New (to me) Leitz scope

Here you can post pictures and videos to show others.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Ncs
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2022 6:39 pm

New (to me) Leitz scope

#1 Post by Ncs » Sun Sep 25, 2022 7:12 pm

Hi all,

I just bought this Leitz sm-lux hl scope second hand that was used in semiconductor inspections. I am hoping to connect my nikon z9 to it to do some cool focus stacks and mosaic images to create super high resolution photos of subjects too small for my macro lens. I know a little bit about microscopy but never enough. It's trinocular so I should be able to buy an adapter to attach a camera up top correct? If so, would anyone know what adapter I would need to attach my camera? I've tried to find some information on this scope on the internet but if anyone knows much about it off hand I would greatly appreciate any insight into it. Hopeful to get some cool images with the scope and post them here!
Attachments
20220925_114459.jpg
20220925_114459.jpg (134.99 KiB) Viewed 1920 times

User avatar
blekenbleu
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:55 pm
Location: South Carolina low country
Contact:

Re: New (to me) Leitz scope

#2 Post by blekenbleu » Sun Sep 25, 2022 8:26 pm

Being roughly 50 years old, according to this:
http://earth2geologists.net/Microscopes/LeitzScopes.htm
...a camera for the SM-Lux would have used film and probably some elaborate beam splitters for composing and exposure control.
Depending on what pieces are already on the trinocular photo port, it may have provisions for a (photo relay) ocular,
which with matching corrections for those objectives and magnification for your Z9 sensor may be rare and expensive.
This PDF mentions a Wright eye-piece (page 7):
http://earth2geologists.net/Microscopes ... manual.pdf

If interested in minimizing cost, consider some experiments, starting by focusing a high contrast subject,
such as printed text, with eyepieces, then e.g. holding ground glass or waxed paper over the photo port
to determine whether and at what distance a parfocal image is projected.
If of appropriate size, perhaps only camera extension tubes and some physical adapter could work,
but is liable to chromatic and spherical aberrations. I suggest this experiment because
perhaps those EPI objectives may not require the same corrections as do typical Leitz biological objectives.

Leitz owners recommend using a matching Periplan 10x eyepiece with a lens of suitable focal length (50-60mm for Z9?)
for afocal capture. You could temporarily repurpose one of the eyepieces for that experiment.
Here are earlier discussions:
https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... hp?t=10237
https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... hp?p=95721
Periplan GF were more expensive than NF; presumably better-corrected, wider field or eyeglass relief...
https://www.mikroskopie-forum.de/index. ... ic=40144.0

If the photo tube port diameter is 30mm and Periplan is 23.2, generic adapters are available.
30mm Periplans were sold (at least GW 8x and 6.3x).
https://www.ronaldschulte.nl/files/Manu ... plan78.pdf

Here is a T-mount (42x0.75mm) to 30mm adapter advertising 23.2mm i.d.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/264803148891
Step-down ring(s) from camera lens filter to 42mm solve camera mechanical attachment;
23.2mm eye piece was a loose fit in my copy of this adapter, solved by wrapping with tape.
Metaphot, Optiphot 1, 66; AO 10, 120, EPIStar, Cycloptic

Ncs
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2022 6:39 pm

Re: New (to me) Leitz scope

#3 Post by Ncs » Sun Sep 25, 2022 10:01 pm

blekenbleu wrote:
Sun Sep 25, 2022 8:26 pm


If interested in minimizing cost, consider some experiments, starting by focusing a high contrast subject,
such as printed text, with eyepieces, then e.g. holding ground glass or waxed paper over the photo port
to determine whether and at what distance a parfocal image is projected.
If of appropriate size, perhaps only camera extension tubes and some physical adapter could work,
but is liable to chromatic and spherical aberrations. I suggest this experiment because
perhaps those EPI objectives may not require the same corrections as do typical Leitz biological objectives.
In the box with the scope came this very old digital camera that fits into the trinocular port. Would this aid me at all in figuring out how to connect my modern camera?
Attachments
20220925_145114.jpg
20220925_145114.jpg (86.9 KiB) Viewed 1870 times
20220925_145104.jpg
20220925_145104.jpg (56.99 KiB) Viewed 1870 times
20220925_145059.jpg
20220925_145059.jpg (127.76 KiB) Viewed 1870 times

User avatar
blekenbleu
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:55 pm
Location: South Carolina low country
Contact:

Re: New (to me) Leitz scope

#4 Post by blekenbleu » Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:09 pm

Ncs wrote:
Sun Sep 25, 2022 10:01 pm
Would this aid me at all?
Sure, supposing that it actually worked with that microscope, as is.
It appears to be a video camera, with what appears to be a sensor with no optics,
presumably at the focal plane. Also (presumably) about the appropriate image size,
which means that Z9 images would be substantial vignetted.

