Motic SMZ143 with Motic 2x SLR Projection Lens

[sreynolds]

Has anyone had any experience using a mirrorless camera (like Sony A5100) with the Motic 2X SLR Projection Lens (part #1101000900551) in the trinocular port of a Motic SMZ143? I tried the Motic C-mount adapters with a couple lower-end cameras (Motic 1 and Toupcam 5MP) and was not satisfied with the lack of resolution. Looking to do better.

[sreynolds]

OK, I'll start to answer my own post. Motic sells a '2X Projection Lens' for the SMZ-143 for attachment of SLR's via the microscope's trinocular port. The mirrorless camera I ended up purchasing (Canon EOS M200) has an APS-C sensor which measures 23.5x15.6mm, smaller than a full frame SLR, but much larger than a typical dedicated microscope camera. I opted for the APS-C over the micro four thirds sensor cameras because the APS-C is closer to a full frame SLR, and hence has a better chance of capturing a decent field of view with the Motic projection lens designed for SLR. The Motic lens attaches to the Canon with a T-adapter. T-adapters are the same as T2-adapters, except T2-adapters let you adjust the alignment of the lens to the camera since the attachment is a screw attachment. I chose a Canon EOS because, among other things, the included Canon EOS Utility software that runs on a PC can provide a live view for focus verification, etc. without involving any other imaging software. I will post pictures once I get it set up.

I had tried 2 inexpensive 'C-mount' cameras prior to this - a Moticam 1 with Motic 0.4 C-mount, and an OptixCam (Toupcam) 5MP with a Motic 0.5 C-mount, and neither produced satisfying images. I hope that going to a larger sensor, that uses an adapter lens that magnifies rather than reduces the in-microscope image, will give good results.

[Sir]

I'm interested in the Motic projection eyepiece as well and was also wondering how well it would pair with an APS-C sensor. I'm sure others looking into a similar setup would also appreciate those pictures once you have them

[Hobbyst46]

My own camera is the EOS-M10 which lacks PC live view.
To what extent is the M200 supported and controlled with the Canon Utilities ? can you set all important shooting features - speed, ISO, brightness measurement, X5 and X10 magnifications etc in the Canon Utilities ? I had mailed these questions about tethering to Canon customer supports, but nobody bothered to answer.

[sreynolds]

The EOS Utility program manual is available on the Canon support webpage. It says the M200 is fully supported, but the M10, as you indicate, is not supported for live view. I have no experience yet as I just ordered the camera, but will report back later.

[sreynolds]

Update after trying Canon EOS M200 with Motic SMZ-143 and 2x Motic Projection adapter.

I am happy with my purchase of the M200. It is small and light, the screen tilts, the controls are well thought out, it can communicate with a PC wirelessly and I find the screen satisfactory for image composition and focusing without needing a larger screen for pre-view. I am not tied to a PC or large monitor, and I don't have wires hanging around. The M200 comes with some good Canon software - EOS Utility which provides live-view shooting and file transfer between the camera and a PC, and Canon also includes a photo-editing program called Digital Photo Pro (DPP) which can interface with EOS Utility for image editing at time of upload to the PC. I don't want to learn another photo-editor, so I can use my normal editor instead, which is GIMP. My goal for the microscope setup is to simplify as much as possible. The wireless communication from camera to PC works fine for file upload, but in my system stumbles with live-view shooting, which works much better using a wired USB connection. So - I only use EOS utility wirelessly for file upload, and do any editing later. A big plus for me is that the M200 is a pretty nice upgrade as a carry-around point-and-shoot - small, light, very good kit lens, etc.

