Best option for attaching DSLR to Leica DMR trinocular port (HC)?

[zebulun]

I'm trying to figure out my best option for attaching a DSLR (full-frame) to a Leica DMR trinocular port (HC). I'm looking for a good balance between quality and price. I've searched this forum and google and there seems to be very little information on attaching DSLRs to Leica microscopes specifically. And the standard solution of using a 2.5x photo eyepiece doesn't work because Leica doesn't manufacture them (I think?)

Here is some information that I did find:
http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/art ... photo.html
https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... d025395710

Since I'm using a full-frame DSLR I believe I need a ~2.5x enlargement factor so It seems like my options are:

1) The "official" Leica approach of 1.0X adaptor required for photo work (Leica part no. 10445930) combined with Leica 2.5X adaptor (Leica part no. 10446175)

PROS: Best quality?
CONS: Very hard to acquire and very expensive. Very bulky.

2) The other "official" Leica approach of an 8x photo eyepiece combined with a 0.32x reduction lens, resulting in a 2.56x enlargement.
PROS: Good quality?
CONS: Very hard to acquire and very expensive. Very bulky.

3) Direct projection onto camera sensor
PROS: Simple, cheap
CONS: Didn't work for me with current setup.

4) Ebay Leica Photo Adapter Tube

PROS: Affordable, adjustable?
CONS: I'm confused how this works. I messaged the seller who said the tube has no optics of its own and you simply put in an 8x or 10x eyepiece in it. I don't understand how this would result in the desired 2.5x enlargement factor.

5) Use another manufacturer's 2.5x photo relay lens/eyepiece and do a normal setup. Maybe use the ebay tube above?
PROS: Easy to acquire
CONS: Not great quality?

--------

Let me know if you have any ideas or suggestions or if I need to supply more information. I'm very new to all this so any help is very much appreciated!

Also, I'm open to the idea of buying a used APS-C camera and using one of the many 1.0x Leica c-mount adapters available on ebay for a "good-enough" approach.

[Scarodactyl]

I agree that Leica official solutions do tend to be a real pain for dalrs in my experience, and the 2.5x adapters are really quite expensive and rare. There was one on eBay semi recently for... I want to say 600 bucks or so?
(Edit: I was wrong, it's the rarer 1.6x for aps c anx it's 850(!!) https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre ... 3259590321)

The "0.32x" lens in their afocal setup is something like a 60mm achromat (at least it was in the earlier leitz and leitz-wild systems it is descended from). A 40mm pancake over a normal 10x viewing eyepiece should work just as well or better in its place for aps-c.

[PeteM]

I'll be interested in hearing how you make out on this. A Nikon Eclipse PLI 2.5x photo eyepiece would be a high quality relative neutral solution. This is your solution #5 - but higher quality optics. Nikon also has the same 200mm infinity tube length as Leica.

That said . . . the "HC" system, according to Leica literature, corrects spherical aberrations, coma, and axial chromatic aberrations at the source (e.g. in the objective, if that's where they're introduced). So, for the most part they don't use eyepiece corrections. However they say the HC system corrects lateral chromatic aberrations and astigmatism (?) partly in the eyepieces. So, one would assume that a "neutral" photo eyepiece would be good, except for those lateral chromatic aberrations??

[Scarodactyl]

Leica's corrections varied through time on compounds (unlike their m-series stereo systems whose backwards compatibility is still absolutely astonishing.) A nikon 2.5x may work, and would hold its value pretty well for resale if not.

I'm actually not sure about the 2.5x in the first post, is that recommended specifically for your compound? Unlike eg Nikon Leica may not necessarily have strong compatibility in eyepieces/photo systems between compounds and stereos.

[Scarodactyl]

Just as a followup, I got a Leica M-series trinocular head in today, and it has an interesting configuration--the tube lenses have been moved up into the bottom of the eyepiece tubes (allowing/forcing the tubes to be longer than a normal binocular head), which means the trinocular port produces an image that is still focused at infinity. The "1.0x" lens (10445930) must contain a tube lens. I am not sure why David Walker referred to it as an empty tube in his article, but I have found pictures that clearly show a lens at the bottom.
That is handy for me but also suggests that this series of adapters will definitely not work on your scope--it's very hard to imagine a trinocular compound head being built like that.

[jfiresto]

... I am not sure why David Walker referred to it as an empty tube in his article[/url], but I have found pictures that clearly show a lens at the bottom....

I understood "empty" as meaning that you had to fill the hole with a least a 37mm-port-to-something adapter, for example, a simple 37mm to c-mount adapter, in order to attach a camera.

He suggests using a mirrorless APS-C camera under C-mount adaptor with mirrorless consumer camera body - current and preferred solution. He must have some reason for that, when I would expect a micro four thirds model would more efficiently and tightly match the round field of view.

[Scarodactyl]

Fortunately it is very easy to use your own 200mm tube lens and direct project onto aps-c. I should make a new thread for that though.