MicrobeHunter.com Microscopy Forum

Olympus BX51 with differential interference contrast (DIC)


OMAX 40X-2500X 18MP USB3 Plan Phase Contrast Trinocular LED with Turret Phase Disk


Leica

Great photos..

BillT

Comparisons are always valuable. It helps though, to in addition to having images of the same subject matter, to have the very same slide compared and imaged under as close to identical conditions as possible, at the same magnification and unretouched.
Without having as close as possible, equal comparators, the comparison isn't all that valuable.

I'm not sure what I am seeing. Did you take them all?

Hmm, as Bill says, the images are very nice, but have to agree with Apo' re comparison. For a 'technical' comparison (rather than a purely aesthetic one) as used perhaps when comparing systems.

The lighting (e.g. brightfield with Kohler conditions), imaging, magnification (of both eyepieces and objectives), technique (e.g. phase, brightfield etc) used all need to be the same. The variable will then be the system, as 'scope A will be imaging with it's system in the same way as 'scope's B, C etc. Of course the subject must be the same (the same actual slide) and the same region imaged - exactly, for a some-way valid comparison at the system level I think.

lperepol wrote:

Was the image under the title "OMAX 40X-2500X 18MP USB3 Plan Phase Contrast Trinocular LED with Turret Phase Disk"
recorded under brightfield, or under phase contrast ? was it post processed to remove halos ?

Hobbyst46 I am not sure if the picture taken with the Omax was taken in phase contrast. Looks like brightfield. I may have removed the halos with some photo processing. I posted it because it was a similar species. The tooth is not that clear. Below is a picture using the Omax with phase contrast. The texture of the cuticle is grainy. Not quite that good. I am wondering if ambient light might produce distortions. Old-time (1800s) nematologists drew pictures of nematodes with remarkable clarity. I am not able to get that type of clarity. The oldtimers had a few tricks. One mentioned using a low powered objective as a condenser for achromatic resolution.

The Leica scope used runs in the neighborhood of $60,000.00. The researcher does do a bit better than the picture posted. I used the picture because it was a similar genus of a nematode. The picture taken with the Olympus was taken by a hobbyist. Waiting for a month now on a quote from Olympus. Looks like they advertise the scopes without objectives. Like selling cars without motors and wheels -- will build you one!

Omax with phase contrast. Different genus of nematode.

Several of the more established microscope companies sold condensers that had an R.M.S. thread above the iris diaphragm. Available were, various condensers as well as a DF condenser to fit in there. One could also use, as you mention, a microscope objective as a condenser. A low power achromat would only be suitable as a condenser for a low power achromat objective. Ideally the same one. The system involved having duplicates of your objectives, to be used as condensers. It was particularly ideal for apochromats, because you could use a .95 apochromatic condenser for your .95 apochromatic objective and get ideal resolution.
If you are interested in such a possibility, the ones I know of are Spencer and Baker. I think Leitz had one too. They occasionally show up on ebay. Prices are usually low.