Having said that, the camera is the only thing I like so far about my foray into microphotography. The setup I have with the SMZ-143 includes, left-to-right EOS M200, T-ring adapter, and the 2x Motic Projection SLR adapter -

CAM20074a.JPG (74.05 KiB) Viewed 10842 times

The images I am getting through the trinocular port of the microscope cannot obtain sharp focus. This has been the case with all 3 cameras I tried. Further, the first camera I tried, a Moticam 1, had an eyepiece adapter which let me use it with the regular 'scope eyepiece - and those images were distinctly sharper than those taken through the trinocular port. This image of a PC board, taken at about 10x magnification, is the best focus I can get with the EOS M200 rig

EOS M200_0026a.JPG (106.6 KiB) Viewed 10842 times

Further, the image in the trinocular port is rotated about 15 degrees from that seen in the eyepieces. I have thus concluded that my microscope is defective and have started looking into either returning it or getting it fixed. I have not ruled out Motic's ability to remedy the problem, but so far none of the Motic solutions I have tried - camera, adapter, software or support have made me want to use more of their products. The software Motic Images Plus was particularly bad - flaky behavior, locked up (Win 7 Pro 64 Bit), bizarre white balance, etc. So - ongoing discussion.

The M200 sensor is an APS-C, smaller than a full-frame sensor, larger than a micro four-thirds. With the 2x projection adapter, I am seeing half the diameter of the field of view in the eyepiece. This was expected, could be acceptable, is a limiting factor with the Motic adapters as they don't seem to offer one at 1.6x, which should be ideal for APS-C.

One thing I think I learned is about camera adapters. 'C-mount' adapters and 'Projection' adapters are the same animal in different sizes. They both have one end which fits into the trinocular port, they both have internal lenses which adjust the image size to fit the intended camera sensor size, and they both have the other end designed to take an adapter (T-ring, etc.) providing the proper distance to the camera sensor to achieve correct focus. I do not have a PhD in optical physics, but it is starting to seem I need one to take a picture through a microscope.

[Hobbyst46]

I do not have a PhD in optical physics, but it is starting to seem I need one to take a picture through a microscope.

I daresay nobody needs a PhD (or other formal degree) in any area to take good pictures through a microscope.
Perhaps the less-than-ideal focus as shown in the image is due to lack of exact parfocality between the trino tube and the viewing eyepieces.
Have you tried mounting the same camera + adapters on one of the viewing tubes, instead of an eyepiece after pre-focusing with that eyepiece ?

BTW, Toupview software is excellent and free. For eyepiece USB cameras.

[hans]

The way the image looks smeared/doubled in these crop, maybe motion blur due to the shutter? Have you tried electronic shutter modes or varying exposure time? Sort of confusing how the direction and strength of the smearing varies so much across the image, but if not motion, seems like there would have to be something very wrong optically to cause that.

[mrsonchus]

Hmm, the horrid blurring certainly looks like the result of movement - presumably this doesn't occur to this degree at least with the solid-state CMOS Moticam (a ToupCam by another name...). The 'turned' orientation of the camera (as you say by about 15 deg) is as far as I've experienced quite normal.
When I first placed a ToupCam (5mp and 2mp) into the trinocular port of my so-called 'simulfocus' Amscope stereo I was surprised to find that, rather counter-intuitively, the camera-image was correctly aligned when the camera was thus positioned (i.e. slightly 'turned'), and a horizontal line on the stage and through eyepieces was the same in the camera's view. That's not a fault, merely a difference due for some technical reason to the construction of the camera port.

[MichaelG.]

... the solid-state CMOS Moticam (a ToupCam by another name...).

.

Is that so, John ?

My [aged] Motic cameras don’t work with the ‘Toup’ software, and my ToupCam doesn’t work with Motic software.

Grateful for your advice, if I’m missing a trick !

MichaelG.

[sreynolds]

I appreciate your thoughts, and hope to clarify what I have tried.

Re. parfocality question - I understand parfocality to mean that the image in the eyepieces is in focus at the same time as the image in the trinocular port - my scope is close to parfocal with the 2x projection adapter; I focused as best I could in the camera, which should have given a good image in the camera, yes? I did try Toupview, and agree it is good software, but unnecessary in my case with Canon EOS Utility and photo editor. The 2x projection adapter is a smaller outside diameter than the viewing eyepieces, so I can't try the camera in the viewing tube. I don't have any spacer/adapters, but maybe that is worth a try.

