Polylite SC endusers(?)

[JWW]

I was wondering if there are any Polylite SC users here. I'm looking for a manual specific to this microscope. I'm also curious about the port on the top, presumably the camera port. There is a lens embedded in the top of my SC and a tube for a camera. I would love to hook up a quality mirrorless camera to the SC to do some image stacking5. I'm also curious about the cube mechanism. It's not like the MET that I have. It's held in place with screws. As always, looking for specific information.

Regards,
-JW:

[Scarodactyl]

Very nice unit!
Unfortunately I don't think any specific information is available. People have looked for the manual before and thus far had no luck. It is typical for these highly specialized units that were sold to industry rather than academic labs.
The photo tube likely has correcting optics since the reichert systems have eyepiece corrections. You'd have to figure out how big the resultsnt image circle is, maybe big enough for m4/3 if you are really lucky.
I am very curious how the epi DIC performs on these. I'd love to see pictures.

[JWW]

The EPI DIC is absolutely excellent and the reason I'd like to figure out a camera connection. I also mistyped the scope is a Polylite SC.

[JWW]

A couple of super old cell phone shot through the eyepiece of the Polylite.

-JW:

[PeteM]

Dang, JWW. Now I have Polylite envy . . .

[apochronaut]

Does the Polylite have 23mm eyepieces or maybe I am thinking the Polycon. edit. I can see now in the picture you posted that the eyepiece is the same as for the Polyvar. The Polycon had eyepieces that were corrected like those on the Microstar/ Diastar.

The trinocular setup on those may bypass the visual telan lens, do there has to be both a telan lens, then a photo relay lens. The photo extension you have is probably for a specific camera format. With the old Microstar/Diastar emulsion film photostar system, the shutter assembly housed the photo relay lens, then there were several optional extension tubes depending on the film format. That may have the photo lens in the extension tube instead but based on the length of that tube, it looks like it might be large format ? The reference length is 182mm, so you could measure from the telan lens to get the optical path approximation for where you want the photo relay lens to sit for a 24mm field/sensor size.

[Scarodactyl]

A couple of super old cell phone shot through the eyepiece of the Polylite.

-JW:

Thanks, this looks like a very good system!

[JWW]

Images are even better through the bino(s). Eyepieces are 30mm. A couple more pics with the MET.

-JW:

[apochronaut]

The Polylite, Polyvar and Polycon bridged the gap across the AO/Reichert/Leica brand transformation. You can find AO Polycons and Leica Polylites, which were white : maybe even Leica Polyvars. The models also bridged the gap across several image capture formats. Polaroid was common for them and a framing reticle eyepiece was kept in an eyepiece holder. Later ones had a video camera which coupled directly to a PC.
Based on the rather large thread on that photo adapter and the length , that might as earlier suggested be a large format adapter, possibly for Polaroid. I recall seeing a Leica Polylite , video equipped and the camera coupling was right tight to the top of the microscope trinocular with no extension and that would have most likely used a C-mount.
The Microstar/Diastar trinocular head is a diminutive version of the Poly head and likewise bridged the gap across image capture formats. The objectives are basically the same with a slight residual peripheral ca difference but with the same reference length going back to the original AO infinity system of the early 60's. You could install the earliest AO 34mm parfocal epi objective ever made in your Polylite or Polyvar with a parfocal adapter, maybe an eyepiece swap too and it would work perfectly. Mostly, I use Polylite, Polyvar and older Univar objectives on my Diastar with a residual ca adjustment done through the eyepieces. Interestingly, I can use Nikon objectives interchangeably with the same eyepieces, so it seems that the 1972 Univar through later 80's Poly objectives are corrected equivalently to Nikon. I can't use Olympus objectives without putting up with some peripheral ca.
I had to fiddle with the emulsion film photo system on my Diastar too in order to get it to work with my Sony APS-C mirrorless. Perhaps you can extrapolate from what I did. The nice thing about the Sony mirrorless is that it is very close in dimension to the visual field, so getting it to capture the maximum possible field using an eyepiece as a relay optic is pretty easy. You just need the right eyepiece. Ultimately , what I did was gut the shutter and lens from the Photostar housing and just use the physical couplings plus some off the shelf adapter rings to the Sony bayonet. I had to measure the optical tube to get a rough idea where the eyepiece/projection lens should be, added in a collar to hold the eyepiece as well as an M42 helical focuser to fine trim the camera body location. It helps with cropping the aspect ratio changes.

