MicrobeHunter.com Microscopy Forum

Hi i just got a sony a7s II full frame camera and was looking for a way to attach to my microscope which is the reichert diastar 420
Any info would belpfull thanks!

Some recent threads:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9709
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10021
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=10550
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=11268

Since you have a full-frame sensor, could also look into the Photostar system with 2.8X lens, for example:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/143679469748

Not sure how easily it would adapt to the Sony mount and the asking price on that one seems pretty high to me, but it is the only complete one I have seen for sale in the last year. I searched quite a bit but never found example images from a Photostar system.

I did find this and it uses an eye piece that drops inside of it..
the trinocular head I have on the scopes is a micro star but not the one with the slot. It has 20.5mm hole. It arrives Monday will let you know..
Attached image
So I think this will work

I like the mechanical quality of what I have bought from newhoper. The optical solutions he offers look a bit 'one size fits all', not the approach I would go with, but I have never seen an actual demo off of one and will be very interested to see how it performs for you.

TommyGunn wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:16 pm

...the trinocular head I have on the scopes is a micro star but not the one with the slot. It has 20.5mm hole.

Are you talking about a 100-series trinocular head like this?

TommyGunn wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:16 pm

I did find this and it uses an eye piece that drops inside of it..
the trinocular head I have on the scopes is a micro star but not the one with the slot. It has 20.5mm hole. It arrives Monday will let you know..
Attached image
So I think this will work

Im very interested in this as I have not figured out which way to go to mount mine, would you mind sharing the items link?

hans wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:49 pm

TommyGunn wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:16 pm

...the trinocular head I have on the scopes is a micro star but not the one with the slot. It has 20.5mm hole.

Are you talking about a 100-series trinocular head like this?

That is exactly the one I have..

TommyGunn wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 09, 2021 9:04 pm

That is exactly the one I have..

The corrections are different between the older 34 mm parfocal system and newer 45 mm on the Microstar IV and Diastar so you can get some lateral CA (blue/orange fringes on sharp edges) when mixing parts. An example of lateral CA resulting from leaving out the color-correcting doublet from a 400-series head can be seen in the first post of thread viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10021 I linked earlier. I'm not sure how much lateral CA is expected with a 10-series head on a Diastar, but it tends to be much more noticeable/objectionable in photos vs. just looking through the eyepieces visually. Have you tried taking photos through the binocular eyepieces on the 100-series head with a smartphone camera? What type of eyepiece were you planning to put in the newhoper tube?

hans wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 09, 2021 9:54 pm

TommyGunn wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 09, 2021 9:04 pm

That is exactly the one I have..

The corrections are different between the older 34 mm parfocal system and newer 45 mm on the Microstar IV and Diastar so you can get some lateral CA (blue/orange fringes on sharp edges) when mixing parts. An example of lateral CA resulting from leaving out the color-correcting doublet from a 400-series head can be seen in the first post of thread viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10021 I linked earlier. I'm not sure how much lateral CA is expected with a 10-series head on a Diastar, but it tends to be much more noticeable/objectionable in photos vs. just looking through the eyepieces visually. Have you tried taking photos through the binocular eyepieces on the 100-series head with a smartphone camera? What type of eyepiece were you planning to put in the newhoper tube?

No have not attempted to do any filming yet on it yet. What eye piece do you recommend to put in the newhoper tube?

I am still using my amscope 340t to film.. I ether used the labcam or amscope camera adapter with.a rebel t5i .. both seem to work really well. So I am hoping for better results with the Sony sharper, better exposer.
So I am hoping

Plasmid wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 09, 2021 2:54 am

TommyGunn wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:16 pm

I did find this and it uses an eye piece that drops inside of it..
the trinocular head I have on the scopes is a micro star but not the one with the slot. It has 20.5mm hole. It arrives Monday will let you know..
Attached image
So I think this will work

Im very interested in this as I have not figured out which way to go to mount mine, would you mind sharing the items link?

