I had just purchased a Leica Stereozoom 6 Photo from eBay, and would like to connect a Canon EOS camera to the photoport for take pictures.
As I am a newbie in this field, I would appreciate if someone can throw some light on how to connect the EOS camera to the Stereozoom 6 Photo.
Need help for taking photo with Leica Stereozoom 6 photo
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
amoebahydra
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:58 am
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23621
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
-
amoebahydra
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:58 am
Thanks, I had just paid for my Stereozoom and delivery is on the way, as such cannot take a photo of it by myself, this is the photo from eBay ... the photoport is at the top of the scope
I heard someone said that I might need eyepiece projection and have some projection eyepieces that I use in astronomical eyepiece projection photography; I don't know whether they are useful in this aspect ... Pentax XP-24, XP-8, XP-3.8 and Takahashi PJ-20, NP-12, Or 5mm, Or 7mm, together with an eyepiece projection device which one-end is a T-mount for connection to camera and the other end is 40mm male screw mount.
I heard someone said that I might need eyepiece projection and have some projection eyepieces that I use in astronomical eyepiece projection photography; I don't know whether they are useful in this aspect ... Pentax XP-24, XP-8, XP-3.8 and Takahashi PJ-20, NP-12, Or 5mm, Or 7mm, together with an eyepiece projection device which one-end is a T-mount for connection to camera and the other end is 40mm male screw mount.
Just a few days ago, this post described a home made adapter for a SZ7. The concept would be the same for your scope, with minor differences at the scope end.
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=19485
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=19485
Eugene Cisneros
-
amoebahydra
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:58 am
Thanks Ancient1, I had read through the post and appreciate how Stereozoom 7 work.If my Stereozoom 6 Photo can work this way I can find a machinist to sort that out.
However, if I understand correctly it seems Stereozoom 7 do not have a built-in photoport and the problem I face is whether there is something different in the optical path, say whether there is tube lens or do it need eyepiece projection for extending the image plane to CMOS sensor of the DSLR like compound microscope.
However, if I understand correctly it seems Stereozoom 7 do not have a built-in photoport and the problem I face is whether there is something different in the optical path, say whether there is tube lens or do it need eyepiece projection for extending the image plane to CMOS sensor of the DSLR like compound microscope.
-
Charles Krebs
- Posts: 5865
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
- Contact:
For photography Leica used similar methods and in many cases the same components for several of their stereos. I am not that familiar with their scopes or the actual implementation, but sometimes you can get a pretty good idea from looking at the various brochures and manuals. I don't believe these come from literature for your particular model but it may be of some help:
-
Charles Krebs
- Posts: 5865
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
- Contact:
As I read these diagrams they show two different approaches that could be used (we have seen this before from Leica, and they are essentially two widely used approaches in many or most trinocular tubes).
One is a custom "afocal" method where you first have an eyepiece (10-446-120 8X, or 10-445-306 10X, or 10-445-305 16X) in the trinocular tube (it should be in focus simultaneously with the viewing eyepieces). Surrounding and extending above that is a tube (10-404-207) into which goes a 0.32X "camera objective" 10-445-541 (This lens likely has a focal length right around 80mm. This would be like the lens on the camera in a more basic afocal set-up). Then another tube of proper length takes you to a camera T-mount (10-162-226). The eyepiece used then determines the magnification into the camera....
0.32 X 10X = 3.2X
0.32 X 8X = 2.56X (the "standard" mag most used with 35mm cameras)
0.32 X 16X = 5.12X
The second approach uses a 2.5X projective eyepiece:
"10-446-175 SLR Projective 2.5, for use with reflex camera with T2 thread"
This is primarily intended for the 35mm format (24mmx 36mm)
If these are the same components that were intended to be used on your model (again I am not sure) I think it would cost a cost a bundle to get them. I am not familiar with the astronomical components you have shown, so I don't know if any can be pressed into service. But if the Leica parts prove to be a challenge (either in locating them or cost-wise) you can usually make up a very successful arrangement at a much lower cost.
