Significance of Difference between No-Name DSLR Adapters?

Here you can discuss everything related to taking light micrographs and videos.
Post Reply
Message
Author
mookerific
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2021 12:57 am

Significance of Difference between No-Name DSLR Adapters?

#1 Post by mookerific » Sun Feb 28, 2021 1:35 am

Hi all!

I'm new to the forum and to microscopy! At Oliver's suggestion (via the main website and his YT videos), I purchased a Swift 380T and am especially excited to use the trinocular mount to take some pretty videos with my kids! As I've slid down the rabbit hole towards finding a cost-effective camera setup, it seems that there are varied options and nothing is entirely plug-and-play unless you purchase a dedicated camera. Given that I have an old Canon T3i, I wanted to explore the DSLR adapter route, and to that end, have found three variations of the fabled "no-name" DSLR adapter, but am not sure what the significance of the differences are.

First we have the original one Oliver reviewed (and which he found to be decent for compound scopes, but not stereo ones). I've also since found two variants of this, each with a diaphragm adjuster, with one having it near the top (you can see how it works in the video on the listing) and the other having it on the shaft of the tube. To make things more exciting, this latter variant comes in two versions, a 2x and a 9.6x one.

Does anyone have any experience with this mess of variation? My initial thought is that the diaphragm adjustment may be of some value since these manufacturers are touting these as "New 2020" ones, but as I said, I haven't even looked through my microscope for more than 20 minutes, so I am pretty clueless. I'd like to be able to take some nice videos of rotifers and stuff, nothing too fancy, but I'd like to make an informed purchase here if I can. My guess also is that the 9.6x is unnecessary magnification (which begs the question of why it's being offered)

Many thanks in advance for any help or insight you can provide!

Sir
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2020 2:58 am

Re: Significance of Difference between No-Name DSLR Adapters?

#2 Post by Sir » Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:30 am

A while back I posted a comparison of two of these kinds of adapters. Since then I've been using the one sold by Amscope, and it honestly seems like the same one that they're selling on AliExpress. So if I were given the option today, I'd probably get the AliExpress one to save on costs. I haven't had the chance to try one with an aperture diaphragm, but it looks like the same adapter with just that variation, and I reckon having more control over lighting would be a plus!

I've found the quality of the one I have to be sufficient, but keep in mind that a lot of these adapters aren't entirely dust-free. The one I have had a few specs that I can't get rid of, and there is no way of opening it up. They're not too noticeable and I haven't had issues editing them out when needed. Here are some videos I made with this adapter.

Please do share your experience if you do end up ordering one of these. I'd be really interested to know how the aperture diaphragm affects the quality of images :D

Red_Green
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2020 9:38 pm

Re: Significance of Difference between No-Name DSLR Adapters?

#3 Post by Red_Green » Sun Feb 28, 2021 3:41 pm

+ 1 for the Amscope.

Perfect adapter

PeteM
Posts: 2963
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Significance of Difference between No-Name DSLR Adapters?

#4 Post by PeteM » Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:48 pm

The 2x adapters with the iris might be handy - perhaps allowing better images - but I have no direct experience. One would think field and aperture iris settings in the microscope might be enough - but performance of the 2x relay lens in these these drops off enough at the edges it might be handy. If you get one, hope you'll come back and give a report.

Oliver seems to have inspired scores of people to get the relatively affordable Swift microscopes. Perhaps one of them will have taken photos of a micrometer slide and one of these adapters? It would help to judge field flatness, chromatic aberrations, and perhaps give some subjective opinion about contrast as seen through the eyepieces versus as seen by the camera.

My own experience with the 2x AmScope DSLR adapter has been mixed. On the plus side they're very affordable (even more so for the ones without the distributor's brand) and usable. On the minus side the lens quality is just so-so and they won't offer proper corrections if you're dealing with a microscope (most finite ones, even vaunted ones like Olympus, Leica, or Zeiss Standard) that wants eyepiece corrections.

The quality of T-mount camera adapters also varies widely - probably from manufacturing batch to batch - in the cheap adapters. I've had Nikon versions what worked perfectly and others machined to such loose tolerances I wouldn't trust my DSLR on it. One that nearly jammed put. Good news is that they're cheap to replace. You can throw that part away and try another.

