Hi,
I keep reading that condenser can noticeably affect image quality.
Do you see any improvements (colors? contrast? anything else?) when replacing a regular 1.25 Abbe condenser with something like Aplanat Achromat 1.4?
Or, perhaps, Achromat 0.9 Swing Out condenser?
At this time, I am not interested in advanced techniques like phase contrast, DIC, and polarization.
Objectives range from 4X to 60X dry. I mostly look at pond life, etc. I have 100x oil objective, but I don't use it often.
So, does it make sense to upgrade the condenser for me?
Thanks!
Better Olympus condenser?
-
- Posts: 1546
- Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:29 am
- Location: Georgia, USA
Re: Better Olympus condenser?
I think it is slightly noticeable when using better corrected objectives, especially at the higher powers. For achromat objectives I don't notice much difference.
1942 Bausch and Lomb Series T Dynoptic, Custom Illumination
-
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2022 8:02 pm
Re: Better Olympus condenser?
misery loves company.
I am coming from the other direction. I have a .9 condenser and am thinking about upgrading my 40x objective over the capability of the condenser.
I am already using a 100x 1.3 objective with the .9 condenser.
I found a formula on the Leitz site which show how to calculate the combined resolution.
https://www.leica-microsystems.com/scie ... lculation/
"Where λ is the wavelength of light used to image a specimen. NAobj is the NA of the objective. NAcond is the NA of the condenser. The figure of ‘1.22’ is a constant. This is derived from Rayleigh’s work on Bessel Functions. These are used for calculating problems in systems such as wave propagation."
You take the wavelength of light times 1.22 and divide the result by the condenser NA plus the Objective NA
In my case a 40x .75NA objective with a .9NA condenser gave 380 nanometer
a 40X 1.15 NA objective gives 306 with a .9NA condenser and 273 (smaller numbers are better) with a 1.15 condenser.
I hope this helps. None of this considers quality of the slides or the observers eyes or what the human eye can see as a difference.
I.E. resolution is a combination of separation and contrast differences.
Neal
I am coming from the other direction. I have a .9 condenser and am thinking about upgrading my 40x objective over the capability of the condenser.
I am already using a 100x 1.3 objective with the .9 condenser.
I found a formula on the Leitz site which show how to calculate the combined resolution.
https://www.leica-microsystems.com/scie ... lculation/
"Where λ is the wavelength of light used to image a specimen. NAobj is the NA of the objective. NAcond is the NA of the condenser. The figure of ‘1.22’ is a constant. This is derived from Rayleigh’s work on Bessel Functions. These are used for calculating problems in systems such as wave propagation."
You take the wavelength of light times 1.22 and divide the result by the condenser NA plus the Objective NA
In my case a 40x .75NA objective with a .9NA condenser gave 380 nanometer
a 40X 1.15 NA objective gives 306 with a .9NA condenser and 273 (smaller numbers are better) with a 1.15 condenser.
I hope this helps. None of this considers quality of the slides or the observers eyes or what the human eye can see as a difference.
I.E. resolution is a combination of separation and contrast differences.
Neal