Trinocular Modification for an Olympus CX31?
Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:03 pm
Hello all,
I joined the forum back in August but got caught up in work projects and am just now catching my breath so this is my first post. I had an interest in film photography back in high school (Minolta SRT-101) and then in digital photography (mostly Nikon DSLRs) after I established my first practice in Tucson in the early 1980’s. I also have had an interest in microscopy since my undergrad/grad school days as a microbiology major. Now that I am nearing retirement, I thought long and hard about what I wanted to do with my spare time and after much reflection, I decided to blend my two life-long interests and take up photomicroscopy as a hobby. I purchased compound and stereo microscopes on sale from AmScope earlier in the year to verify my current interest and future dedication to this hobby and thankfully, both were confirmed! My day job is as a physician administrator at a VA hospital in the Philadelphia suburbs and through a colleague I became aware of an auction open to the public of six microscopes, four of which were made by Olympus, that came from the pathology lab at a VA Hospital (not the one I work at but not far from where I live) conducted online by the General Services Administration (www.gsaauctions.gov). For those so inclined, GSA auctions are a terrific way to buy lab and medical equipment at prices far below market value. The only thing that limits availability is locality in that you have to pick-up your purchase in-person...GSA will not ship items to the winner. From this forum and Oliver Kim’s informative videos, I learned about the desirability of microscopes made by the “Big 4” (in fact, I recall using Zeiss microscopes in med school). In the end, I was the high bidder and two days later, I picked up six microscopes - 2 Olympus CX31s, 2 Olympus SZ61TRs with LED bases, one AO 1036A and one AO 110 Dual Head with a 40x phase contrast set-up. The four Olympus scopes are essentially in like-new condition with annual preventive maintenance having been performed by the facility’s biomedical engineering department. I decided to keep one of the CX31s because of the quality of the infinity (UIS 2) plan optics and both of the older AO microscopes as future restoration projects. I will be selling the other CX31 and both of the Olympus stereo microscopes, most likely on ebay. So that’s a bit about me and how I came to join this forum. I would just like to add that I hope to be able to make meaningful contributions here.
Now to my questions. My time with the T490 has shown me the practical value of a trinocular photo tube. I purchased a Canon DSLR camera adapter from AmScope and have been experimenting with various exposure settings using the EOS Utility app on my MacBook Pro. The T490 has what AmScope calls a "simul-focal" system and that makes it convenient to take pictures. That 23mm adapter also fits in the CX31’s right ocular tube and the pictures it takes are rather good. I suspect they would be somewhat sharper in detail with higher quality adapter optics and so I started a correspondence with Bob Martin at Martin Microscope about their DSLR adapters. But before I progress too far down one path, I wanted to query this group and find out your thoughts on sticking with the CX31’s binocular head and taking photos through the ocular tube as compared to converting it to a trinocular design. From my research into Olympus accessories thanks to the depth of resources located on Alan Wood’s website and emails with the local Olympus sales rep, I found that I could replace the binocular head with a U-TR30-2 trinocular head or insert an intermediate tube under the binocular head, the U-TRU-1-2. For both options, I realize that a U-SPT photo port would be needed to connect to the Canon camera adapter. There is a cost difference of about $1000 between those two options based on new pricing (I’ve seen widely varying prices for used equipment on ebay).
The questions I am seeking answers to:
1) Is a trinocular head conversion advisable for ”improved” photomicroscopy as opposed to continued use of the binocular head’s ocular port?
2) Assuming that the response to (1) above is that a trinocular head is advisable for improved photomicroscopy, is one option (U-TR30 vs U-TRU) superior to the other in terms of the difference in photographic quality? The full head replacement makes more sense from an ergonomic standpoint since the intermediate tube raises the eyepieces by around 30mm. But again, the full replacement is around $1000 more (for a new head) compared to the intermediate tube.
2) For my scenario, would a better quality camera adapter (Martin vs AmScope) make a significant difference in the quality of the images such that a trinocular conversion, apart from the convenience of not having to remove an ocular to take pictures, would be rendered moot? Or is combining the two changes together - trinocular conversion + a better camera adapter - the ticket to photographic nirvana?
Please feel free to also provide answers to the questions I neglected to ask. From some of the posts I’ve read in this forum, I realize that many of you are subject matter experts in optics and the physics of light as well as microscopy in general and I am in awe of that knowledge but also hope to tap into that well. I would be grateful for any guidance you can provide.