Re. shutter vibration - while the M200 does not appear to have a electronic front shutter curtain, I turned off any camera feature I thought might induce vibration, like image stabilization. But, I don't think that is the root of the problem because I cannot obtain crisp focus before I take the shot. The M200 gives me a live view on the LCD display, and lets me zoom in 5x and 10x on the image for fine focus. Zooming in that way before I shoot only magnifies an out-of-focus image. As I said, the EOS M200 gave better images than either of the two solid-state Moticam/Toupcams I tried previously.

So I am further convinced that, as Hans said, 'there is something very wrong optically'. Thanks for comments.

[hans]

But, I don't think that is the root of the problem because I cannot obtain crisp focus before I take the shot. The M200 gives me a live view on the LCD display, and lets me zoom in 5x and 10x on the image for fine focus. Zooming in that way before I shoot only magnifies an out-of-focus image.

If you move the zoom/focus region over to the edge where it was more obvious, can you see that directional smearing/doubling in live view? How does sharpness compare to images taken with smartphone camera through an eyepiece?

And another, more selfish, question: Have you tried shooting through an eyepiece with the EOS M200 kit lens, looks like EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM? I have been considering getting something like a Canon EF-M mount or Panasonic micro 4/3 and wondering whether those small, retracting kit lenses are usable for an afocal setup.

[Scarodactyl]

On canon dslrs you have to have the camera in live view mode to get the vibration free shots. If you're shooting that way it should be fine.
This scope in general has fairly limited resolution, so there are some limits to what you can expect it to give you, but I think I got better results than this on the motic smz 168 I tested. That said I just put the camera on the trinoc port without any intervening optics, which gives a tiny bit of vignetting but is more favorable resolutionwise.

[MichaelG.]

The setup I have with the SMZ-143 includes, left-to-right EOS M200, T-ring adapter, and the 2x Motic Projection SLR adapter
- CAM20074a.JPG

[…]

Further, the image in the trinocular port is rotated about 15 degrees from that seen in the eyepieces.

.
As a brief aside from the important discussion about image quality ...

What you have there is a T2 adapter, and is adjustable for rotation ... there should be three small grubscrews spaced at 120° ... one of which is clearly visible in your photo.

MichaelG.

[mrsonchus]

... the solid-state CMOS Moticam (a ToupCam by another name...).

.

Is that so, John ?

My [aged] Motic cameras don’t work with the ‘Toup’ software, and my ToupCam doesn’t work with Motic software.

Grateful for your advice, if I’m missing a trick !

MichaelG.

Hi, yes the branded software usually has the brand in the title-bar of what is the ToupView software - and they don't mix! I suppose ToupTek license the brands to use their superb software - it really is very good, regardless of the brand it comes with. I nearly always get pretty awful images with my stereo Amscope trinocular (the version that enables the use of both eyepieces at the same time as the photoport).... I had exctly the same problem with my Amscope that had the shared LH eyepiece for photography - only the 'simul-focus' version is much, much darker than the simple push-me-pull-you rod with shared LH lightpath.

I have had much better image resolution with a Canon EOS 1200D and latterly a 200D as expected, but the nature of the tilted-lightpath 'Greenough' system is I think inherently difficult to use for photography. I find the ToupCams pretty poor for stereo 'scopes but rather good for the compound. Interesting to see how you get on with this difficult problem, I hope someone here can steer you right.

[sreynolds]

If you move the zoom/focus region over to the edge where it was more obvious, can you see that directional smearing/doubling in live view? How does sharpness compare to images taken with smartphone camera through an eyepiece?

Here is a picture of my M200 taking a picture (trinoc port) in live view - you see the subject, magnified 5x in the live-view screen, is blurred, but the info display on the LCD is crisp and clear. I don't have a smartphone (!) so I can't answer your other question.

CAM20081a.JPG (94.34 KiB) Viewed 10760 times

And another, more selfish, question: Have you tried shooting through an eyepiece with the EOS M200 kit lens, looks like EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM?

OK, with microscope at 10x magnification, here is the image I get shooting the M200 at 15mm zoom through the eyepiece -

EOS M200_0035a.JPG (50.33 KiB) Viewed 10760 times

and this is the image, same positioning, same focus, through the trinoc port.

