Olympus SZ-FLR-200

Everything relating to microscopy hardware: Objectives, eyepieces, lamps and more.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
imkap
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pm

Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#1 Post by imkap » Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:40 am

Hi, my son would like me to add fluorescence to a microscope, as he wants to be able to identify some species of marine plankton and fish.
I found this SZ-FLR-200 at a fair price on ebay, no bulbs unfortunately and I suspect that the bulb will be more expensive than the unit. But I'm willing to buy it if the results might be ok. I'd put it on the SZ40, I was thinking about adding fluorescence on the BHS, but I think it might be a lot more expensive and complicated. And would make the whole microscope larger and I think it is large enough as it is, at least for now.

Please help us with your thoughts and experience on stereo microscope fluorescence or if anyone used the actual SZ-FLR-200 unit. Is this unit enough to provide the right light or I'd need to find more accessories?

Thanks

User avatar
imkap
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pm

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#2 Post by imkap » Mon Dec 05, 2022 11:23 pm

:|

Scarodactyl
Posts: 2760
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#3 Post by Scarodactyl » Tue Dec 06, 2022 12:05 am

That's a pretty obscure part, I doubt anyone will have tried it. Usually for stereo fluorescence you'd either just illuminate with a UV lamp and have a cutoff filter on the bottom of the scope (with a routine greenough) or coaxial (with a CMO).

User avatar
imkap
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pm

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#4 Post by imkap » Tue Dec 06, 2022 12:20 am

Ok, thanks for chiming in... I understand, I'd have to put the light on and a filter. I suppose there are a few different filters that can be used.
This is the only info I found in the SZ brochure:
Fluorescent Ring Illuminator The SZ-FLR fluorescent ring illuminator assures a sharp, shadow-free field or view.

Meanwhile I remembered I'm a member of the Olympus group on Facebook, so posted a similar question there. I prefer the forum though :)

Scarodactyl
Posts: 2760
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#5 Post by Scarodactyl » Tue Dec 06, 2022 12:23 am

Ohhhh. That's a fluorescent bulb ringlight, not a UV illuminator.

Hobbyst46
Posts: 4275
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:02 pm

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#6 Post by Hobbyst46 » Tue Dec 06, 2022 10:52 am

Fluorescence on stereo microscopes has been discussed on the forum a few times between 1 and 3 years ago, I believe.
A commercial setup was mentioned, as well as "simple" DIY solutions. If one can search the forum and find those posts...

The chief challenge of fluorescence is that it requires a very intense illuminator for excitation light, AND complete elimination of that intense light from the observation path (be it the eye or an electronic sensor). This is because fluorescence is orders-of-magnitude weaker than excitation. The same principles hold for stereos,
The simplest solution has been to place the illuminating beam at a right angle to the observation path. That alone is not sufficient. So dichroic mirrors and cutoff filters have been added. In compound microscopes fitted with epi-illumination, these elements are usually included in a mechanical "cube" structure, that is placed between the objective and eyepiece.

Fluorescence can be excited with many wavelengths of light, but usually shorter wavelength ones are efficient - for example, UV (~360nm), violet (~400nm) and blue (~450nm). Especially with UV, safety measures must be taken to protect the eyesight. To see natural red fluorescence of green plants or algae (for example), violet light is great, and UV is not needed.

User avatar
zzffnn
Posts: 3196
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:57 am
Location: Houston, Texas, USA
Contact:

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#7 Post by zzffnn » Tue Dec 06, 2022 9:22 pm

I agree with hobbyist46.

A microscopist may want to know what materials and excitation wavelengths are required first.

With some luck, study and patience, it is possible to assemble a nice BHS fluorescence rig for a few hundred euros.

Doing it with dissecting scopes may seem easier initially, but light gathering ability of dissecting scopes is generally much worse than compound scopes.

For fluorescence, light gather is very important. For example, dissecting scopes get much worse for fluorescence as magnification increases beyond 40x total magnification.