The first thing I would do in your case would be to rig up a cardboard or plumbing tube set up and just see what that existing lens is doing and take it from there. Having the mirrorless body to experiment with would likely be a first necessity. Your existing lens should duplicate any eyepiece corrections but since you don't know for sure what the format was, you may or may not be able to use it. I could have used the lens in my Photostar head but the coating was bad, so I replaced it with an eyepiece.

[JWW]

Most of the microscopy I've done with my other microscopes has been without a relay lens. Just a direct exposure to the sensor. That being the case, I'm not well versed in relay len setups and configurations. I've tried many combinations on the SC a year or so ago without success. That being the case, I gave up back then. Check out the photos below. My cell phone wasn't parallel with the eyepiece but the image scale is the important part. Check out the different magnifications through the eyepiece and the tube mounted on the top with a cheap Hayear digital c-Mount camera shown on the small monitor.

[apochronaut]

So, I think what is happening there is that the extension tube is most likely as I suggested for a 4X5 Polaroid back, so your little postage stamp sized sensor is only collecting a fragment of the image. If you went to an APS-C mirrorless back like the Sony, which has a sensor size almost the same diameter as your 10X WPK eyepiece field and bought another eyepiece as a photo relay lens seated about 180mm from the telan lens, then you could get a full field diameter capture, placing the camera sensor at an appropriate distance. You would have to test that distance with a tube mock up.
I am using objectives made for exactly the same optical system, just for a different Polyvar or Univar transmitted light RMS nosepiece but because the physical size of my photo tube is smaller and my f.o.v. based on 23.2mm eyepieces I use an AO cat. # 145 eyepiece with the Reichert Austria and Nikon objectives and get a 20mm field transferred fully to the 23.5mm Sony sensor. I can check and see if the #145 eyepiece and WPK 10X are equivalent, since I have a pair. I was going to modify the Diastar to take them in an attempt to increase my f.o.v. to 24mm but haven't done too much with that. If they are, you could use a #145 eyepiece and make up a smaller tube. That huge tube is to accomodate the size of that big piece of Polaroid film. Ultimately, using a 23mm eyepiece would be the same thing but a little less expensive since people seem to want a bundle for those big Reichert eyepieces. You can nab a #145 for less than 40.00.
The first thing is to find out where the telan lens is located. I assume that is it, sticking out the top of the trinocular port, although the 400 series ( Microstar IV "410" and Diastar "420" ) has an optical window sticking out the top and the same telan lens is used for the eyepieces and the trinocular at the bottom of the head, unlikely to be the case with your microscope head, I would think.

[JWW]

I'm not so savvy in figuring this out. I messed with it a couple of years ago, but never got the results needed. I tried a few different configurations and even 3D-printed a few things. Since I didn't know anyone that could help, I gave up. The attached photos are old, and I was just trying to document what I was trying to do at that point in time. I am open to suggestions.

Edited:

BTW. are you suggesting I remove the lens in the top of the Polylite? I have tried that too.

-JW:

[Scarodactyl]

A wild eyepiece isn't going to do what you need it to corrections-wise, they are basically neutral (and their field coverage is awful, 21mm fn). But that general setup with a widefield Riechert eyepiece and a shorter focal length lens subbed in for the 0.32x lens (maybe 40mm) could give quite good results.

[JWW]

If would you mind giving exact examples?

[apochronaut]

So, " the lens that came with the Polylite SC " might be the telan lens, unless you can find it elsewhere back in the bowels. There will be an equivalent one 182mm back from the edge of the eyepiece tubes. It is just there to convert the infinity beam to a convergent beam. From that lens surface on top to the shoulder of your photo eyepiece, you measure 182 mm. There is your parfocal point. That's where you place your photo relay lens which can be a WPK 10X or other 10X eyepiece that is optically compatible with the system. I haven't checked on how close the #145 is to your needs yet but all those other optics; the Wild, the periplan stuff, the Reichert PK, the NFK are all way out of line. You need a 10X because you are projecting to a sensor that is pretty close to the same size as your projected field of view, if you want to use a Sony APS-C mirrorless, which I would recommend. The articulating full width screen with focus magnifier can be angled down to your viewing position at the microscope or you can put it on a larger remote screen too. If you want to use that video camera, you need a serious reduction lens but then it has to be compatible too unless you are comfortable with cropping. I have no recommendations for that. I have been using a full field capture which I like but occasionally crop for details but the full field capture on my Diastar using fully compatible objectives with your system is fully corrected and flat to the field stop. You might have difficulty finding a reduction lens that meets that criteria for the small sensor camera unless you can find the original one made for the instrument. One was available for sure.
I'm just coming from the experience of having designed and used for about 5 years, a full field highly corrected photo system based on the exact optical system you have.