Thank you!
Gene
I joined the forum back in August but got caught up in work projects and am just now catching my breath so this is my first post. I had an interest in film photography back in high school (Minolta SRT-101) and then in digital photography (mostly Nikon DSLRs) after I established my first practice in Tucson in the early 1980’s. I also have had an interest in microscopy since my undergrad/grad school days as a microbiology major. Now that I am nearing retirement, I thought long and hard about what I wanted to do with my spare time and after much reflection, I decided to blend my two life-long interests and take up photomicroscopy as a hobby. I purchased compound and stereo microscopes on sale from AmScope earlier in the year to verify my current interest and future dedication to this hobby and thankfully, both were confirmed! My day job is as a physician administrator at a VA hospital in the Philadelphia suburbs and through a colleague I became aware of an auction open to the public of six microscopes, four of which were made by Olympus, that came from the pathology lab at a VA Hospital (not the one I work at but not far from where I live) conducted online by the General Services Administration (www.gsaauctions.gov). For those so inclined, GSA auctions are a terrific way to buy lab and medical equipment at prices far below market value. The only thing that limits availability is locality in that you have to pick-up your purchase in-person...GSA will not ship items to the winner. From this forum and Oliver Kim’s informative videos, I learned about the desirability of microscopes made by the “Big 4” (in fact, I recall using Zeiss microscopes in med school). In the end, I was the high bidder and two days later, I picked up six microscopes - 2 Olympus CX31s, 2 Olympus SZ61TRs with LED bases, one AO 1036A and one AO 110 Dual Head with a 40x phase contrast set-up. The four Olympus scopes are essentially in like-new condition with annual preventive maintenance having been performed by the facility’s biomedical engineering department. I decided to keep one of the CX31s because of the quality of the infinity (UIS 2) plan optics and both of the older AO microscopes as future restoration projects. I will be selling the other CX31 and both of the Olympus stereo microscopes, most likely on ebay. So that’s a bit about me and how I came to join this forum. I would just like to add that I hope to be able to make meaningful contributions here.
Now to my questions. My time with the T490 has shown me the practical value of a trinocular photo tube. I purchased a Canon DSLR camera adapter from AmScope and have been experimenting with various exposure settings using the EOS Utility app on my MacBook Pro. The T490 has what AmScope calls a "simul-focal" system and that makes it convenient to take pictures. That 23mm adapter also fits in the CX31’s right ocular tube and the pictures it takes are rather good. I suspect they would be somewhat sharper in detail with higher quality adapter optics and so I started a correspondence with Bob Martin at Martin Microscope about their DSLR adapters. But before I progress too far down one path, I wanted to query this group and find out your thoughts on sticking with the CX31’s binocular head and taking photos through the ocular tube as compared to converting it to a trinocular design. From my research into Olympus accessories thanks to the depth of resources located on Alan Wood’s website and emails with the local Olympus sales rep, I found that I could replace the binocular head with a U-TR30-2 trinocular head or insert an intermediate tube under the binocular head, the U-TRU-1-2. For both options, I realize that a U-SPT photo port would be needed to connect to the Canon camera adapter. There is a cost difference of about $1000 between those two options based on new pricing (I’ve seen widely varying prices for used equipment on ebay).
The questions I am seeking answers to:
1) Is a trinocular head conversion advisable for ”improved” photomicroscopy as opposed to continued use of the binocular head’s ocular port?
2) Assuming that the response to (1) above is that a trinocular head is advisable for improved photomicroscopy, is one option (U-TR30 vs U-TRU) superior to the other in terms of the difference in photographic quality? The full head replacement makes more sense from an ergonomic standpoint since the intermediate tube raises the eyepieces by around 30mm. But again, the full replacement is around $1000 more (for a new head) compared to the intermediate tube.
2) For my scenario, would a better quality camera adapter (Martin vs AmScope) make a significant difference in the quality of the images such that a trinocular conversion, apart from the convenience of not having to remove an ocular to take pictures, would be rendered moot? Or is combining the two changes together - trinocular conversion + a better camera adapter - the ticket to photographic nirvana?
Please feel free to also provide answers to the questions I neglected to ask. From some of the posts I’ve read in this forum, I realize that many of you are subject matter experts in optics and the physics of light as well as microscopy in general and I am in awe of that knowledge but also hope to tap into that well. I would be grateful for any guidance you can provide.
Thank you!
Gene