Bottom line - it's always difficult to get images of a quality that come anywhere close to what you see in the eyepieces. The 2x adapters are a tenth the cost of an OEM solution and good enough for routine documentation. Perhaps a good way to get started -- and the iris models don't cost much more -- while recognizing you may still be looking for a better solution down the road.

mookerific
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2021 12:57 am

Re: Significance of Difference between No-Name DSLR Adapters?

#5 Post by mookerific » Sun Feb 28, 2021 8:44 pm

Sir wrote:
Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:30 am
A while back I posted a comparison of two of these kinds of adapters. Since then I've been using the one sold by Amscope, and it honestly seems like the same one that they're selling on AliExpress. So if I were given the option today, I'd probably get the AliExpress one to save on costs. I haven't had the chance to try one with an aperture diaphragm, but it looks like the same adapter with just that variation, and I reckon having more control over lighting would be a plus!

I've found the quality of the one I have to be sufficient, but keep in mind that a lot of these adapters aren't entirely dust-free. The one I have had a few specs that I can't get rid of, and there is no way of opening it up. They're not too noticeable and I haven't had issues editing them out when needed. Here are some videos I made with this adapter.

Please do share your experience if you do end up ordering one of these. I'd be really interested to know how the aperture diaphragm affects the quality of images :D
Thanks so much for this. Just when I thought I had trawled through all of the relevant posts here on this topic, I realize that I missed perhaps the most important one! The takeaway from your post (and the pass-through to other threads from there) actually leads me to two conclusions: (i) that the best of the adapters is not any of which I've posted, but rather one that is labelled as NDPL-2(2X), which my google searching is simply unable to turn up anywhere (Aliexpress, Wish, and Banggood all turn up empty) and (ii) I think that a mobile phone mount may actually be the way to go! Your $8 mount seems to have provided more than adequate pictures and, in fact, the best video!

Deciding to proceed along this path -- especially since I have both a Pixel XL and Pixel 3XL for use, the former of which has been grandfathered unlimited video and photo storage at original (4k quality) on Google Photos for life -- I am now torn, once again. The mount you purchased seems to require an additional eyepiece to slot into the trinocular slot. A couple questions at this juncture as I am actually a bit confused about the trinocular port in general. The Swift comes with a removable tube adapter. In this linked picture, I ask a couple questions, since I thought it easier to ask with a visual. Essentially, I'm unsure why such a tube adapter (Item A) exists and whether it makes sense to try and mount a phone adapter at the top (which I believe is 23.2mm?), or skip the adapter altogether, and try to mount it without the tube adapter (Item C), or even more daringly, remove the existing ring? There's got to be some optical reason why Swift includes such a long adapter though.

As far as phone adapters go, I came across this interesting beauty, which comes with a 12.5x eyepiece built-in! This seems to be an interesting magnification, as it is 2.5x more than a standard 10x eyepiece. BUT...

...Swift themselves seem to offer a phone mount that Oliver gives high praise to. However, it seems to be "meant" for mounting on the binocular eyepiece, and I'm wondering if I could just use it on the trinocular mount. Unlike the Aliexpress item above, it does NOT come with an eyepiece mount which means I'd have to cannibalize one of my two 10x eyepieces. Rather than do that, I thought to buy another 10x eyepiece - this too opens up another can of worms, as there seem to be several types of 10x eyepieces (DIN? 18mm, 25mm?) to sort through.

Noone told me this microscopy thing would be this hard! :)
Last edited by mookerific on Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:35 pm, edited 6 times in total.

mookerific
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2021 12:57 am

Re: Significance of Difference between No-Name DSLR Adapters?

#6 Post by mookerific » Sun Feb 28, 2021 8:46 pm

PeteM wrote:
Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:48 pm
The 2x adapters with the iris might be handy - perhaps allowing better images - but I have no direct experience. One would think field and aperture iris settings in the microscope might be enough - but performance of the 2x relay lens in these these drops off enough at the edges it might be handy. If you get one, hope you'll come back and give a report.

Oliver seems to have inspired scores of people to get the relatively affordable Swift microscopes. Perhaps one of them will have taken photos of a micrometer slide and one of these adapters? It would help to judge field flatness, chromatic aberrations, and perhaps give some subjective opinion about contrast as seen through the eyepieces versus as seen by the camera.