Hmm I wonder if I could make a mount for that but I have no idea about the rest above the mount.

Did you message me a while ago about a filter holder I made? Sorry I have not been on the forum for a while.

Tommy

Plasmid wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 09, 2021 2:54 am

TommyGunn wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:16 pm

I did find this and it uses an eye piece that drops inside of it..
the trinocular head I have on the scopes is a micro star but not the one with the slot. It has 20.5mm hole. It arrives Monday will let you know..
Attached image
So I think this will work

Im very interested in this as I have not figured out which way to go to mount mine, would you mind sharing the items link?

Here is the link to the guy who has camera mounts if you email him he can maybe help you.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/264795688657

TommyGunn wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 10, 2021 11:53 pm

What eye piece do you recommend to put in the newhoper tube?

With a 100-series head and 400-series stand and objectives, no idea. It may not be easy to get an image as well corrected as seen through the eyepieces with the normal head. If you have a normal 400-series binocular head I would start by comparing the two heads, taking photos with smartphone camera through the eyepieces not using the camera port at all, and see if you think the image quality using the 100-series head is acceptable.

Since the camera attachment is different on the 100-series vs. 400-series (shown in Plasmid's photos) you may want to consider trying to get a 400-series head before investing too much in adapters for the 100-series head.

If you have a set of normal AO/Reichert Neoplans or Planachros, it will be hard to find a photo relay lens that will provide the needed peripheral corrections, using a series 100 trinocular. The residual lateral ca level is quite different between the 34mm and 45mm( U.S.A.) . I did some eyepiece trialling some time ago but not exhaustively. I never found any that wiped out the ca visually when mixing the 45mm objectives with a series 10/20 or 100/120 head.
If you can tolerate about a 70% field capture to your sensor then you might be alright.

The mounting tube on the AO camera adapter pictured above is 20.5mm to fit into the trinocular port of either of the AO slip in type trinocular heads. Where is there a 23.2 mm port to accept the photo eyepiece?

apochronaut wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:20 pm

The mounting tube on the AO camera adapter pictured above is 20.5mm to fit into the trinocular port of either of the AO slip in type trinocular heads. Where is there a 23.2 mm port to accept the photo eyepiece?

Not one of the main photos at the top but in this listing https://www.ebay.com/itm/264762489694 further down the page there is a photo showing the eyepiece fitting somewhere in the middle of the tube.

Looks like it sits just at the top of the narrower tube. The original AO photo tube which accepted an eyepiece put the eyepiece exactly parfocal with the visual eyepieces. Presumably he has done that too. The wider upper adapter looks like one of those standard T mount to bayonet adapters from China. I use a system not dissimilar to this but it is a clamped on camera adapter with a male T thread on the top. I put a small helicoid between the T male and T female . This allows fine trimming of the image circle and precise framing.

apochronaut wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 12, 2021 2:14 am

Looks like it sits just at the top of the narrower tube. The original AO photo tube which accepted an eyepiece put the eyepiece exactly parfocal with the visual eyepieces. Presumably he has done that too. The wider upper adapter looks like one of those standard T mount to bayonet adapters from China. I use a system not dissimilar to this but it is a clamped on camera adapter with a male T thread on the top. I put a small helicoid between the T male and T female . This allows fine trimming of the image circle and precise framing.

The tube opens up and the is a mount to fit 23mm eye piece inside. The mount fits in the 20.5 trinocular port and then tighten down with a Tumbscrew.
So the report is:
It was aluminum.
Focus is way off than eyepiece. No way to align focus with eyepiece.
Soft image not sharp little fringe
Full frame 4K yes

Still can’t compare to my labcam phone mount.

So not sure if this would work better on another microscope since my microscope is a bit of a Frankenstein a work in progress.
I did find what the correct head looks like.

Now with this head it is setup for old fashion film if one was to add a mirrorless camera at what section would it be added?

