I have 3 main questions I would like to get out my head.
The first i one is what a good budget friendly approach to upgrade a microscope.
The second is more clarification on Huygenian eyepieces and their effects on image quality.
Finally I would want to know if the mounting size of an eyepiece of by 0.2mm will affect the image. 23mm compared to 23.2mm Thanks in advance.
A lot to resolve
-
apochronaut
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am
Re: A lot to resolve
That all depends on what you mean by budget. It's hard to find really good microscope optics really cheap, especially as a matched set but it does happen. I have seen entire apochromat 160mm sets for around 200.00.
Huygens eyepieces have just as good quality as any other eyepiece but they do not assist in producing a flat field, nor do they work well with apochromats, which tend to need some form of compensation. Where huygens eyepieces are less good is in the field of view, which is limited usually to about 16mm maximum. Huygens do have excellent center sharpness. Here is a micscape article by Paul James about eyepieces.http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/ind ... ieces.html
The no-name Huygens 8X he is so enamoured with by the way, are in fact Spencer ( AO) eyepieces,
Eyepieces that are slightly smaller, than the standard, are possibly made that way or they just could be a cheap sloppy fit, Low tolerance machining, allows for cheaper production. The main defect of those would be in the alignment of the field stops. If they are so sloppy that there is misalignment of the image, then there is an obvious problem.
Some eyepieces were made for slightly smaller tubes( 23.1 or so). The only reason I can think of for that is to stop eyepiece swapping, because the eyepieces had special inherent corrections that the objectives needed in order to give maximum performance.
Huygens eyepieces have just as good quality as any other eyepiece but they do not assist in producing a flat field, nor do they work well with apochromats, which tend to need some form of compensation. Where huygens eyepieces are less good is in the field of view, which is limited usually to about 16mm maximum. Huygens do have excellent center sharpness. Here is a micscape article by Paul James about eyepieces.http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/ind ... ieces.html
The no-name Huygens 8X he is so enamoured with by the way, are in fact Spencer ( AO) eyepieces,
Eyepieces that are slightly smaller, than the standard, are possibly made that way or they just could be a cheap sloppy fit, Low tolerance machining, allows for cheaper production. The main defect of those would be in the alignment of the field stops. If they are so sloppy that there is misalignment of the image, then there is an obvious problem.
Some eyepieces were made for slightly smaller tubes( 23.1 or so). The only reason I can think of for that is to stop eyepiece swapping, because the eyepieces had special inherent corrections that the objectives needed in order to give maximum performance.
Re: A lot to resolve
A budget friendly approach that has worked for me is stating what I am interested in doing/buying on this forum. You will surely get advice and sometimes someone will be willing to sell you something. (Worked for me. ) I happen to know one member has a stereoscope for under $200 available right now, for instance. Or are you after a compound microscope? A little idea of what you mean by budget would likely help.MicroMan2 wrote: what a good budget friendly approach to upgrade a microscope.
Re: A lot to resolve
For clarification I focus mainly in compound microscope work not to mention for me upgrading means just finding new parts to apply to my current scope (Omax M82ES) like objectives and different condensers and the like.
Re: A lot to resolve
Upgrading to me at least.