AO Cycloptic, inter model compatability

[dtsh]

I have an AO 59M which I picked up a few months back and I love it, but the base on the 59 series doesn't seem that great. With the other models, the base is a one-piece unit, but on the 59 series there is a metal post which joins the base to the focusing arm and at least in the case of mine, there is significant play. I can set it mostly level so this is more of a general annoyance and not much of a functional issue.

It looks to me like the focus rack is the same, but I don't know for certain. So my main question is, if I were to acquire a 56 series stand, I believe the 59 should swap over relatively easily, yes?

For reference here are some images of the 59 and a 56

AO59.png (262.55 KiB) Viewed 4395 times

AO56.png (215 KiB) Viewed 4395 times

While I (hopefully) have the attention of those more familiar with the AO Cycloptic few other questions....


The AO photo tube catalog #638...
Does this tend to perform reasonably well such as with a modern digital camera? Any caveats or things to lookout for? Imaging isn't a high priority for me, but it would be nice to not have to giveup an eyepiece.


The AO 2x swingout barlow catalog #254
Does this perform as well as the basic 2x barlow? I've not seen this anywhere but in the catalogs, so is this effectively unobtanium? If so I may look into machining one myself.

The AO Transilluminating substage is compatible with the 59 series base?


All that aside, I am enjoying it and thus far feel it does everything I need and then some.
My current point of study...

Aedes_vexans_s.jpg (64.31 KiB) Viewed 4395 times

[Scarodactyl]

I found the phototube kind of interesting. I think the corrections in it are actually different from the eyepiece tubes--B&L 15x UWF eyepieces seemed to produce an excellent image in the eyepieces but had more spherical distortion when placed in the trinoc tube. I also tried a generic NDPL 2x dslr adapter in it, which works fine but the image seemed kind of dim.
The 2x flip-out is rare but I have one. It seems to be the same as the screw-on type, just a lot more convenient of course.

It's kind of funny they even made the 59 stand, since that whole focus mechanism hookup is meant for a boom stand. I think I have done this focus mount swap before (putting three cycloptics into one supercycloptic) but I don't remember for sure, and if so exactly how I did it.

Honestly it would probably make more sense to buy a cycloptic with the base you want and sell this one off. With a reducing lens this would be a great scope for boom stand usage, circuitry or jeweling, etc.

[PeteM]

I've swapped racks before, so I think that is generally possible. However, if you tighten up all the various setscrews on the unit you have it should be possible to get it quite stable. Should you ever want a boom stand, you'll have the head for it. For now-and-then use a boom stand has a scope always ready to be swung into action; but not taking up bench space. It can also accommodate specimens of most any height, a light table if needed, an x-y measuring table, etc. A trinocular version of your Cycloptic (excellent scope) was on a boom for years at one of my benches -- and a slightly newer scope has replaced it since on the same boom stand.

Don't know about the 2x swing away, but sounds like Stephen has covered it. The trinocular attachments are a bit hard to find and still require switching from visual to photo mode. Just about as easy to get a cheap USB eyepiece camera and swap eyepieces for casual imaging. Or, a phone camera holder.

[apochronaut]

Microscope companies usually make their models based on customer demand. Sometimes they might perceive a demand and sometimes they make a model based on comments their customers bring forward, hoping that where there is smoke there is fire. Why wouldn't one want a convertible stereo microscope?
The Cycloptic 59 was clearly a model designed to kill 2 birds with one stone.. Put it in a stand , or lift it out onto the boom table. When you have bones scattered all over the place, yet occasionally need to button the scope down on details that might need a bit of work.... Kind of an archaeologists or anthropologists dream machine.
How about tire tread wear analysis? Sheet rolling? Plywood ? Veneer? asphalt? Glass? plastic film?
Boom stands are there to be used for a cursory look at various sectors of a broad sample but a rigid base or stage allows for more precise analysis of a selected section.

[dtsh]

The 2x flip-out is rare but I have one. It seems to be the same as the screw-on type, just a lot more convenient of course.

That's what I suspected. I'll probably just machine a new swing out holder and cannibalize my regualr 2x barlow for the lens.

It's kind of funny they even made the 59 stand, since that whole focus mechanism hookup is meant for a boom stand. I think I have done this focus mount swap before (putting three cycloptics into one supercycloptic) but I don't remember for sure, and if so exactly how I did it.

Honestly it would probably make more sense to buy a cycloptic with the base you want and sell this one off. With a reducing lens this would be a great scope for boom stand usage, circuitry or jeweling, etc.

The easy adaptation to a boom stand was part of what I liked about it, but sometimes it's hard to see the downside of a design until you have it in hand (and as I mention next, some complaints are merely misunderstandings).

I've swapped racks before, so I think that is generally possible. However, if you tighten up all the various setscrews on the unit you have it should be possible to get it quite stable.

And my biggest complaint about this scope is solved by apparently paying better attention to detail, thank you kindly. I had missed the smaller setscrew in the center somehow. I swear I'd fiddled with them all, perhaps I hadn't loosened the other two before that one previously, but now I have it rigid and the previous loose play is gone. Now if I can get all the lenses parfocal.... (I don't even know if they can be made so)

Should you ever want a boom stand, you'll have the head for it. For now-and-then use a boom stand has a scope always ready to be swung into action; but not taking up bench space. It can also accommodate specimens of most any height, a light table if needed, an x-y measuring table, etc. A trinocular version of your Cycloptic (excellent scope) was on a boom for years at one of my benches -- and a slightly newer scope has replaced it since on the same boom stand.