The trinocular pictured is the 100/0 20/80 0/100 trinocular. Those are very nice. I use one. The much more common trinocular head is 100/0 0/100 only and looks like the one in this ebay listing. https://www.ebay.ca/itm/TRINOCULAR-MICR ... .l4275.c10


The camera mounted is a 35mm, so to mount a full frame digital , it could go about in the same place. The long cylindrical coupler came in 2 lengths. One for 35mm and one for a 4X5 polaroid back.

I didn't like the lens in the one I had so I gutted the photostar shutter box and built it up to take an eyepiece. The distance to set it for an APS-C is in one of the threads Hans copied links to.

For the Series 10/11/110 etc, trinoc. The opening is for inserting the shutter assembly into the trinco tube. For insertion of the standard eyepiece there is a photo tube adapter (1044) that fits into the trinoc and accepts the 23mm eyepiece. You might wnt to look at Diagnostic Instruments, They make a number of camera adapter for many microscopes.

I found the shutter and photo optic assembly to crop a little too much. The photo tube however, with the eyepiece works well.

wabutter wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:23 pm

For the Series 10/11/110 etc, trinoc. The opening is for inserting the shutter assembly into the trinco tube. For insertion of the standard eyepiece there is a photo tube adapter (1044) that fits into the trinoc and accepts the 23mm eyepiece. You might wnt to look at Diagnostic Instruments, They make a number of camera adapter for many microscopes.

Yea I just looked at diagnostics page..not the cheapest option in the bunch.

Originally I got this microscope because I got a good deal on it like 200. Bucks I was looking for a microscope so I could create videos with clear/ clean look..
I thought this microscope would work because it had infinity plan lens.. I have already spent a little on replacing the stage. But I don’t want to invest too much if if I’m not gonna get better image than my Chinese amscope t340 with an iPhone or canon rebel t5i attached to it.
my other option was a bh2 or some other microscope or If someone has a deal on a universal.
So how would you compare images from reichert to bh2 ?or universal or some other microscope that is is pretty common so part are easy to find.

Here are 2 sample of my videos
canon t5i with amscope camera adapter
https://youtu.be/n3xSIXGx3lE

Labcam with amscope t340
https://youtu.be/XRasdsS7Pyg

Nice videos in both cases.
How would I compare? Tough question, in this case it would require using the same samples and cameras on the two microscope. Then you would be in position to compare output, considering that everything was set up compatibly.
From a resolution/contrast basis, using compatible class objectives, the 420 and the BH2 would be a toss the up. The Diastar would have some advantages in filtering, lamp intensity, and over all stand rigidity.
Do you have a c mount to T mount adapterfor your Canom t5i. If so, I have a special (custom) 1044 that was modified to a C'mount that could be used with that way. I could let try before you buy if you want to try

Wayne

wabutter wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:50 am

Nice videos in both cases.
How would I compare? Tough question, in this case it would require using the same samples and cameras on the two microscope. Then you would be in position to compare output, considering that everything was set up compatibly.
From a resolution/contrast basis, using compatible class objectives, the 420 and the BH2 would be a toss the up. The Diastar would have some advantages in filtering, lamp intensity, and over all stand rigidity.
Do you have a c mount to T mount adapterfor your Canom t5i. If so, I have a special (custom) 1044 that was modified to a C'mount that could be used with that way. I could let try before you buy if you want to try

Wayne

Thanks Wayne I got the Sony a7s II which is a full frame 4K camera I do have some metabones adapter for canon but I need to make sure it does full frame..also I would need to get the correct head for the diastar.

But thanks for the offer let me get this microscope straighten out first.

Wait are you talking about a tube like this?
This is what came with the scope I got 2 heads.

Yes, that is the photo eyepiece tube. Is it threaded on the top? If so, it probably the is the C'mount rather than an eyepiece tube.
What is the process for inserting an image on these threads? I see the image icon, but it doesn't offer a way to pick a file.

Wayne

is this the same tube? here you can see threading.
the inside hole is about 15.67mm
below you will see options and attachments select attachment. this site is finicky about file size..