If it is a monochrome video camera, chromatic aberrations would have been unobvious.
I suppose that 643365 adapter unscrews, possibly exposing a C-mount.
Getting the focal plane for a Periplan eyepiece at the plane of that video camera sensor,
supposing it is wanted for objective corrections and magnification,
wants some improvisation.
Metaphot, Optiphot 1, 66; AO 10, 120, EPIStar, Cycloptic

Ncs
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2022 6:39 pm

Re: New (to me) Leitz scope

#5 Post by Ncs » Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:37 pm

I did unscrew the adapter, put it in the trinocular port, and carefully held a spare camera up to the adapter, it was perfectly focused just a few mm above where the sensor would make contact with the adapter if I were to lower the camera more so I believe I could find a way to adapt the nikon z mount to this camera adapter with a series of flanges. My first observation was the image looked fairly soft compared to my view through the eyepieces. CA wasn't terrible and I am sure there was some barrel distortion but I can combat these relatively easily in post processing. My main objective is to get sharp images and ideally not spend an arm and a leg in the process

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

Re: New (to me) Leitz scope

#6 Post by imkap » Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:56 pm

Congratulations on your new microscope, it looks great. I have or had some Leitz and Wild objectives and they are all great.

If a camera came with the microscope than I suppose it might have been used for recording. So there is a chance the setup might be good as is, only thing you'd need is an adapter to keep your Z9 sensor on the same distance as the old camera's sensor.

The old sensor is smaller than your Z9 full frame, so more or less vignetting might occur. Depends on how much crop did the original camera do, how big portion of a field did it record.

I think for a start you can experiment with any kind of adapter like Nikon - m42 or macro extension tubes, maybe a bellows or whatever just leaning the camera with the adapter on the trinocular hole and holding it with your hand to see what happens.

Probably you'll need relay lens or other glass between a camera and microscope, but maybe not. Best to find out how it was supposed to be done with your microscope and find the parts. Anyway it is good to study the concepts of focal and afocal photography and experiment. To see what are your options, at least until you find the parts.

Here are some helpful links:
https://krebsmicro.com/
https://microscopyofnature.com/
http://www.alanwood.net/olympus/microscopes.html

Not much about Leitz or Leica here, but they are a good read...

Ncs
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2022 6:39 pm

Re: New (to me) Leitz scope

#7 Post by Ncs » Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:28 am

Thank you both for the advice so far! I'm sure my anatomy professor would be glad to hear I have been messing around with this stuff all day instead of listening to lecture and reading the text as I should've been doing. I have done some experimenting and have come up with the following observations and a workable image (as follows)

1. exposing the bare camera sensor to the trinocular port (both with or without the silver adapter) results in the most amount of reflected light on the sensor making exposing an image easier as I can increase shutter speed and decrease iso (which provides obvious imaging benefits.) However an image taken in this manner is both not very sharp and is flipped upside down (assuming it has to do with how the prism reflects light but my understanding of the insides of a microscope and it's physics is admittedly limited at best)
2. placing a periplan 10x eyepiece in the trinocular port and then focusing to infinity with an assortment of lenses (70-200mm, 24-70, vintage 50mm) proved to have better image quality though utilizing the trinocular port results in a loss of 20% of available light.

The way I ended up imaging today is shown below and is incredibly crude (constructive advice welcome!) a 16 image mosaic of a single printed letter was achieved by leveling a tripod with my camera on top at the level of one of the scopes two eyepieces. I discovered that the 50mm served as the best taking lens in this case. I played with the setup to get as big of an imaging circle as possible. I decided to shoot in full frame mode as the Dx sensor mode (a digital 1.5x crop in nikon cameras) cut more of the image than just the vignette portion; electing to cut the vignettes out myself. A single frame of the 16 image mosaic can be seen below followed by the stitched final result with global and local adjustments made in Lightroom to tweak the image. Only a single focus plane was utilized for this test though I will be testing more intricate image stacking techniques as I figure out how to get clean images out of this setup.
20220925_183133.jpg
20220925_183133.jpg (94.83 KiB) Viewed 1821 times
In conclusion, this is a start and I am probably doing a bunch of stuff wrong, though I am much further along than I was this morning.
_DSC1281.jpg
_DSC1281.jpg (170.88 KiB) Viewed 1821 times
_DSC1280-Pano.jpg
_DSC1280-Pano.jpg (173.45 KiB) Viewed 1821 times