My own experience with the 2x AmScope DSLR adapter has been mixed. On the plus side they're very affordable (even more so for the ones without the distributor's brand) and usable. On the minus side the lens quality is just so-so and they won't offer proper corrections if you're dealing with a microscope (most finite ones, even vaunted ones like Olympus, Leica, or Zeiss Standard) that wants eyepiece corrections.

The quality of T-mount camera adapters also varies widely - probably from manufacturing batch to batch - in the cheap adapters. I've had Nikon versions what worked perfectly and others machined to such loose tolerances I wouldn't trust my DSLR on it. One that nearly jammed put. Good news is that they're cheap to replace. You can throw that part away and try another.

Bottom line - it's always difficult to get images of a quality that come anywhere close to what you see in the eyepieces. The 2x adapters are a tenth the cost of an OEM solution and good enough for routine documentation. Perhaps a good way to get started -- and the iris models don't cost much more -- while recognizing you may still be looking for a better solution down the road.
Thank you for this! I am troubled by what you and several others point out. That the results simply are not that great, and when I see how fantastic simple smartphone mount videos look, I feel like I'd do my self a disservice to not start with that option first.

Stomias
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:25 pm

Re: Significance of Difference between No-Name DSLR Adapters?

#7 Post by Stomias » Sun Feb 28, 2021 10:04 pm

I bought this one....It's OK. T ring a horrible fit on my Nikon but I already had 2 others for astrophotography... https://www.ebay.com/itm/NDPL-2X-9-6X-S ... 2749.l2649

25x 40x 100x 400x https://photos.app.goo.gl/41eSB13WsTsd9mFt6


Cheap P&S digital up to the eyepiece....

https://photos.app.goo.gl/jJFLjgHDFccTC2kU6

https://photos.app.goo.gl/HaTZNjT8juK1eXUb9

https://photos.app.goo.gl/aUQKwzGHwPAJbJCx6

Sir
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2020 2:58 am

Re: Significance of Difference between No-Name DSLR Adapters?

#8 Post by Sir » Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:08 pm

mookerific wrote:
Sun Feb 28, 2021 8:44 pm

A couple questions at this juncture as I am actually a bit confused about the trinocular port in general. The Swift comes with a removable tube adapter. In this linked picture, I ask a couple questions, since I thought it easier to ask with a visual. Essentially, I'm unsure why such a tube adapter (Item A) exists and whether it makes sense to try and mount a phone adapter at the top (which I believe is 23.2mm?), or skip the adapter altogether, and try to mount it without the tube adapter (Item C), or even more daringly, remove the existing ring? There's got to be some optical reason why Swift includes such a long adapter though.

As far as phone adapters go, I came across this interesting beauty, which comes with a 12.5x eyepiece built-in! This seems to be an interesting magnification, as it is 2.5x more than a standard 10x eyepiece. BUT...

...Swift themselves seem to offer a phone mount that Oliver gives high praise to. However, it seems to be "meant" for mounting on the binocular eyepiece, and I'm wondering if I could just use it on the trinocular mount. Unlike the Aliexpress item above, it does NOT come with an eyepiece mount which means I'd have to cannibalize one of my two 10x eyepieces. Rather than do that, I thought to buy another 10x eyepiece - this too opens up another can of worms, as there seem to be several types of 10x eyepieces (DIN? 18mm, 25mm?) to sort through.

Noone told me this microscopy thing would be this hard! :)
I don't have a Swift 380T myself, but I have something similar from AmScope. I believe the tube adapter at the top is added in order to make the trinocular and binocular tubes parfocal, so the image is in focus on both your imaging source and in your eyepiece. You can test this by putting an eyepiece in the trinocular tube, and leaving one in the binocular tube then comparing the two. You might have to raise or lower the eyepiece in the trinocular tube to get it to focus at the same point as your binoculars. I believe Oliver uses a quick and easy adjustment of a cardboard tube in one of his videos.

And yes, the eyepiece adapter would fit on the trinocular tube as well as the binocular tube since it uses the same eyepiece diameter. If you were to buy another eyepiece, you may want to go with the same one that Swift provides but perhaps someone here may know of alternatives.

mookerific
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2021 12:57 am

Re: Significance of Difference between No-Name DSLR Adapters?

