on it's own without an eyepiece, and the image should sit about 11mm below the top edge of the trinocular tube. My camera has a sensor diagonal of 21.6mm so if I can position the camera so the sensor coincides with the real image in the trinocular tube, I should be in business, right? Seems like an easy and solid way to do this would be to use an adapter like this one from AmScope: http://www.amscope.com/adjustable-photo ... apter.html

I would cut down the trinocular tube by 11mm + the depth of the adapter + the flange to sensor distance for c-mount. The adapter is adjustable so the tube length won't have to be exact, just close.

... or I could use this adapter and drill and tap a hole for a small thumb screw in the trinocular tube: https://www.rafcamera.com/adapter-d23-2-to-c-mount

[charlie g]

Welcome to our forum, clengman. I'd nest your dear childs microscopy in the shared outdoor activities you enjoy seasonally. When if at a summer picnic to area outdoors...look at some of the tiny weebeasties from the lake/pond/river. At home, explore a few views of your garden neighbors, perhaps of your home pets variety of hair types/ feather types/flower pollen types...ah yes a live thin sheet from a fresh onion .

Your child has so many demands..I'd nest the microscopy into the holistic picture of your world. Does she have a quality camera ( I guess the current phones/pads ? whatever they are called?!!)...nest the microscopy as an extension of her image capture activities from time to time.

It's possible to get microscopy optics into your childs demensions of enjoyment this way...please no mandatory time with prepared slides...that may come after a context with her macro-world understanding and engadgments. A quality stereo scope, a quality trinocular head microscope...ability to plop images of her quests to online forums. Our dear child is now embarked on career in healthcare...but the microscopy world views are en hancement of buddies and his outdoor hikes, river fishing, beach trips...I do not think the specific optics are the spark for a child..but this my opinion! welcome! Charlie Guevara yes there aew wonderful microscopy books for young readers!

[zzffnn]

Carl,

Please note AO series 4's trinocular heads do not allow visual viewing at the same time of photographing/videotaping, because they only do either or, not both. For moving subjects, that may not be convenient.

[clengman]

Charlie G - That's great insight. I agree wholeheartedly.

ffzznn

Carl,

Please note AO series 4's trinocular heads do not allow visual viewing at the same time of photographing/videotaping, because they only do either or, not both. For moving subjects, that may not be convenient.

I don't think it'll be a problem at all. I have olympus Capture installed on my computer. I plan to use the camera tethered to the PC with live view on my monitor. I think it'll work well.

In fact, I went ahead and did it. I placed my bid on the Series 4. Wish me luck!

While I'm on here, I'm interested to learn more about your afocal setup. I have the panasonic 25mm f/1.7 lens and thought it might be suitable. According to the formulae on Michael Krebs' site, that should put 100% of the field of view on the sensor with slight vignetting in the corners. However, the lens is fairly large for it's focal length. I would estimate that the aperture iris (and the entrance pupil?) is 15-20mm from the front of the lens. I'm a little concerned that the eye relief on the #146 oculars won't be long enough to couple with the lens. I guess I'll just have to wait and try it out, but I'm thinking the ocular will have to be all but touching the front glass to get it to work. I'm trying to figure out how to use this: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Universal-Tele ... xyf~hRzI7X in a DIY adapter. The collar that clamps to the eyetube has a male 42mm thread on it. If I could find a ring with 46mm male and 42mm female threads I think it would be perfect, but try as I might, I can't find a step down ring in that configuration. I'm curious what you were able to put together for your camera.

If afocal with the 25mm lens doesn't work, I think I'll have to use direct projection, which I think should work fairly well with this microscope and a 4/3 sensor. I wish I could find a replacement for the photo tube, though. It doesn't seem like an easy part to find and I'd hate to cut the only one I have. I guess we'll see what happens.

Thanks again for all the advise so far. It's greatly appreciated!

[zzffnn]

Carl,

Our lens and eyepieces are different. So I am not sure my connection method applies to yours.