That was one of my motivations for the 59M.

The trinocular attachments are a bit hard to find and still require switching from visual to photo mode. Just about as easy to get a cheap USB eyepiece camera and swap eyepieces for casual imaging. Or, a phone camera holder.

Typically when I have the scopes out I'm using either my phone or the raspberry pi v2 8MP camera which I had made an adapter for. I've been playing around with afocal and whatever one calls the image projected directly on the sensor. I have the new HQ 12MP camera as well and am playing around at how well it works. It has a C/CS mount, for which I have a telephoto lens I robbed from an old Bosch video camera mounted.

Microscope companies usually make their models based on customer demand. Sometimes they might perceive a demand and sometimes they make a model based on comments their customers bring forward, hoping that where there is smoke there is fire. Why wouldn't one want a convertible stereo microscope?
The Cycloptic 59 was clearly a model designed to kill 2 birds with one stone.. Put it in a stand , or lift it out onto the boom table. When you have bones scattered all over the place, yet occasionally need to button the scope down on details that might need a bit of work.... Kind of an archaeologists or anthropologists dream machine.
How about tire tread wear analysis? Sheet rolling? Plywood ? Veneer? asphalt? Glass? plastic film?
Boom stands are there to be used for a cursory look at various sectors of a broad sample but a rigid base or stage allows for more precise analysis of a selected section.

I am certain it will see a lot of use. While I got it for a specific purpose, I have little doubt it will find great utility in many of my other activities.

[dtsh]

...I think the corrections in it are actually different from the eyepiece tubes--B&L 15x UWF eyepieces seemed to produce an excellent image in the eyepieces but had more spherical distortion when placed in the trinoc tube...

Also are the B&L 15x U.W.F. the same thing as the Reichert 31-15-75 15x eyepieces?
I've heard mention of them, but I am uncertain exactly what I am looking for.

[Scarodactyl]

Yes, that was after the big Cambridge merger and some of them were branded Reichert for some (dumb corporate) reason. There are a few with Leica branding, and some with Reichert, some B&L and one other brand I don't remember that B&L did OEM production for.
I have a few pairs if you need one but they're not super cheap unfortunately (though really they're only expensive relative to normal 23mm AO/B&L eyepieces, they're a lot less than higher end 30mm eyepieces like Nikon or Olympus UWF usually go for)

[apochronaut]

keep an eye out for a B & L Z(oom) 240 , in the case. It's a kind of comparison microscope but based on a Stereozoom body. Sometimes you can get lucky and all the parts or most are still in their little compartments. The 15X U.W.F. were standard equipment for that kit, which was widely used for assembling 3-D aerial photographs. That's actually how they caught Bill Clinton. Spied on him through the skylight from a U2.

The other company that brands those is FJW Industries, a photonics company. They may have contracted the design to B & L.

The actual original camera used for the aerial photos used lenses made by Baker. Since the military has declassified a pile of older aerial photographs, they are now being used by aerial archaeologists since the resolution is .75m at 65,000 feet. They are valuable to use as baselines for wetland reconstructions etc. or as support data for delineating borders of buried features or even in many cases discovering them altogether. Those B & L systems may have a new life and a new group of enthusiasts.

[geo_man]

Here is a fancier? model 500. Looks pretty interesting; and it has the 15X UWF eyepieces too!

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Bausch-and-Lom ... 2989189817

[apochronaut]

The eyepieces are worth the cost of admission. The FJWs were $2000.00 in their day. Those are not too common.

[Scarodactyl]

I would love to get one of those tp see how well it functions as a macroscope (you can apparently view just one side at a time if you want). But they're not small, and it looks like they might be motorized which could make them more complicated to get up and running. It could be a really fun project for someone.

[dtsh]

As followup, I have since tested the following two items and offer my observations on them.

The A.O. 56B Transilluminating base.....it does indeed fit on a model 59 cycloptic. I don't know how many are out there still using their Cycloptics, but there it is.

The Bausch and Lomb 15 U.W.F eyepieces....the FOV is larger and the view is nice. My only complaint is that they are more unforgiving of head position and because of that, I find myself using he AO 147 15x eyepieces far more often. I need to try them out on some of my other scopes and see if they perform well there.

The many years that have gone by have allowed crud to accumulate on the lenses. Initially I had given them a cleaning with a cotton swab passed in through the unoccupied slot, but found it difficult to get a good cleaning, especially on the smaller lenses. As a result, I took the changer back out this weekend and braved a more invasive attempt to cean the lenses. On the M changer, there are two lens groups which are held in place by two small screws. I carefully removed those two screws, removed the assembly, and cleaned the lenses more thouroughly.

Reassembly was the reverse, but the result was misaligned optics. I loosened the screws for a light fit and carefully nudged the mount for one of the lens groups in tiny steps, rechecking the alignment frequently by reinserting the changer and checking the view until both sets of lens groups were once again in alignment. I would not recommend this for anyone not willing to accept total loss or at least not willing to accept significant tedious testing, adjustment, and retesting.

In general I'm still very satisfied with my Cycloptic and have been using it frequently.

I have an extra head in which one of the prisms was reglued misaligned. I hope to get around to fixing that at some point as well.