EOS M200_0031a.JPG (107.27 KiB) Viewed 10760 times

If I magnify the afocal image to the size of the image captured from the trinoc port, the quality is about the same. Maybe this is just a limitation of the scope, and that is all it can do.

...I just put the camera on the trinoc port without any intervening optics, which gives a tiny bit of vignetting but is more favorable resolutionwise.

I would be interested in trying this approach, but I don't know how to make that connection. The ID of my trinoc port is 26mm, and I have a T/T2 mount adapter. Can somebody point me to the part I need? Thanks.

[hans]

Here is a picture of my M200 taking a picture (trinoc port) in live view - you see the subject, magnified 5x in the live-view screen, is blurred, but the info display on the LCD is crisp and clear.

Looks strange. Is that pixelated appearance as if looking through a window screen what the camera live view actually looks like?

OK, with microscope at 10x magnification, here is the image I get shooting the M200 at 15mm zoom through the eyepiece...

Thanks for checking, does not look promising in terms of afocal use, was that at maximum aperture with the lens as close as possible to the eyepiece?

If I magnify the afocal image to the size of the image captured from the trinoc port, the quality is about the same. Maybe this is just a limitation of the scope, and that is all it can do.

The afocal image looks better to me, at least does not appear doubled/smeared like the one through the camera port. But that could be explained by either decoupling camera vibration or an optical difference. Can you fit an eyepiece in the camera port and is it parfocal? If so trying afocal handheld through the camera port might help narrow down whether the problem is in the microscope vs. shutter vibration or projection lens.

[Scarodactyl]

I would be interested in trying this approach, but I don't know how to make that connection. The ID of my trinoc port is 26mm, and I have a T/T2 mount adapter. Can somebody point me to the part I need? Thanks.

You know, I'm not 100% sure I am remembering this right, because I had a trinocular amscope a few weeks before which I sold at the same time and did similar tests with. The motic took damage in shipping so it was misaligned, I didn't do extensive testing because of that.

The doubled highlights on that dslr photo really seem like a slam dunk that vibration is your problem, not optics here. Canons usually have to be in live view to have no vibration in shooting, but it sounded like you were so I am confused. Could you give an idea of how you have it hooked up to control and trigger shots?

[MichaelG.]

... the solid-state CMOS Moticam (a ToupCam by another name...).

.

Is that so, John ?

My [aged] Motic cameras don’t work with the ‘Toup’ software, and my ToupCam doesn’t work with Motic software.

Grateful for your advice, if I’m missing a trick !

MichaelG.

Hi, yes the branded software usually has the brand in the title-bar of what is the ToupView software - and they don't mix! I suppose ToupTek license the brands to use their superb software - it really is very good, regardless of the brand it comes with. […]

.

Sorry, John ... I simply don’t understand your reply.

Motic ‘Images Plus’ is not a branded of ToupView.

MichaelG.
.

https://www.motic.com/As_Support_SU/
https://www.motic.com/As_Support_Guests/

[jfiresto]

... That said I just put the camera on the trinoc port without any intervening optics, which gives a tiny bit of vignetting but is more favorable resolution-wise.

I quite agree. I think free air, direct projection is the way to go for stereo microscopes, although I find micro-four thirds cameras, rather than APS-C models, are more favorably sized for the image projected from a traditional c-mount photoport. Some of the micro four third cameras also look really chic.

As an example, here is a directly projected image I captured last night from a Wild M7A with an Olympus E-PL8 [click images to enlarge]:



There is some softening and vignetting toward the edges and corners from not applying the normal crop factor. Here is the same image, cropped, that uses the ’tube within its design:

[mrsonchus]

Your Motic software definitely doesn't look like T-View. Here's an example of Hayear brand T-View,

hayear branded toupview.jpeg (170.53 KiB) Viewed 10699 times

[MichaelG.]

Your Motic software definitely doesn't look like T-View.

.

... which is why I was surprised by your assertion that the solid-state CMOS Moticam was a ToupCam by another name.

MichaelG.