Of course, with compound scopes, you loose 3D and normal right-side-up vision, along with ability to view deeper subject surface in one focus plane.

User avatar
imkap
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pm

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#8 Post by imkap » Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:35 pm

Hi, I'm very busy these days so I have time to read the posts, but don't respond very quickly... Sorry about that
I think I'll upgrade the BHS sooner or later :D , but as you said with luck, patience and study, that seems like a real solution but it takes time.

The reason I mentioned the SZ-FLR unit is that I found a lot of 6 of them pretty cheaply on ebay for 30€ + shipping, so I was thinking about ordering that and that might be fun to try out and a temporary solution before I find the real thing for the BHS. The Olympus housings look nice for DIY and one might even make a LED ring light out of one of them.

But I just realized that the lamp works at 220V and I'm not going to keep 220V on a bulb near my sons face. Although theoretically it should be safe, the scope is plastic, he seems smart enough not to fiddle etc. but still, children and high voltage, especially when it is coming from a 30 year old unit are not a good match. :!:

Thanks for your help

Scarodactyl
Posts: 2760
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#9 Post by Scarodactyl » Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:43 pm

It's just a normal white ring light with a fluorescent tube bulb. A modern cheap LED unit will probably give better results. Incidentally if you're worried about your son being near mains voltage fluorescence microscopy is probably not the right technique.

User avatar
imkap
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pm

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#10 Post by imkap » Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:54 pm

Well mains voltage is in the BHS base too, as with most appliances :), but this ring light seems pretty fiddly...

User avatar
imkap
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pm

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#11 Post by imkap » Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:03 am

Scarodactyl wrote:
Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:43 pm
It's just a normal white ring light with a fluorescent tube bulb.
I thought maybe this would make the specimen glow similar like the lights in night clubs. When people's teeth glow in the dark :mrgreen:

Scarodactyl
Posts: 2760
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#12 Post by Scarodactyl » Wed Dec 07, 2022 2:44 am

Think more corporate tube lighting.

Sure Squintsalot
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon May 16, 2022 3:44 pm

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#13 Post by Sure Squintsalot » Wed Dec 07, 2022 2:51 am

I bring a UV light with me on night dives and can tell you that if plankton fluoresced under UV light, I wouldn't be able to see anything through the ensuing fog of emitted light. As it is, I'm usually pretty surprised by how much underwater life doesn't fluoresce; usually limited to a handful of corals, and the occasional fish or crab part.

It would be worth researching images of plankton photographed under UV light before investing all that time, effort, and risk. I think it's time you got that kid underwater with his purpose built underwater macroscope!

Hobbyst46
Posts: 4275
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:02 pm

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#14 Post by Hobbyst46 » Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:08 pm

Sure Squintsalot wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 2:51 am
I bring a UV light with me on night dives and can tell you that if plankton fluoresced under UV light, I wouldn't be able to see anything through the ensuing fog of emitted light. As it is, I'm usually pretty surprised by how much underwater life doesn't fluoresce; usually limited to a handful of corals, and the occasional fish or crab part.

It would be worth researching images of plankton photographed under UV light before investing all that time, effort, and risk. I think it's time you got that kid underwater with his purpose built underwater macroscope!
Algae (including diatoms) do fluoresce. Deep sea micro-fauna are sometimes chemilumenescent, i. e. they emit light but it is not fluorescence. And of course all those light compete with scattered light from sand and dust in the water. I do not know if any such light-source creatures are visible at shallow waters.

The bunch of Olympus SZ-FLR shown on eBay are bulb-less. And as Scarodactyl mentioned, modern LED ring illuminators will cost less, powered by 12VDC rather than 220VAC, and give out brighter illumination.

User avatar
imkap
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pm

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#15 Post by imkap » Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:15 pm

He wants a fluorescent light because a certain species of I think Atlanta swimming sea snail has some fluorescent parts. That is a marker for identifying.