[PeteM]

JWW - I'm not sure how much, if anything, is common in photo relay lenses between Leica DM systems and your Polylite. That said, the Leica's generally use an 8x (or sometimes 10x) photo relay lens (with the proper corrections) combined with a .32x lens further up in the optical train near a full frame 35mm camera fitting. This gives (with the 8x relay lens) about the same 2.5x magnification you'd expect in Nikon or Olympus infinity full-frame relay lenses.

It's possible (?) the Polylite had something similar for 35mm film cameras - especially if you come across an eyepiece-like 8x or 10x relay lens in a lot of Polyvar, Metavar, Polylite etc. gear.

[apochronaut]

That .32X fractional lens is to compensate for the tube length and reduce unwanted alterations in W.D. It isn't needed if the tube length is kept to something close to the reference length. You have your SLR up pretty high in that picture. I would be inclined to get it down much lower. Your stated intent was to use a mirrorless which are much lighter with less vibration but just off hand, although I would have to remeasure to be sure, my APS-C 23.5mm sensor is about 250mm from the telan lens and the 10X photo relay lens as mentioned, rests at the 182mm reference length. No reduction optic required. A full frame camera would sit higher. I did help someone set up a similar epi full frame system based on the same reference length years ago by email, however tested at my end too, and he had to get his full frame sensor up pretty high. One of the complications was a disproportionate change in the W.D. of the lowest magnification objectives, which he worked around apparently. His goal was to cover a full frame sensor with a 20mm field for photographing crystals at low magnifications. Some of his photos were marvelous

[JWW]

Thanks for the help. I will try again. I'll be using a Canon 50D for the time being.

-JW:

[JWW]

I thought I would post a few more photos of the tuber and lens that came with the Polylite SC. I noticed that there were a series of tapped holes on the tube. The inner bore appears to be 32mm, but I didn't measure it with calipers. The top of a WPK eyepiece won't fit in it, but the barrel will. Not that it's relevant. There is also a filter/lens that screws on the top of the tube that I'm holding between my fingers. When I removed the lens in the top of the SC, I didn't see anything but a prism and a cube that's built into the scope which is a different configuration than a MET. The lens is a hefty pup.

[apochronaut]

What happens if you put your Hayear camera very close to that exit lens? I have seen an old illustration or photo of a Polycon or Polylite with a C-mount vidro camera sitting right on top of the microscope. It probably had a dovetail to C-Mount adapter right there.

I would think that exit lens has to be your telan lens, simply due to the height of the microscope. It would make sense that there were two, rather than a shared one.
Looking down to that prism. Is it a beamsplitter to the eyepieces? Does it move?
edit.
I forgot about those holes in the photo tube. Are they diy or factory?

[JWW]

Ok, I think I have it figured out. I shouldn't have given up a year or so ago. Thanks for the help and motivation. <g> I need to redesign a few things and 3D-print them. Naturally I'll let you know the results once finished.

-JW:

[apochronaut]

keep us posted.

[Scarodactyl]

That .32X fractional lens is to compensate for the tube length and reduce unwanted alterations in W.D. It isn't needed if the tube length is kept to something close to the reference length.

My understanding is thst, as designed, a viewing or afocal photo eyepiece projects an image at infinity focus. The 0.32x is focused to infinity to take that image and refocus it onto the sensor, not to compensate for tube length.

Direct projection would probably give reasonably good results with a smaller sensor since the eyepieces aren't applying mondo corrections, but I have seen a complaint from a user of one of these late poly- systems on facebook that direct projection onto aps-c had bad corners/edges.

[apochronaut]

It is compensating for tube length by focusing the image at a specific point in the tube. I don't use a 1/3X lens isn't in this system with an APS-C sensor. JW will obviously have to fiddle with the C-mount camera and I think get it closer. I don't know about direct projection with AO/ Reichert optics. It's likely a field curvature thing. AO/Reichert used an infinity system and telan lens from way back, before the Japanese knew a telan lens existed. They have probably kept the same complete ca and sa correction protocol right into the Leica era but use the telan lens for field curvature control.When AO/Reichert started producing colour corrected objectives in the 60's, the glass wasn't probably available to correct for everything, so they had a working first class system which they kept going for over 30 years. There are reasons that Leica has kept it similar.
I haven't critically analyzed the performance of the so called CF or CFI Nikon objectives in terms of field flatness but probably the Nikon objectives are a bit compromised in the Reichert system, however they work well enough to not be annoying. I use the same 10X visual eyepiece to an APS-C sensor with Nikon and NIS objectives I occasionally use.

