Introduction
Introduction
I am an electrical engineer in Southern California, probably interested as much in tinkering with microscopes as in actually using them. Earlier this year I bought two well-used but mostly functional Reichert Microstar IVs on eBay "for my kids" and have finally gotten around to doing some cleaning and tune-up. The information on the forum (many posts by Apochronaut, in particular) has been helpful, thank you all. I also have a Nikon SMZ660 I bought broken about 10 years ago and repaired, used mainly for soldering and inspecting circuit boards, and occasionally for looking at bugs. Sometime after getting the SMZ660 I found an F-mount relay lens cheaply on eBay. At the time I bought it I believe I had identified it as good quality, manufactured by Diagnostic Instruments, and likely removed from some sort of custom imaging system. With a Nikon D5100 it gives nice results at low magnification but at higher magnification the limitations of the SMZ660 (I think) become apparent. I never really got into photomacrography but maybe will experiment again with the Microstar IVs.
-
DrPhoxinus
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:17 pm
- Location: Rochester Hills, MI
Re: Introduction
Welcome Hans,
I was given a Microstar IV with a Series 10 trinocular head so that is an option. I find the blue filter doesn’t always function as smoothly as I would like.
Best Wishes,
Gerard
I was given a Microstar IV with a Series 10 trinocular head so that is an option. I find the blue filter doesn’t always function as smoothly as I would like.
Best Wishes,
Gerard
Re: Introduction
Interesting, I had been looking into trinocular head alternatives but was still somewhat confused trying to remember the similarities and differences among the different series. Then about two weeks ago I noticed a Reichert-Jung 150 (same as an AO 150 with new paint scheme?) on eBay which for some unknown reason has what I think is a trinocular head from the 400 series installed. I just unpacked it yesterday and have not had a chance to experiment yet. Hopefully I did not misidentify the head, but in case I did your experience gives me some hope it may still be useful on the Microstar IV.
Currently, one of the two Microstar IVs is back together and seems to be working well, the other is still disassembled. In between my daughter's sessions removing/inspecting/reinserting the eyepieces and pretending the nosepiece is an elevator I have been looking at "pond" water taken from a tub of dirty water in the back yard as well as some prepared slides and practicing taking photos with a smartphone through the eyepiece. Will post some photos of the microscopes and microbes when I get a chance.
The linkage controlling the blue filter in mine is working smoothly so far, but the color of the filter itself could be better. I still prefer it to the unfiltered tungsten, but a little too blue in my opinion, and with a greenish tint. Not sure if this is normal, or maybe the color has deteriorated with age/heat? I am also finding brightness control a little awkward with the inherently limited range the bulb can be adjusted over without significant color shift and the large, single step engaging the ND filter. Both of those issues make it tempting to experiment with an LED replacement.
Currently, one of the two Microstar IVs is back together and seems to be working well, the other is still disassembled. In between my daughter's sessions removing/inspecting/reinserting the eyepieces and pretending the nosepiece is an elevator I have been looking at "pond" water taken from a tub of dirty water in the back yard as well as some prepared slides and practicing taking photos with a smartphone through the eyepiece. Will post some photos of the microscopes and microbes when I get a chance.
The linkage controlling the blue filter in mine is working smoothly so far, but the color of the filter itself could be better. I still prefer it to the unfiltered tungsten, but a little too blue in my opinion, and with a greenish tint. Not sure if this is normal, or maybe the color has deteriorated with age/heat? I am also finding brightness control a little awkward with the inherently limited range the bulb can be adjusted over without significant color shift and the large, single step engaging the ND filter. Both of those issues make it tempting to experiment with an LED replacement.
-
DrPhoxinus
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:17 pm
- Location: Rochester Hills, MI
Re: Introduction
Hans
When we decided to home school our daughter
I went a limitless crazy on microscopes. I have 11.
I have an AO 150 that I upgraded to plan achro objectives and it is a great scope for quick observations.
I have 2 series 10, one for brightfield and one for phase.
The scopes were well used and the phase condenser wrenches are somewhat rounded out.
BTW I enjoy electronics. I am wb8bdr. Also 40 years ago I published an IC circuit for electro fishing .