#9 Post by mookerific » Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:09 pm

This makes a ton of sense, and thank you very much for this. I'm wondering whether a 10x eyepiece is appropriate in this scenario or perhaps there is a better sweetspot to be had using 12x or 16x (I've seen some weird magnifications available)! That Aliexpress one uses a 12.5x, and I bet there's a reason for it. If only I was smart enough to understand optics and all the calculations behind it! :cry:

Sir wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:08 pm
mookerific wrote:
Sun Feb 28, 2021 8:44 pm

A couple questions at this juncture as I am actually a bit confused about the trinocular port in general. The Swift comes with a removable tube adapter. In this linked picture, I ask a couple questions, since I thought it easier to ask with a visual. Essentially, I'm unsure why such a tube adapter (Item A) exists and whether it makes sense to try and mount a phone adapter at the top (which I believe is 23.2mm?), or skip the adapter altogether, and try to mount it without the tube adapter (Item C), or even more daringly, remove the existing ring? There's got to be some optical reason why Swift includes such a long adapter though.

As far as phone adapters go, I came across this interesting beauty, which comes with a 12.5x eyepiece built-in! This seems to be an interesting magnification, as it is 2.5x more than a standard 10x eyepiece. BUT...

...Swift themselves seem to offer a phone mount that Oliver gives high praise to. However, it seems to be "meant" for mounting on the binocular eyepiece, and I'm wondering if I could just use it on the trinocular mount. Unlike the Aliexpress item above, it does NOT come with an eyepiece mount which means I'd have to cannibalize one of my two 10x eyepieces. Rather than do that, I thought to buy another 10x eyepiece - this too opens up another can of worms, as there seem to be several types of 10x eyepieces (DIN? 18mm, 25mm?) to sort through.

Noone told me this microscopy thing would be this hard! :)
I don't have a Swift 380T myself, but I have something similar from AmScope. I believe the tube adapter at the top is added in order to make the trinocular and binocular tubes parfocal, so the image is in focus on both your imaging source and in your eyepiece. You can test this by putting an eyepiece in the trinocular tube, and leaving one in the binocular tube then comparing the two. You might have to raise or lower the eyepiece in the trinocular tube to get it to focus at the same point as your binoculars. I believe Oliver uses a quick and easy adjustment of a cardboard tube in one of his videos.

And yes, the eyepiece adapter would fit on the trinocular tube as well as the binocular tube since it uses the same eyepiece diameter. If you were to buy another eyepiece, you may want to go with the same one that Swift provides but perhaps someone here may know of alternatives.

mookerific
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2021 12:57 am

Re: Significance of Difference between No-Name DSLR Adapters?

#10 Post by mookerific » Sat Mar 06, 2021 11:43 pm

So I ended up purchasing Swift's own smartphone mount and it works beautifully with a 10xWF/18mm eyepiece, and seems almost tailor-made for the Pixel 3XL's camera. I don't think I'm going to even bother with purchasing a DSLR adapter, given how well the mount works. It's actually quite well-designed and Oliver has, as I've come to realize, nails all the salient points as to why it works well.

mootoom
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2021 8:12 pm

Re: Significance of Difference between No-Name DSLR Adapters?

#11 Post by mootoom » Sat Mar 27, 2021 10:24 pm

What I learn from hunting adapter for microscope : always think outside of the box.

I also have a Swift 380T and have an optic-less T2 to 23.2mm adapter. When slot into the eyepiece tube, it project halo into the adapter tube, which is sh*t since I pay €25 for that.

Then searching Amazon, I notice somebody sell T2 ring to TELESCOPE 1.25inch adapter
https://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B07QB1 ... le_o04_s01

So 1.25 inch outer diameter = 31.75mm
So assume the adapter wall is 2mm thick, then it will fit a eyepiece with outer diameter of 28.75mm

Then I measure the eyepiece outer diameter
WF25x 28mm
WF10x 28mm

Indeed, the €10 T2 ring "telescope" adapter is the solution. It mount the eyepiece and project a sharper image without any halo reflection (the adapter wall is 2.5mm with thread) . So 31.75mm - 2.5mm = 29.25mm. Just 1.25mm gap, tight fit.

jeffery163
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:47 pm

Re: Significance of Difference between No-Name DSLR Adapters?

#12 Post by jeffery163 » Thu Apr 01, 2021 5:29 pm

Welcome to the forum

Post Reply