[JWW]

This is just a preliminary update. I have been doing a lot of 3D printing and numerous revisions on multiple microscope projects, not just the Polylite scenario. I'm getting burnt out. Anyway, it seems I have succeeded with the camera setup to a certain degree, so that's great news. If you notice some distortion through the WP 10x24 eyepiece photo it must be the cell phone. Excuse the extremely dirty wafer and OOF images. My 3D printed setup is complete but not secured on the top of the scope. The cell phone shot is through a WP 10x24 eyepiece. Camera is a Canon 50D.

[apochronaut]

Looks positive. Is your WPK 10X sitting on 182mm above that top lens? On my setup, the APS-C sensor then sits roughly 65mm above the 10X eyepiece to get the 20mm field stop just outside the sensor corners. You are projecting a bigger field with a 24mm eyepiece. Your camera might need to be closer. Ultimately the 6.3X looks like a better option but still the camera might need to be closer to the eyepiece.

At one point I put an APS-C body on a 200mm prime lens focused at infinity mounted directly on the dovetail, so bypassing the telan lens. It captured about the equivalent of a 30mm field to the sensor, so effectively reducing the magnification by about 1/3. There was some ca in the peripheral 10% or so.

[apochronaut]

If you are searching for documentation for the Polylite 88, the Leica version became the Leica INM 20, 100, 200, so a search of that might bring some newer stuff. The numbers relate primarily to the stage : wafer chuck size. 88 meaning 8"x 8", 100mm, 200mm.

[JWW]

Looks positive. Is your WPK 10X sitting on182mm above that top lens?

It depends on where you want me to measure from. Right now it's 153mm from the top physical glass lens to the top of the WPK 6.3 eyepiece. So I'm 29mm sort of that. I do have some vertical adjustment in the Wild 40/14 adapter, but not enough. I can easily print a spacer to raise my adapter enough to make the 182mm measurement. Is that necessary? I don't mind printing a spacer at all. Maybe this will explain things better as to what I have done to date, let me know please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvW81AEAFWA

-JW:

[JWW]

If you are searching for documentation for the Polylite 88 ...

Thanks

[apochronaut]

Looks positive. Is your WPK 10X sitting on182mm above that top lens?

It depends on where you want me to measure from. Right now it's 153mm from the top physical glass lens to the top of the WPK 6.3 eyepiece. So I'm 29mm sort of that. I do have some vertical adjustment in the Wild 40/14 adapter, but not enough. I can easily print a spacer to raise my adapter enough to make the 182mm measurement. Is that necessary? I don't mind printing a spacer at all. Maybe this will explain things better as to what I have done to date, let me know please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvW81AEAFWA

-JW:

I had a look and it all looks pretty decent except the measurements but some of that depends on what you are expecting. As it turns out, I just happen to have a factory photo tube for one of my systems that is 30mm shorter than the standard parfocal version. What it is for, I have no idea but it arrived on the same stand as the one that uses the 30mm longer tube. This system also has a 182mm tube length or more likely 7 3/16" but it is a 160mm finite system using a negative apochromatic tube lens that lengthens the system somewhat . It is the ancestor to your system. The upshot of this is that the percentage change in the focal length of my short photo tube is basically the same as your percentage change with a 29mm shorter tube.
So trying out the shorter tube with the same eyepiece as the visual tube uses and I also normally use with the parfocal tube, the shorter tube requires a more distant focus by 90 microns, basically increasing the w.d. of the objective without correcting for that in the second lens group of the objective. Thus, I see an increase in spherical aberration and peripheral ca using a 20X .50 test objective. Lower N.A. objectives would be less affected and higher N.A. objectives more affected.
I will try to set up a version of this test on an infinity corrected microscope with the same eyepiece as yours when I get a 1/2 hour or so later but I am pretty sure the results will be the same.
If you can set the shoulder of your eyepiece at 7 1/8" ( not the surface of the top lens) you would get parfocalization and then be able to adjust your sensor distance for a preferred field. Installing a helical focuser on the camera side is a useful idea to refine focus but also to allow for some framing and cropping options.