[sreynolds]

I think free air, direct projection is the way to go for stereo microscopes

Can you please tell me how I would do this?

[jfiresto]

For an APS-C or micro four thirds solution, you could start with a 1X c-mount adapter for a one-inch sensor. Alas, Motic apparently expects you to also have an SMZ-161, -168 or -171.

[Scarodactyl]

One instance whwre a 3d printer, or failing that a big bix of random tubes and scraps, comes in handy.
Some stereos are fine direct projecting onto aps-c, others less so. Wilds and nikons for instance seem to cover aps-c relatively well, though how well will probably vary with the objective. The geometry of accomplishing it is a bit more challenging though.

As a side note I think motic actually does make most of their own stuff, which is part of the appeal vs virtual brands which source from a variety of disparate makers.

[sreynolds]

... Could you give an idea of how you have it hooked up to control and trigger shots?

I have the camera set on 2-second timer so I am not touching it when the shutter goes off.

[Scarodactyl]

Is it in live view mode while shooting?

[sreynolds]

Update - I've been reading Charles Krebs very useful articles here and now understand better where the image is in the trinocular tube, and what can be done with it. I understand the image is for practical purposes around 20mm in diameter, formed in the tube below the top, and is a real image which can be brought to focus on a surface (eg. camera sensor) somewhat above the top of the tube. When the size of the image needs to be adjusted to fit a smaller or larger sensor, lenses get involved to reduce of enlarge the image, hence .4 C-mounts, 2.5x projection lenses, etc. A lens is not necessary however, if the size of the image happens to fit pretty well on the chosen sensor, and this is about the case with APS-C sensors, like I have. I found one person in an on-line forum who was using an SMZ-143 to get really good images here but the adapter he used here is no longer made. He suggested I contact the helpful people at Microscope_Depot.com for advice. I did. After describing my problem, Ron explained that he had heard similar stories before and suspected that the problem was with my Motic adapters, and not the microscope itself. He told me I could test that theory by simply projecting the image in the trinocular port directly on my camera sensor with no lens or tube whatsoever. I did - No lens on the camera, no adapter in the trinocular tube port, just the bare face of the camera hand-held about 2-1/2" above the trinocular port with the room lights turned down. I was holding the camera with one hand, using one finger of that hand to release the shutter, while the other hand was on the microscope focus knob. Considering everything, the image is as good or better than I was getting with the Motic adapters.

EOS M200_0049a.JPG (102.04 KiB) Viewed 10544 times

I am now looking for a way to buy or make what LMScope calls a Direct Image port like this one for the Motic SMZ-171 here. It just has to fit into the 26mm trinoc tube, extend the correct length and have some adjustment to make it parfocal.

[sreynolds]

I'm working on an adapter made out of two pieces of PVC pipe - male and female connectors to give adjustment, glued to a C-mount lens adapter for Canon EF-M mounts. Will post pictures when ready. If it works, total cost will be about $23. Waiting for the lens adapter (Fotodiox C-EOSM).

I have read (Charles Krebs here) that 'the real image created by the objective is ... located 10mm down from the edge of many trinocular tubes'. In my case, since the direct image I am getting is in focus about 2-1/2" above the trinocular port, the '10mm down' spec does not apply, am I correct? In effect, making the SMZ-143 a good candidate for direct imaging.

[mrsonchus]

Ahhh PVC waste-pipe. I Used a bit of this to make a quick mount for a Canon DSLR with one of those rather poor eyepiec connector with optics adapters - works well and parfocal but I'm going to use a projector eyepiece as this is the best way I've found so far for quality.

Here's the DSLR on it's waster-pipe for a quick mount,


Here on an old Leitz adapter - also parfocal,


Similarly for mount of a 5mp Toupcam again fitted with pretty awful reduction optics but better than nothing at this time, waste-pipe mount,


Bits and pieces for the two versions,


Phototube on the SMZ800 is easy enough to connect to,




The weak-link in the mounts at the moment is the intermediate/reduction optics of both camera types - still very useable though and demonstrates that ultimately it should be pretty easy to perfect and optimise for low cost...