I have a 12v bulb on the SZ40, but it doesn't give a very good light. I even made a gooseneck light from some parts I had, but it heats too much. Enough to kill a specimen in a Petri dish. Maybe I could reduce the power.

Probably the fiber optic thing is the best option, there are some on ebay for 130€, which is a bit expensive but not too much. I think that might be a way to go.

Squintsalot you have a UV flashlight? That might work?

Sure Squintsalot
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon May 16, 2022 3:44 pm

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#16 Post by Sure Squintsalot » Wed Dec 07, 2022 7:29 pm

As far as I know, which is pitifully little, it's chlorophyll (Chl-a) that fluoresces in some signature way, under a precise electro-chemical stress. Apparently it's used as a census technique: zap 'em and count 'em as their lights blink on and dim off. My extensive googling can't find any instance of using UV light for this process. Also, despite many articles detailing the harmful effects of UV light on plankton, I've see zero mention of UV induced fluorescence in planktons, which, in and of itself, is kind of interesting.

There's no harm in trying a UV flashlight to look at zooplankton, though given their cost, I'd suggest borrowing one for that purpose. They are nice to have even for looking at bugs, minerals, money, and crime scenes.

Here's a shot of "all" that plankton fluorescing:
Screenshot 2022-12-07 123528.jpg
Screenshot 2022-12-07 123528.jpg (84.8 KiB) Viewed 3380 times
By contrast, two species of soft coral, a feather duster worm, feather star, and underlying hard coral are fluorescing. Under white LED light, the water is an absolute beehive of tiny things unseen in UV light!
Screenshot 2022-12-07 124046.jpg
Screenshot 2022-12-07 124046.jpg (123.88 KiB) Viewed 3380 times

User avatar
imkap
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pm

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#17 Post by imkap » Wed Dec 07, 2022 11:58 pm

Sure Squintsalot wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 7:29 pm
Here's a shot of "all" that plankton fluorescing
:D When you put it like this, I understand. It seems I have missed a football completely (a usual saying here about missing a point).

I'll tell the little biologist to stick with DF... BHS fluorescence would be great, but I think patience is a virtue that should be trained from young age... I'll just find a better light for the stereo, also patiently.

Thanks for your help, it's been great chatting with you as always :)

Sure Squintsalot
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon May 16, 2022 3:44 pm

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#18 Post by Sure Squintsalot » Thu Dec 08, 2022 4:31 am

:)

BramHuntingNematodes
Posts: 1536
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:29 am
Location: Georgia, USA

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#19 Post by BramHuntingNematodes » Thu Dec 08, 2022 5:01 am

A bulb which creates white light through fluorescence will not create uv light that makes other things fluoresce. There may have been uv emitting (black light) ring bulbs, but in the main this kind of fixture was used for regular reflected brightfield. There were these things called "corvascopes" used to blast oil and tar with uv to observe with a stereoscope, but I don't think they used a ring light and had a pretty large housing.

There are separate uv optics as well that are used to observe uv directly (with a sensor) rather than the side effects of uv radiation. These sorts of setup require more than a lamp.

Many organisms fluoresce when struck by non uv frequency light, but to observe this requires the special set ups mentioned above.
1942 Bausch and Lomb Series T Dynoptic, Custom Illumination

MichaelG.
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:24 am
Location: North Wales

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#20 Post by MichaelG. » Thu Dec 08, 2022 8:36 am

For the benefit of any innocent future visitor to this topic: Here is a Wikipedia page about ‘Blacklight’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight

… which should hopefully clarify the matter.

MichaelG.
Too many 'projects'

Sliding Focus
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2020 6:26 pm
Location: Ghent, NY, USA

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#21 Post by Sliding Focus » Mon Jan 23, 2023 7:35 pm

Could a product that works for photographing fluorescence also work for observing it with a stereomicroscope?

https://adaptalux.com/getting-started-u ... otography/

http://extreme-macro.co.uk/uv-macro-lighting/

I haven't tried this myself, but some of the lights described in those links look intriguing—might they be a solution for the OP?

