Motic SMZ143 with Motic 2x SLR Projection Lens

[sreynolds]

My 'plumbing parts' adapter works better than any of the Motic adapters for SMZ-143, but still not what I would like. However, it will do for my purposes until I am ready to spend more money on the whole setup. Here is how I made it: I used a tripod to hold the camera body without lens over the empty trinoc port -

CAM20095b.JPG (135.84 KiB) Viewed 5871 times

I was able to focus the image and then measure the distance from the top of the trinoc port to the flange on the camera body. The trinoc port is an odd size - 26mm ID

CAM20099a.JPG (101.58 KiB) Viewed 5871 times

and I could find no adapters short of using some kind of sleeve bearing or buying a lathe - so I went to the hardware store and perused the plumbing parts. The outside of the trinoc port is 1.33"; it happens that the inside diameter of 1" PVC waste pipe couplings is 1.30", so I bought a male and a female coupling, and planned to ream out that extra 0.030" somehow. I wanted the couplings so I could focus for parfocality and prove my estimated measurement for the distance between port and camera flange was correct. I decided to use the T2 coupling for Canon EF-M instead of the C-mount I originally planned on - the T2 is bigger, and coincidently, the ID of the threads on a T2 is a little smaller than the OD of the 1" PVC fittings. I planned to work that coupling into the T2 somehow. This is what the coupling looks like all together -

CAM20098a.JPG (74.4 KiB) Viewed 5871 times

I did my 'machine' work on a router table, using a couple fences and careful movement to increase the size of the bottom part to fit over the trinoc port, and reduce the top part so I could sort of jam-thread it into the T2 coupling. Now that it is set up

CAM20096a.JPG (130.42 KiB) Viewed 5871 times

I was able to verify the focus, and if I make another one, it won't need the adjustable feature as long as I replicate the length of the current one. Given the limitations of my materials and tooling, I'm satisfied with it. This is a composite side-by-side showing the images I am now getting vs. with the Motic 2x projection lens

side-by-side PC board.jpg (135.05 KiB) Viewed 5871 times

Although the focus is just slightly better, the field of view for APS-C is much better, at least for my use. I still have tech questions in at Motic, but so far have not gotten a better solution.

[MichaelG.]

My 'plumbing parts' adapter works better than any of the Motic adapters for SMZ-143, but still not what I would like. However, it will do for my purposes until I am ready to spend more money on the whole setup. Here is how I made it: […]
This is what the coupling looks like all together - CAM20098a.JPG

.

Great progress ... Methinks that Motic has some questions to answer !!

Not sure if it would help you, but I should just mention: if you release the three little grub-screws in the T2 completely; the threaded insert drops out, leaving a smooth bore. [might be simpler to adapt]

MichaelG.

[Scarodactyl]

I'm really glad this is working well for you. Probably close to peak performance for this scope.

[sreynolds]

I'm still trying to improve image quality. Is it possible that using good optics will improve a directly-projected image? I assume it is, but I don't understand why. Am I correct that the location where I have the sensor plane of my camera with the direct-image approach is the 'intermediate image plane'? I have tried placing the three different eyepieces I do have into my open trinoc port, and can get all of them to focus, apparently well - I have 2 Leitz eyepieces, and one Motic. They all sit at different heights relative to my assumed intermediate image plane, but the plane falls within the eyepiece body. Can I therefore assume that a photo eyepiece can be made to focus if I put it into that intermediate image plane - and finally, can somebody recommend a specific fairly low-cost photo-eyepiece to try this with? Do I still need a photo tube? Thanks.

[mrsonchus]

Hi, I recently acquired a Nikon SMZ800 my first job was also to attempt to attach a camera....

The top of the SMZ's photoport is the target connector!


Two options were possible for me, a USB camera 'ToupCam' type with (actually pretty awful) focusable reduction optics, see 1st image below,

The white-part is a piece of plastic waste-pipe cut for parfocality and fitted inside the photoport for a 'quick try' which actually works pretty much perfectly...

Similarly I used the plastic-pipe with a Canon EOS1200D (tethered via Canon 'utility v2' software) and again rather poor but inexpensive fixed intermediate optics,


Here the same camera with the adapter plugged into an old Leitz adapter I had in a drawaer from my Orthoplan-days, also worked well and parfocal with a little adjustment via the 3 grub-screws in the collar of the SMZ800's photoport top....



Parts, including the adapter from 30mm to 23mm often seen for fitting an eyepiece camera into a 30mm eyepiece tube - simply to reduce the diameter of the plastic-tube to take the 23mm eyepiece optics for a snug fit,


Basically it seems to me that a reduction optic is best, and the distance for parfocality is easily found - then it's a matter of fine-tuning I think....

[hans]

I'm still trying to improve image quality.