Gerard
When we decided to home school our daughter
I went a limitless crazy on microscopes. I have 11.
I have an AO 150 that I upgraded to plan achro objectives and it is a great scope for quick observations.
I have 2 series 10, one for brightfield and one for phase.
The scopes were well used and the phase condenser wrenches are somewhat rounded out.
BTW I enjoy electronics. I am wb8bdr. Also 40 years ago I published an IC circuit for electro fishing .
Gerard
-
DrPhoxinus
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:17 pm
- Location: Rochester Hills, MI
Re: Introduction
So where are you with the scopes?
What do you think of the 150?
I had a Reichert 150 and it was university surplus.
It only had achromatic objectives.
I bought an older AO 150 and with plan achros it is easy for a kid to use and take pictures.
Gerard
What do you think of the 150?
I had a Reichert 150 and it was university surplus.
It only had achromatic objectives.
I bought an older AO 150 and with plan achros it is easy for a kid to use and take pictures.
Gerard
Re: Introduction
Welcome. Those Reichert Microstar IV's (410) are good scopes.
There are differences in corrections between the heads of these scopes. Series 150 has the same corrections as Series 10; but the head won't interchange. Series 10 are a bit off from Series 410/420. You may find them close enough for photo documentation.
There are differences in corrections between the heads of these scopes. Series 150 has the same corrections as Series 10; but the head won't interchange. Series 10 are a bit off from Series 410/420. You may find them close enough for photo documentation.
Re: Introduction
The 150 I got is surplus also, with a U.S. government asset tag, not sure what they would have been using it for. It seems to work well but there is noticeable axial CA. Higher magnifications are worse, I guess due the higher NA? Hopefully that is just a symptom of the correction mismatch PeteM mentioned due to using a 400-series head. Going to keep my eye out for the correct head.
The microscope purchasing is getting a bit out of hand. In addition to the two original standard binocular 410s and the 150 with 400-series trinocular head, I also bought another 410 that came with teaching attachment, two more binocular heads, and a couple more objectives. Combining among those four purchases I now have two complete 410s with 4, 10, 40, 100X plan achro objectives plus trinocular head and teaching attachment, one left-over 410 stand without objectives missing a few parts, and the 150 with plan achro objectives but no matching head. Main thing I am still looking for is a 20X plan achro objective for the 400 series but they appear to be rare.
The 400-series trinocular head that was on the 150 has a misalignment between the two eyepiece paths. I decided not to return it because the camera port optics are clear and the cost of the whole 150 with head was less than I have seen any trinocular heads alone sell for. And if the alignment problem ends up being not easily repairable it looks like I can just swap the whole eyepiece prism assembly including rotary joints (not sure that part is called) from one of my good binocular heads onto the main housing (the part with dovetail and camera tube) of the trinocular head. I have not tried taking photos through the camera port yet but the recent thread Microstar IV Camera Setup which I saw after buying it has me worried that it may not be easy to get good results.
The microscope purchasing is getting a bit out of hand. In addition to the two original standard binocular 410s and the 150 with 400-series trinocular head, I also bought another 410 that came with teaching attachment, two more binocular heads, and a couple more objectives. Combining among those four purchases I now have two complete 410s with 4, 10, 40, 100X plan achro objectives plus trinocular head and teaching attachment, one left-over 410 stand without objectives missing a few parts, and the 150 with plan achro objectives but no matching head. Main thing I am still looking for is a 20X plan achro objective for the 400 series but they appear to be rare.
The 400-series trinocular head that was on the 150 has a misalignment between the two eyepiece paths. I decided not to return it because the camera port optics are clear and the cost of the whole 150 with head was less than I have seen any trinocular heads alone sell for. And if the alignment problem ends up being not easily repairable it looks like I can just swap the whole eyepiece prism assembly including rotary joints (not sure that part is called) from one of my good binocular heads onto the main housing (the part with dovetail and camera tube) of the trinocular head. I have not tried taking photos through the camera port yet but the recent thread Microstar IV Camera Setup which I saw after buying it has me worried that it may not be easy to get good results.