User avatar
blekenbleu
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:55 pm
Location: South Carolina low country
Contact:

Re: New (to me) Leitz scope

#8 Post by blekenbleu » Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:24 am

Congrats; so far so good...
Your images are for classic so-called afocal camera imaging, seemingly the norm for Leitz.
If you do not mind dedicating a binocular tube for photos, then there are traditional adapters for that, e.g.
Image
... which clamp to an eye tube below the eyepiece,
but typically fit only eye tubes less than 25mm o.d.;
here are a couple currently on U.S. eBay:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/374263535283
https://www.ebay.com/itm/295201888414

For eye tubes up to 31mm, a comparable telescope clamp:
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61a ... L1200_.jpg
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B082HC7DYY
and M42 extension tubes can work the same way,
Image
... perhaps using e.g. brass shim stock to fill in the gap:
Image
https://blekenbleu.github.io/microscope/#EYECLAMP
an image taken in this manner is both not very sharp and is flipped
Flipping could be handled e.g. by rotating the camera 180 degrees,
but a Periplan eyepiece is evidently wanted for sharp results from the photo port.
Once your camera is rigidly attached, lower shutter speed solves available light issues.

Supposing that your trinocular camera port adapter is like this (except 30mm):
Image
https://www.ebay.com/itm/162034035467
.. then converting that to something which correctly positions a Periplan to it is beyond my experience;
most microscope C-mount eyepiece adapters have that male, rather than wanted female C-mount thread.
This is the known exception:
Image
https://www.ebay.com/itm/264803148891
.. but getting a 23.2mm Periplan parfocal with it is unknown; it might work...
42x0.75mm extension tube(s) will also be wanted to make space for the eyepiece
and connection to step-down ring(s) from your 50mm camera lens filter thread.
M42 extension tubes with 1.0mm threads are more common and will not screw on well/far;
those with 0.75mm threads are often called T or T2, e.g.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/254624293058

Otherwise, if that tube o.d. is 30mm and the trinocular port provides some clamping provision,
then perhaps a section of 30mm o.d. tubing could be cut and adjusted to length, e.g.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/394008323684,
used along with the 1.5-inch telescope adapter.
Metaphot, Optiphot 1, 66; AO 10, 120, EPIStar, Cycloptic

Ncs
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2022 6:39 pm

Re: New (to me) Leitz scope

#9 Post by Ncs » Wed Oct 05, 2022 6:26 pm

I spent some time trying to find a better system than afocal imaging. I ended up making a copy of the silver photo port adapter on a friends lathe, and then I turned down a 10$ vintage lens adapter I had laying around and I grafted the nikon z mount onto the copy of the silver photo port adapter. The quality through this setup has been much higher and more convenient than afocal imaging. The only downside is that is it slightly out of parfocal. This is a physical limitation as the top of the photo port is precisely 16mm below the parfocal point. The nikon Z flange distance is also 16mm so any amount of material between the top of the photo port and the flange of my camera will knock it out of parfocal. However the delta is very small, about a half turn of my fine focus. For some this may be a deal breaker but for what I have been taking images of so far it hasn't been an issue for me
20221005_105316.jpg
20221005_105316.jpg (161.6 KiB) Viewed 1624 times
20221005_105341.jpg
20221005_105341.jpg (103.96 KiB) Viewed 1624 times
20221002_184105.jpg
20221002_184105.jpg (67.45 KiB) Viewed 1624 times

User avatar
blekenbleu
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:55 pm
Location: South Carolina low country
Contact:

Re: New (to me) Leitz scope

#10 Post by blekenbleu » Thu Oct 06, 2022 4:45 pm

Ncs wrote:
Wed Oct 05, 2022 6:26 pm
I ended up making a copy of the silver photo port adapter on a friends lathe, and then I turned down a 10$ vintage lens adapter I had laying around and I grafted the nikon z mount onto the copy of the silver photo port adapter. The quality through this setup has been much higher and more convenient than afocal imaging.
Congratulations on a nice adaptation; with a bright subject in focus, consider removing the camera
and peering into it for stray light reflections. Flocking and/or flat black paint can improve contrast.
The only downside is that is it slightly out of parfocal.
...
However the delta is very small, about a half turn of my fine focus.
For some this may be a deal breaker but for what I have been taking images of so far it hasn't been an issue for me
Switching objectives requires me to refocus more than that;
here is a reference for tube length error impacts on aberrations:
https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 45#p258045
"... it would require NA 0.55 to barely detect a difference with +-3.5 mm of tube length.."
Criticality increases by NA^4; that would be about +- 0.3mm at NA 1.0.
Metaphot, Optiphot 1, 66; AO 10, 120, EPIStar, Cycloptic

Ncs
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2022 6:39 pm

Re: New (to me) Leitz scope

#11 Post by Ncs » Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:40 am

blekenbleu wrote:
Thu Oct 06, 2022 4:45 pm
here is a reference for tube length error impacts on aberrations:
https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 45#p258045
"... it would require NA 0.55 to barely detect a difference with +-3.5 mm of tube length.."
Criticality increases by NA^4; that would be about +- 0.3mm at NA 1.0.
I love all the references and sources that get shared on this forum but I must admit that nine times out of ten I have zero clue how to understand the information being discussed when I click into them!

User avatar
blekenbleu
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:55 pm
Location: South Carolina low country
Contact:

Re: New (to me) Leitz scope

#12 Post by blekenbleu » Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:26 pm

Ncs wrote:
Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:40 am
how to understand the information
Fine focus on many microscopes amounts to 200 microns per revolution;
half a turn would be 0.1mm. To a first approximation for small changes,
0.1mm distance change between object and objective corresponds to (magnification/10) mm change in tube length;
for a 40x/0.65 NA objective, that half turn approximately compensates 4mm tube length change
and is roughly twice the distance for which image differences might be detected in critical testing,
e.g. with sharp high contrast straight lines.

For me, tube length errors impact objective parfocality (need to refocus among nominally matched objectives of different powers)
far more noticeably than image quality.
Metaphot, Optiphot 1, 66; AO 10, 120, EPIStar, Cycloptic

Ncs
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2022 6:39 pm

Re: New (to me) Leitz scope

#13 Post by Ncs » Sat Oct 08, 2022 7:51 pm

blekenbleu wrote:
Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:26 pm
Fine focus on many microscopes amounts to 200 microns per revolution;
half a turn would be 0.1mm. To a first approximation for small changes,
0.1mm distance change between object and objective corresponds to (magnification/10) mm change in tube length;
for a 40x/0.65 NA objective, that half turn approximately compensates 4mm tube length change
and is roughly twice the distance for which image differences might be detected in critical testing,
e.g. with sharp high contrast straight lines.

For me, tube length errors impact objective parfocality (need to refocus among nominally matched objectives of different powers)
far more noticeably than image quality.
This made much more sense! Thank you for taking the time to write this out, I really appreciate it!

User avatar
blekenbleu
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:55 pm
Location: South Carolina low country
Contact:

Re: New (to me) Leitz scope

#14 Post by blekenbleu » Sat Oct 08, 2022 9:41 pm

Ncs wrote:
Sat Oct 08, 2022 7:51 pm
This made much more sense!
I can fix that, but first thank you for incenting me to investigate further.

It turns out that tube length errors are more tolerated by dry than immersion objectives:
viewtopic.php?p=127619#p127619

Although lacking supporting data, I suspect that tube length errors are tolerated even more
when using (e.g. metallurgical) dry objectives without coverslip correction.
Further, it appears that tube length error impact on aberrations is systematic,
and it is possible that introducing tube length error may provoke aberrations
that cancel some aberrations seen with correct tube length,
e.g. when using metallurgical objectives with slides having coverslips
or biological objectives designed for coverslips on other objects.

On order is a Zeiss Objektmikrometer calibration slide with coverslip:
https://www.ubergoodsales.store/detail/ ... ichbi.html
.. which I hope will provoke aberration artifacts with my strongest metallurgical objective,
which then may be aggravated or mitigated by tube length changes...
Metaphot, Optiphot 1, 66; AO 10, 120, EPIStar, Cycloptic

Post Reply