Nikon SMZ-2T camera connection

[ChrisR]

I recently posted a similar query on photomacrography.net, but some folk don't visit both forums.

I have one of these stereos with the photo/trinoc tube.
(If anyone has/can point me to pdf manuals I'd be very grateful)

What do Ineed to connect a small digital camera to it without cropping?
The system diagram page I have shows:

smz2t-photo.jpg (40.2 KiB) Viewed 14007 times

I don't want to use a DSLR, I'd prefer something smaller
I believe I have the 1x relay lens marked blue (I have something which says that and otherwise looks like their other projective eyepieces)
I have found the parts marked red, for sale.

As I understand it though I'll need 0.5x or smaller, unless there's a c-mount camera with a comparatively large sensor? ? DId they originally have large sensors?

So it appears the part I need would be the green marked part, C-mount adapter 0.6x-0.45x. Is that right?
Ebay seems to be awash with things which do that.

[MichaelG.]

... unless there's a c-mount camera with a comparatively large sensor? ? DId they originally have large sensors?

Chris,

In case you hadn't already worked it out:
c-mount was originally intended for 16mm cine film cameras
... but it was subsequently adopted for TV and video

Affordable sensors have tended to get physically smaller, and I think the optimum value-for-money option might be to use a micro four thirds body.
c-mount to M4/3 adapters are readily available at a modest price.

MichaelG.
.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_mm_f ... uper16.png
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

[ChrisR]

I didn't know it was originally for 16mm , but what we have is
a 2.5x projective works for 24x36, so , having half the diameter, would mean .
a 1.25x would suit 4/3rds.
But there isn't one, and the flange focal distance for C-mount lenses (if there is such a thing as a constant between the formats) is less that the 4/3rds cameras use.

The 100 buck C-mount cameras claim 12MP or so, which I'd imagine is more than enough for the low NA optics of a stereo scope.

So how do people find it works, when you can't get the right magnification projective anyway?
I see 0.5x quoted a lot which should suit about a 16mm diameter sensor, but the little digis are much smaller.
I don't want to just use the middle of the optic's field.

Am I missing something?

[MichaelG.]

... the flange focal distance for C-mount lenses (if there is such a thing as a constant between the formats) is less that the 4/3rds cameras use.

[ ... ]

Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing the fact that a female c-mount can be recessed into the throat of a Micro 4/3 mount ... Look for mount adapters that specify infinity focus.

MichaelG.

[Scarodactyl]

I forgot to ask over on PM, but what diameter is the hole at the top? 42mm or 38mm? If it is 42mm I think there is a nikon adapter that goes from 42mm to 38mm. From there you can get a diagnostic instruments 38mm adapter, 1x for a 1" sensor, .5x for a .5" sensor, etc. Anyway, I think that would work--this is sort of combined from adapting a dslr to an smz-10 and a c mount camera to my 1500 so it may not be right.

[ChrisR]

The bung which is a good fit, also fits an Optiphot trinoc hole.
Which I guess means it's 38mm. The round bung actually measures 39 point something.
As Pau said on the other thread, modern cameras have such tiny sensors.... even 0.5 would mean a crop.

Why doesn't everyone moan?? I'm still missing something...

[Scarodactyl]

0.5x shouldn't crop much on a .5" sensor. I have a .6x for my 2/3 sensor and the image is about what you see through the eyepieces.
Microscope cameras definitely have different priorities. Streaming data off quickly is a big one, though I am not sure to what extent a smaller sensor helps with that. They also sometimes have significantly higher sensitivity per pixel. They're definitely not meant for taking the best visible light photos.

[MichaelG.]

... modern cameras have such tiny sensors.... even 0.5 would mean a crop.

Why doesn't everyone moan?? I'm still missing something...

As mentioned earlier:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Focus-Infini ... 3506374453

MichaelG.

[MichaelG.]

I considered buying something from the Basler range:
https://www.baslerweb.com/en/products/c ... powerpack/
that page ^^^ conveniently includes sensor sizes and pixel counts
The linked datasheets give dimensions of the individual pixels [some very small]

... but I have decided to stick with my Lumix G1 for now.

MichaelG.

[ChrisR]

Sorry MG,I've tried to post this twice, once several hours ago... "invalid" it says...???
I didn't reaise it hadn't gone

a female c-mount can be recessed into the throat of a Micro 4/3 mount

The male you mean? Ah ok, I see.
I wonder what the working distance of that Nikon 1-2x adapter is. It might be ideal - or not be any good!

An MFT body would cost more than the scope did, I'd prefer to try something cheaper. I have much better optics for quality macro photography; so this is just for convenience.

Now, how can I work out what the NA would be? One for the morning.

[ChrisR]

A used G1 might make a good choice, even if they are a bit bulkier.
Do they have a fully electronic shutter, or electronic "front shutter curtain"?

[Scarodactyl]

A canon EOS xs is pretty cheap and has the bare minimum needed for a microscope camera. Adapting it without cropping might be a pain since a 1.6x or 2x projective eyepiece costs a fortune but there is the option with a 10x and a 50mm lens at infinity (afocal? I haven't tried it myself).

[MichaelG.]

A used G1 might make a good choice, even if they are a bit bulkier.
Do they have a fully electronic shutter, or electronic "front shutter curtain"?

There is a mechanical shutter; which is fully open when at rest, and when'viewing' ...
Then, at exposure time, it closes and then operates.

Yes there must be some risk of transmitted vibration; but the moving parts are very light, and finely engineered.

MichaelG.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-dK6Qa1Iy4Y

[jfiresto]

... An MFT body would cost more than the scope did, I'd prefer to try something cheaper. I have much better optics for quality macro photography; so this is just for convenience....