Might help to post some full-resolution crops showing current results. The side-by-side screenshot is pretty low resolution, hard to tell what might be going on.

Is it possible that using good optics will improve a directly-projected image? I assume it is, but I don't understand why.

Unlikely, unless specifically designed for the microscope (but you already tried the official Motic projection lens with poor results) or you experiment a lot and happen to find something that usefully cancels some aberrations present in the intermediate image.

Am I correct that the location where I have the sensor plane of my camera with the direct-image approach is the 'intermediate image plane'?

Correct, assuming the camera and normal eyepieces are both focusing at the same distance. (Or in other words, if you focus while looking through eyepieces then leave the focus fixed, the correct intermediate image plane for the camera port is where you need to put the camera sensor to get an in-focus image.)

I have tried placing the three different eyepieces I do have into my open trinoc port, and can get all of them to focus, apparently well - I have 2 Leitz eyepieces, and one Motic. They all sit at different heights relative to my assumed intermediate image plane, but the plane falls within the eyepiece body.

From what I understand the exact position of the intermediate image relative to the eyepiece varies slightly among manufacturers but most have it approximately 10 mm below the lip on the eyepiece where it seats against the top of the eye tube.

Can I therefore assume that a photo eyepiece can be made to focus if I put it into that intermediate image plane - and finally, can somebody recommend a specific fairly low-cost photo-eyepiece to try this with?

The Motic "projection lens" and a "photo eyepiece" are essentially the same thing. The Motic lens apparently had issues but I don't think there is any reason to expect a different photo eyepiece to give better results than direct projection unless you have identified some specific aberration in the image that the photo eyepiece will correct.

Earlier you posted an example taken through a binocular eyepiece with the M200 kit lens with severe vignetting. Is that the best possible anywhere in the zoom range with aperture manually set full open? Better photos through the normal eyepiece might be useful to compare against the camera port results.

[sreynolds]

Hans - Thank you for the detailed reply. I am in the process of making up what should be a decent afocal camera setup to test the image quality achieved through the eyepieces. My Canon EOS M200 kit lens (15mm-45mm zoom) is not well suited to afocal use; I've ordered an Olympus OM 50mm 1.8 pancake lens with OM-EF-M adapter which should work. I will test and report back when I have results. I am also making up an adapter tube for the trinocular port so I can put an eyepiece on it for testing whether there is any difference in afocal shots between the viewing tube, and the trinoc tube.

[sreynolds]

The afocal setup I want to try includes a Leitz eyepiece that has 28mm threads for the eyecup, which can be attached directly to the filter threads of a camera lens by a filter step-down adapter ring. The eyepiece will project directly into the camera lens where the human eye would normally be. I am waiting for the step down adapter to arrive, but I received the eyepiece - a Leitz Periplan 10x18 high-eyepoint. I have made up a new adapter tube out of plumbing parts to accept the eyepiece and now need to cut it to the correct length.

CAM20113a.JPG (118.02 KiB) Viewed 5310 times

I have an old Leitz microscope like this one, with a 170mm tube length and 2 eyepieces - a 6x and a 10x

Leitz scope.jpg (21.29 KiB) Viewed 5310 times

The Periplan has the eyepiece diaphragm 10mm below the shoulder, while the old eyepieces are 18mm below the shoulder, at least that is what I gather from

Hi Bryan,

the "B" designation was dropped at some point when bino tubes increased in market share.
When looking for new components it is important to know that Leitz made acouple od system changes:

- 1. 37mm objectives, 170mm tube, eyepiece pickup point 18mm inside the tube
- 2. 45mm objectives, 170mm tube, eyepiece pickup point 18mm inside the tube, eyepiece name e.g. Periplan 10x
- 3. 45mm objectives, 160mm tube, eyepiece pickup point 10mm inside the tube, eyepiece name e.g. Periplan 10x18
- 4. infinity optics

The three eyepiece I now have are these

CAM20111a.JPG (81.48 KiB) Viewed 5310 times

When I hold the eyepieces over the trinoc port and bring them into focus, the shoulder of the Periplan is about 8mm lower in the tube than the other two, which makes sense with what MicroBob says. The confusing part is that all three eyepieces are in focus at the same focus adjustment on the old Leitz microscope without adjusting the tube length or seat of the Periplan. Can anybody explain that please?

[hans]

The three eyepiece I now have are these...

I think I remember reading recently that Leitz eyepieces like that are compensating and so probably not a good match for a stereo microscope? Can't hurt to experiment but may be less confusing to start with one of the original eyepieces so you can compare image quality binocular vs. camera port with as few other variables as possible?

The confusing part is that all three eyepieces are in focus at the same focus adjustment on the old Leitz microscope without adjusting the tube length or seat of the Periplan. Can anybody explain that please?