My Sigma 30mm F/2.8 has front female thread of 46mm. So I use several step down lens rings to connect to my LOMO K10x/18 eyepiece, with the final ring adapter was super-glued to eyepiece. I don't remember the exact adapter size in between, though there may be a few ways to step down. For example, lens front thread, 46-42, 42-28, 28-27, glue, eyepiece top.

#146 has fairly high eye point.

Your adapter seems a bit expensive.

[clengman]

Your adapter seems a bit expensive.

I agree. The nice thing about it is that the ID of that collar is wide enough for the eyepiece to pass all the way through. If I had a good way to connect it to the lens I could get the front of the eyepiece all the way up to the front element of the lens. Hoping I can find something similar for less money.

[apochronaut]

[/quote]So I want to see if I'm thinking about this right. The image circle produced by the series 4 should have a diameter of 20mm, it should be fairly well-corrected on it's own without an eyepiece, and the image should sit about 11mm below the top edge of the trinocular tube. My camera has a sensor diagonal of 21.6mm so if I can position the camera so the sensor coincides with the real image in the trinocular tube, I should be in business, right? Seems like an easy and solid way to do this would be to use an adapter like this one from AmScope: http://www.amscope.com/adjustable-photo ... apter.html

I would cut down the trinocular tube by 11mm + the depth of the adapter + the flange to sensor distance for c-mount. The adapter is adjustable so the tube length won't have to be exact, just close.

... or I could use this adapter and drill and tap a hole for a small thumb screw in the trinocular tube: https://www.rafcamera.com/adapter-d23-2-to-c-mount[/quote]

You seem to have everything well organized in your mind. Regarding the micro 4/3 sensor being better , in my earlier comment. You are correct. I was thinking about the phototube set up , not the factory camera adapter. I have found the smaller sensor to be easier to match maximum field capture with parfocality.
The thing with the AO photo tubes, is that there never were any adapters made for them. They were not made for physical coupling of the camera.
The eyepiece that I am using on both the 4 and the 10 is the cat.# 1054 photo framing eyepiece. It's original use was as a framing eyepiece, which carried a framing reticle, with 35mm, 2 1/4 and 4 x 5 frames etched on it. It has a small amount of focus. I remove the reticle and use it as a photo eyepiece. There may be better options for the 4, since that photo framing eyepiece is for the 10 but I haven't investigated that , as much as I should have, yet. The idea would be to get better planarity because the 1054 provides a very true image and the image through the 4 has less planarity than ideal; especially with the 10x objective.
Your adapter choice from Amscope, I would pass on at this point. Almost all off the shelf adapters do not provide very good corner sharpness and cannot by common sense be corrected properly for any but those optical systems that they are corrected for. The results will most likely be disappointing and the adapter is expensive. You need to DIY with that AO 4 microscope and you can tailor the results as close to perfection as is possible and that option is almost as easy as buying an adapter.... probably cheaper too.
First of all, if you win that auction, see if Tom has an eyepiece for the photo tube. He may have a 1054 but he surely has a # 146, which is the same as the visual eyepieces and is acceptable enough for photography, to get you going until a better option comes along.
Second. Your adapter needs to be adjustable. Ideally you would want a focusing track and bellows, like the original camera stand had but almost as good , is to make your adapter exterior to the tube, rather than interior, as most off the shelf camera adapters are. So, you want a 1 1/4" telescope adapter, that can be fitted over the tube and fastened to it with 3 Nylon set screws. That's the hardest part of the DIY, drilling and tapping the adapter for the set screws.
The eyepiece goes into the photo tube , the camera mounts to the adapter with a few macro rings and couplers and then the camera can be moved up and down the tube to find the maximum field coverage on the sensor, with parfocality. The eyepiece has a small amount of focus trim.
Here is a list of some parts you will need, all from ebay but some you could find locally.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/M3-M4-M5-White ... vCQ5HSjFTA

I just picked the next one out randomly. The bayonet might be what you need but others are available. The telescope mount with the T2 thread is the important part. From there you can build up what you need.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/T2-Lens-Adapte ... SwImRYH9tQ

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Macro-Extensio ... Sw5ZBWQBzP

I found that I needed a bit of extension, so I use rings 1 and 2 . You might prefer a helicoid extension tube, which makes the whole thing a lot easier to set up, however , once it is set up, it is set up, so the helicoid feature, at around 35.00 is a bit of overkill.