I bought a 12 megapixel, Olympus E-PL1 off ebay.de for 45 euros ($54) including shipping (with a 6600 shutter count, a battery and a charger). I don't know if that is cheap enough.

The E-PL1 has an anti-shutter-shock delay, appears to resolve to pretty close to the Nyquist limit, and crops the ca. 1 inch c-mount image out of a Wild photo tube about as well as you could want. I can post a test image if there is interest.

In a few weeks I should have an SMZ-2T to play with, to size the intermediate image coming out of the photo port.

[MichaelG.]

The E-PL1 has an anti-shutter-shock delay, appears to resolve to pretty close to the Nyquist limit, and crops the ca. 1 inch c-mount image out of a Wild photo tube about as well as you could want. I can post a test image if there is interest.

Test images are always of interest ... and useful for reference.

MichaelG.

[jfiresto]

Here is a decimated jpeg of an image "directly" projected onto the sensor of an Olympus E-PL1:

pcb.jpg (263.14 KiB) Viewed 13801 times

It was made with:

• a 144-LED ring light
• a Wild M7S in monocular mode
• a Motic 1500.3 photo bridge
• a 1X, lens-less Leitz 38mm ISO to C-mount adapter, and
• a C-mount to micro four thirds thread adapter.

The non-symmetric framing and vignetting is due to a slight misalignment inside the photo bridge. It is hard to exactly align without custom equipment.

Here is a 100% crop of the original jpeg:

crop.jpg (353.4 KiB) Viewed 13801 times

Not too bad for a nine-year old, consumer camera!

[MichaelG.]

That'll do nicely thanks ... point proven I think.

MichaelG.

[ChrisR]

Sorry I'd missed a few posts.
Thanks for the info.
That Olympus looks pretty good. I have a Canon 700D/t5i "spare" but
I was thinking of something smaller, like this:

digicam.jpg (44.43 KiB) Viewed 13778 times

But the Oly has advantages. There have been some cheap ones on ebay.

[MichaelG.]

Sorry I'd missed a few posts.
Thanks for the info.
That Olympus looks pretty good. I have a Canon 700D/t5i "spare" but
I was thinking of something smaller, like this:

digicam.jpg

But the Oly has advantages. There have been some cheap ones on ebay.

Those are quite popular, Chris, but the sensor is very small
... Which is where we came in, I think.

MichaelG.

.

Edit: I checked on ebay ... Sensor size is quoted as 1/3"
which equates to 4.8mm x 3.6mm
https://www.photoreview.com.au/tips/buy ... sor-sizes/

[jfiresto]

Sorry I'd missed a few posts.
Thanks for the info.
That Olympus looks pretty good. I have a Canon 700D/t5i "spare" but
I was thinking of something smaller, like this:

digicam.jpg

But the Oly has advantages. There have been some cheap ones on ebay.

Those are quite popular, Chris, but the sensor is very small
... Which is where we came in, I think.

When my brother suggested that I adapt a mirror-less, interchangeable lens camera, my first reaction was, YESSSS, their image sensors are honking enormous.

I first thought a Nikon 1 would be ideal because of its sensor size and short flange focal distance. But my brother diplomatically remarked that those cameras were for real Nikon fans. He was right. Nikon discontinued their mirrorless one-inch cameras the following summer because of disappointing sales.

One thing to keep in mind with the older Olympus micro-4/3rds camera: they are not the best if your specimen moves. Their shutters give a fair slap when they first roll down. Olympus's anti-shake option lets you program a short delay, to let the camera settle, before rolling up the shutter. This is quite effective for a microscope (you might very well be using the camera on one of theirs) but delays the exposure by, perhaps, half a second to a second. Olympus shortened this anti-shake delay on later models so that it much less noticeable.

I find it amusing. I use the 2.5 second self timer and typically take a 1 second exposure. I press the shutter, there is a pregnant pause, a WHHUMP as the shutter closes, a shorter pause and then the shutter grinds away. It feels like you are really taking photographs – like really making tea.

[ChrisR]

It was where I came in. I might carry this scope about.

I didn't think of proper(!) cameras being so low priced, or compact.

Yes it's a pity Nikon's 1" sensor cameras were... what they were.

Which of the later Olympi have a better shutter - on the Mercalli scale? I guess the price leaps.

[jfiresto]

... Which of the later Olympi have a better shutter - on the Mercalli scale? I guess the price leaps.

I am fairly sure I have an exaggerated view of the shaking. I was trying all sorts of things for about a week to stop some of my photos from getting finely smeared, before discovering the cure. I probably still suffer from mild Post Shutter Shock Disorder (PSSD) because of that. Had I searched the E-PL1 manual for "microscope", I would have immediately found the answer on page 75 (ANTI-SHOCK), turned it on, and missed the experience.

After setting the ANTI-SHOCK, it should not be an issue unless your subjects are the sort that wander out of frame.

The Olympus E-P5 is the first model with a 0 second, anti-shock setting. This handy chart by an Olympus fan, shows the Pen-F is the first model with an electronic shutter, the other, quick and quiet way to avoid the issue.

[MichaelG.]

... unless there's a c-mount camera with a comparatively large sensor?

A quick update, Chris ... [probably academic for most of us, in view of the prices]

Yes, there are cameras that use the large Sony Pregius sensors ... IMX304 et al:
https://scorpionvision.worldsecuresyste ... BM-KIT-CYL
https://eu.ptgrey.com/sony-pregius-glob ... technology
https://www.lumenera.com/products/sony- ... -cmos.html

MichaelG.