Maybe the difference is just not as noticeable on the Leitz due to greater depth of focus? From https://www.microscopyu.com/microscopy- ... h-of-focus:

Depth of focus varies with numerical aperture and magnification of the objective, and under some conditions, high numerical aperture systems (usually with higher magnification power) have deeper focus depths than do those systems of low numerical aperture, even though the depth of field is less (see Table 1). This is particularly important in photomicrography because the film emulsion or digital camera sensor must be exposed or illuminated in a plane that falls within the focus region. Small errors made to focus at high magnification are not as critical as those made with very low magnification objectives.

[Scarodactyl]

Leitz eyepieces are definitely correcting (meaning they have precise chromatic and spherical errors put in which cancel ones built into the objectiv, and likely will not give you great results. The scope's own eyepieces should be a better match but they'll be 30mm and most older photo tubes accept 23mm eyepieces. If you need a 23mm non-compensating eyepiece for afocal I'd recommend this one: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=10094
Not saying you shouldn't try it, just go in understanding that the edges of the image will show aberrations.

[sreynolds]

Hans - I think you are right about dept of focus - I can move the eyepiece out quite a lot out on the Leitz scope without vastly changing the focus. I will proceed to cut the eyepiece tube for the Motic assuming the Periplan will sit 8mm lower than the old Leitz eyepieces. So far my testing with the Periplan shows no annoying aberrations, just more light through the eyepiece. If my adapter solution works, I will have a one-piece camera/eyepiece setup that is interchangeable between my two microscopes. Still waiting for parts to come. Thank you.

Maybe the difference is just not as noticeable on the Leitz due to greater depth of focus?

[sreynolds]

I received the parts I needed to complete the afocal setup I wanted to try. The bottom line is that the direct image approach with focus stacking gives the best results on the Motic SMZ-143 of the now 5 different approaches I have tried. My afocal setup works well on my Leitz monocular scope, but not on the Motic.

The direct image approach uses a homemade adapter on the trinocular port which is just a spacer to get the camera sensor out to the location of the intermediate image. It is made out of a 1" PVC pipe-to-female-thread coupling inserted into a T-mount adapter for my Canon M200 (APS-C) mirrorless camera. It slides over the collar of the trinoc port and measures 2-5/8" from the bottom to the camera flange.

CAM20110 a.JPG (114.97 KiB) Viewed 4818 times

This is an example showing a stacked image (Zerene Stacker) taken with the direct image adapter - lady bug head -

Motic direct projection stacked a.jpg (126.25 KiB) Viewed 4818 times

The afocal approach I tried uses a Leitz Periplan 10x18 #519749 eyepiece attached to a camera lens via a step-down filter ring. I chose that eyepiece because I did not know how to solve the afocal connection problem any other way. It is a correcting eyepiece, and the Motic does not use correcting eyepieces, so that is part of the problem when using it on the Motic. It works pretty well on my old Leitz monocular scope, however. Here are the parts - eyepiece, step-down ring, lens, lens adapter, camera

CAM20144 a.JPG (85.94 KiB) Viewed 4818 times

I tried 3 different lenses - a 28mm Vivitar, a 50mm Olympus OM and the Canon 15-45 kit lens. The 28 and 50mm are manual lenses with Olympus OM mounts, and needed the OM-to EF-M mount adapter. I got the best images from the 28mm Vivitar and the Canon kit lens. This is a comparison of the Motic and the Leitz with the 28mm Vivitar

28mm Vivitar a.jpg (74.67 KiB) Viewed 4818 times

This is the Canon kit lens on the Leitz at 15 and 45mm

Canon 15-45mm kit lens a.jpg (78.77 KiB) Viewed 4818 times

The 50mm Olympus lens gave too much cropping. I was surprised with how well the kit lens worked.

It is possible that I could get better afocal images from the Motic with a better suited eyepiece and a different camera connection. For the time being I am satisfied that I know what I can expect from the setup I have for both scopes.

[Scarodactyl]

You'd get better afocal results with a wider field noncompensating eyepiece. A pancake lens is usually recommended on the camera end, 40mm for an 18mm field number eyepiece on aps-c, shorter focal length for a wider fn eyepiece. There is a good Chinese 10x/22mm eyepiece that will fit the same 23mm slot as the leitz which is pretty darn good.
That said I douvt afocal will improve the image over direct projection.

[sreynolds]

Final comment, I hope - I've now tried macrophotography alternatives to the SMZ-143 and they offer a promise of better images than the Motic. A comparison of the Motic using direct image with a Canon M200 mirrorless and a Canon 7D with an Olympus 28mm lens reverse-mounted is here. The Motic has its place, but quality photographs is not one of them. The reverse-mounted lens has decent resolution and I think I can increase the magnification with an extension tube. My thanks to Robert Berdan for pointing me towards macro-photography.