[clengman]

Apochronaut,

Thanks for those links. I'll have to do some experimenting if I get the microscope to see what works.

But I do have a couple questions about your method. When you use a10x eyepiece as a really lens, do you have to shim the eyepiece up from the top of the photo tube a little bit in order for it to project a real image?

A purpose built 2.5x relay lens magnifies the real image in the photo tube by 2.5x (e.g. from 20mm to 50mm diameter which is a good match for the diagonal of a 35mm sensor). Does a 10x eyepiece used as a relay lens magnify the image 10x? That seems like it would be way too much for my small sensor... Or maybe that's not the way it works?

[Hobbyst46]

Clengman
I have seen the 49 USD adapter in the link above.
There are simpler and a lot cheaper telescope adaters that connect to the filter thread of the camera lens if you opt to go afocal. They are e.g. 52mm thread (or other size) to 1.25" telescope adapter. The eyepiece passes inside. They have 3 thumb screws to fit ontoo the eyepiece, but the connection is much more stable if you fit a spacer tube (made of PVC or aluminum).

See https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/e11051.m ... Tags=bu=bu

Stepdown or stepup rings I bought from rise (uk) on eBay, at very reasonable prices. They are rather thin aluminum though.

[clengman]

As an aside, if I go with an afocal setup instead, that 1.25" to t-mount adapter should still be useful. I can use the 1.25" collar with 42mm thread along with a couple filter thread adapters (I found a couple that will work.) to mount to the 46mm threads on my 25mm prime lens. Sounds like one way or another I'll be able to solve it. Thanks again!

Hobbyst46 - I was simulposting. I think that the adapter Apochronaut suggested (with a couple additional filter adapters) could work for both eyepiece projection and afocal. Thanks for the tip!

[apochronaut]

Afocal is difficult. You always have to be making sure the eyepiece is scrupulously clean, and you have to remove your camera set up after use in order to use both eyepieces and then reset it up . Since you have a trinocular tube, it doesn't make sense. The eyepiece stays sealed inside the tube and seldom needs cleaning and once set and adjusted , it is ready to go. I move my camera around a lot, so I encounter some dust and debris but it is still a lot less than one runs into with an afocal set up.

Using a 2.5X photo eyepiece would be a lot of guesswork and the compatability with the series 4 optical system would be a guess. It does have that compensating lens.

The measurement I roughly get from the objective shoulder to the APS-C sensor of my Sony alpha camera is close to 295mm. The objective shoulder to the top of the tube is 210mm. It seems that the system was designed to use a 10X eyepiece.

I haven't used my 4 a lot lately, so I mounted the camera this morning and took a couple of quick shots. If you look closely, you can see a tiny dark smudge in the corners, where I set the camera height to show that the entire 20mm width field is being captured, with parfocality. In this case the lens focus is screwed right out. When I reset the camera height to get just inside the field, I can refocus the lens....and yes, I have crap on my sensor again.

[einman]

Well Phil your skill in regards to photography are getting very good! Those diatom shots are quite good.

[clengman]

There's something that's not jibing for me and my understanding of the theory, but your results speak for themselves. Clearly the problem is with my understanding and not with your method. Looking forward to trying it out for myself.

[apochronaut]

Thanks, Everett but it really is the instrument. Those AO photo tubes make it pretty easy to set up a decent digital photo set up with minimal fuss. It wasn't their intent of course but they layed it out on a platter for the DIYer. Originally they just held an eyepiece. The entire photo system was on another stand, which could be precisely moved to hover over the eyepiece yet remain unattached. Have you ever seen one of those? I haven't, just in catalogues. Most of them probably ended up keeping stacks of aluminum doors from being tossed around in the wind in scrap yards.