User avatar
imkap
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pm

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#22 Post by imkap » Mon Jan 23, 2023 8:26 pm

Sliding Focus wrote:
Mon Jan 23, 2023 7:35 pm
Could a product that works for photographing fluorescence also work for observing it with a stereomicroscope?

https://adaptalux.com/getting-started-u ... otography/

http://extreme-macro.co.uk/uv-macro-lighting/

I haven't tried this myself, but some of the lights described in those links look intriguing—might they be a solution for the OP?
When someone writes OP, I always think of Oscar Peterson :mrgreen:

Thanks, I'll look into it, the results look great at a first glance...

Sliding Focus
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2020 6:26 pm
Location: Ghent, NY, USA

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#23 Post by Sliding Focus » Thu Feb 08, 2024 4:38 pm

Reviving this thread again—I've been thinking about how I might observe fluorescence with my stereomicroscope, and I just learned that Amscope offers several versions of UV LED gooseneck lights, e.g.: https://amscope.com/products/led-6w-uv3 ... 7665662127, https://amscope.com/products/fb-6w-395x ... 7687551151, https://amscope.com/products/c-fb-6w-42 ... 2145788079. They're a little pricey, but seem like an interesting option! I'd be really curious how the 365nm version compares to the Adaptalux system I linked in my previous post, to the various UV flashlights available on the market, and to professional systems from the big 4. (I assume of course that the simple/cheap options would be less versatile than a professional system with multiple filters, but I don't want or need that—I'm more wondering whether they put out enough light that I could reasonably expect to observe fluorescence visually on e.g. a whole insect specimen or if the fluorescence would be detectable only by making a long exposure with a camera.)

Sliding Focus
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2020 6:26 pm
Location: Ghent, NY, USA

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#24 Post by Sliding Focus » Thu Feb 08, 2024 5:27 pm

Although rather expensive, the Nightsea fluorescence system for stereo microscopes also looks pretty interesting: https://www.emsdiasum.com/nightsea-fluo ... ng-systems.

(Found via this thread by MichaelG, which has a good discussion on how one might DIY something similar: viewtopic.php?t=6608.)

Sliding Focus
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2020 6:26 pm
Location: Ghent, NY, USA

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#25 Post by Sliding Focus » Thu Feb 08, 2024 5:55 pm

Also from MichaelG's thread: an article from Micscape on photographing fluorescence with a stereomicroscope: http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/ind ... oray6.html.

Hobbyst46
Posts: 4275
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:02 pm

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#26 Post by Hobbyst46 » Thu Feb 08, 2024 7:18 pm

Sliding Focus wrote:
Thu Feb 08, 2024 4:38 pm
Reviving this thread again—I've been thinking about how I might observe fluorescence with my stereomicroscope, and I just learned that Amscope offers several versions of UV LED gooseneck lights, e.g.: https://amscope.com/products/led-6w-uv3 ... 7665662127, https://amscope.com/products/fb-6w-395x ... 7687551151, https://amscope.com/products/c-fb-6w-42 ... 2145788079. They're a little pricey, but seem like an interesting option! I'd be really curious how the 365nm version compares to the Adaptalux system I linked in my previous post, to the various UV flashlights available on the market, and to professional systems from the big 4. (I assume of course that the simple/cheap options would be less versatile than a professional system with multiple filters, but I don't want or need that—I'm more wondering whether they put out enough light that I could reasonably expect to observe fluorescence visually on e.g. a whole insect specimen or if the fluorescence would be detectable only by making a long exposure with a camera.)
Do you really need 365nm wavelength ? if not, if 395nm or 420nm would be OK for the type of fluorescence you wish to see, I would opt for either the 395 or the 420 rather than the 365, for personal safety (eyesight !) reasons at least. And pay even less - ~130 USD as listed.

Sliding Focus
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2020 6:26 pm
Location: Ghent, NY, USA

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#27 Post by Sliding Focus » Fri Feb 09, 2024 12:33 am

Do you really need 365nm wavelength ? if not, if 395nm or 420nm would be OK for the type of fluorescence you wish to see, I would opt for either the 395 or the 420 rather than the 365, for personal safety (eyesight !) reasons at least. And pay even less - ~130 USD as listed.
I am not sure, but I very well might not! In the time since I wrote that post, I've acquired a copy of a relevant paper, and its authors examined their specimens in 425nm, 470nm, and 480nm light.

I'm not about to buy anything just yet—at this point, fluorescence is a fun, new idea, but I'm not sure how seriously I want to pursue it. I'd definitely want to make sure I have adequate safety equipment if I do! Based on the poking around I did today, it looks like I'd want, at minimum, some kind of UV cut filter (like this one?) for the 'scope's objective (both to protect the cement in the 'scope's optics and to protect my eyes when viewing through the 'scope) and either a filter (like this one?) or a solid barrier to block me from having a direct view of the specimen when the light is turned on. Safety goggles rated to block UV (made from polycarbonate?) might also be a good idea for an extra layer of protection. Does that all sound correct and adequate? Or would you recommend anything additional or different?

Hobbyst46
Posts: 4275
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:02 pm

Re: Olympus SZ-FLR-200

#28 Post by Hobbyst46 » Fri Feb 09, 2024 8:16 am

Sliding Focus wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 12:33 am
Do you really need 365nm wavelength ? if not, if 395nm or 420nm would be OK for the type of fluorescence you wish to see, I would opt for either the 395 or the 420 rather than the 365, for personal safety (eyesight !) reasons at least. And pay even less - ~130 USD as listed.
I am not sure, but I very well might not! In the time since I wrote that post, I've acquired a copy of a relevant paper, and its authors examined their specimens in 425nm, 470nm, and 480nm light.

I'm not about to buy anything just yet—at this point, fluorescence is a fun, new idea, but I'm not sure how seriously I want to pursue it. I'd definitely want to make sure I have adequate safety equipment if I do! Based on the poking around I did today, it looks like I'd want, at minimum, some kind of UV cut filter (like this one?) for the 'scope's objective (both to protect the cement in the 'scope's optics and to protect my eyes when viewing through the 'scope) and either a filter (like this one?) or a solid barrier to block me from having a direct view of the specimen when the light is turned on. Safety goggles rated to block UV (made from polycarbonate?) might also be a good idea for an extra layer of protection. Does that all sound correct and adequate? Or would you recommend anything additional or different?
Again, the first feature to consider is excitation wavelength. 400nm and up are not UV and are safer than UV. Still, since the LED beam is not strictly monochromatic, a nominal 400nm LED might emit some residual long wave UV (depending on the specs). I would not worry about UV if the LED is 425nm and up.
The protective means you mentioned are OK in principle. Yet, safety goggles will probably hinder convenient visibility through the eyepieces, and the "UV filter shield" is intended for compound scopes, and I doubt its relevance (and ease of installation) for sterescopes.

Several DIY fluorescence setups for stereoscopes have been posted on the forum.

Just avoid looking directly into the lamp, and prevent spurious reflections from other objects (mirrors, glass surfaces, shiny metal parts etc).
The filter set should meet the expected excitation and fluorescence wavelengths. Routinely, on a compound scope, the cube includes an excitation filter (especially if the illuminator is a mercury lamp), a dichroic mirror and an emission filter. Both latter components are essential to separate the fluorescence from excitation light. On a stereoscope, the setup can vary. The simplest IMO is excitation by a gooseneck LED (say, 5-10W power; optionally equipped with a bandpass excitation filter) and a longpass emission filter; try to block all other ambient lights to see the fluorescence.

Post Reply