A quick Ebay search of completed auctions for "Leica Stereozoom 6" turns up one with the same picture you show here. If so, it says that it comes with 20X viewing eyepieces. For my taste that is pretty "strong" for a stereo microscope, most of which have rather modest numerical apertures. But the primary reason I mention this is that viewing is one thing... but for photography you generally want to use about the lowest additional magnification you can use in the trinocular tube while still making use of your sensor size. For a 24x36mm sensor that means an additional trinocular tube magnification of about 2.5X. For an APS-C sized sensor it means an additional trinocular tube magnification of about 1.5X. These values will record, in the camera, roughly the same view as seen through typical 10X viewing eyepieces. (But around 2X as much as is seen through 20X eyepieces). If you will be photographing based on what is seen on the camera back LCD, or a computer monitor tethered to the camera, or an HDTV connected to the HDMI output from the camera it should be OK. But if you are working based on what you see through the viewing eyepieces the discrepancy in field size between what is seen through the eyepieces and what is recorded in camera can get annoying. However, I would strongly recommend against trying to increase the trinocular tube magnification to the camera to match the view seen through 20X viewing eyepieces. The numerical aperture of stereo scopes simply isn't high enough to handle that degree of magnification and provide satisfyingly "sharp" images.
One last thought....
One thing you might want to try before tackling this project is to see if "direct projection" is even an option. All you need to do is focus with the viewing eyepieces on a contrasty well illuminated subject. Then hold the camera body (no lens attached) above the trinocular tube and carefully move it up an down to see if there is a location where the subject comes in focus in the camera (without changing the microscope focus). With SLR cameras this is most often not possible, since the camera body depth prevents you from getting it close enough to the microscope to get the image in focus. But it is quick and easy to try, and it will show you if you have yet another option... that of mounting the camera body with no intervening optics in the trinocular tube. (Your in-camera magnification would be low... only 0.7X to 4X, but the images should be pretty sharp. And frankly, depending on the pixel density of the camera used, "enlarging" them by cropping and resizing in post-processing would provide results quite comparable to those recorded already enlarged optically with the optics in the trinocular tube.
One is a custom "afocal" method where you first have an eyepiece (10-446-120 8X, or 10-445-306 10X, or 10-445-305 16X) in the trinocular tube (it should be in focus simultaneously with the viewing eyepieces). Surrounding and extending above that is a tube (10-404-207) into which goes a 0.32X "camera objective" 10-445-541 (This lens likely has a focal length right around 80mm. This would be like the lens on the camera in a more basic afocal set-up). Then another tube of proper length takes you to a camera T-mount (10-162-226). The eyepiece used then determines the magnification into the camera....
0.32 X 10X = 3.2X
0.32 X 8X = 2.56X (the "standard" mag most used with 35mm cameras)
0.32 X 16X = 5.12X
The second approach uses a 2.5X projective eyepiece:
"10-446-175 SLR Projective 2.5, for use with reflex camera with T2 thread"
This is primarily intended for the 35mm format (24mmx 36mm)
If these are the same components that were intended to be used on your model (again I am not sure) I think it would cost a cost a bundle to get them. I am not familiar with the astronomical components you have shown, so I don't know if any can be pressed into service. But if the Leica parts prove to be a challenge (either in locating them or cost-wise) you can usually make up a very successful arrangement at a much lower cost.
A quick Ebay search of completed auctions for "Leica Stereozoom 6" turns up one with the same picture you show here. If so, it says that it comes with 20X viewing eyepieces. For my taste that is pretty "strong" for a stereo microscope, most of which have rather modest numerical apertures. But the primary reason I mention this is that viewing is one thing... but for photography you generally want to use about the lowest additional magnification you can use in the trinocular tube while still making use of your sensor size. For a 24x36mm sensor that means an additional trinocular tube magnification of about 2.5X. For an APS-C sized sensor it means an additional trinocular tube magnification of about 1.5X. These values will record, in the camera, roughly the same view as seen through typical 10X viewing eyepieces. (But around 2X as much as is seen through 20X eyepieces). If you will be photographing based on what is seen on the camera back LCD, or a computer monitor tethered to the camera, or an HDTV connected to the HDMI output from the camera it should be OK. But if you are working based on what you see through the viewing eyepieces the discrepancy in field size between what is seen through the eyepieces and what is recorded in camera can get annoying. However, I would strongly recommend against trying to increase the trinocular tube magnification to the camera to match the view seen through 20X viewing eyepieces. The numerical aperture of stereo scopes simply isn't high enough to handle that degree of magnification and provide satisfyingly "sharp" images.
One last thought....
One thing you might want to try before tackling this project is to see if "direct projection" is even an option. All you need to do is focus with the viewing eyepieces on a contrasty well illuminated subject. Then hold the camera body (no lens attached) above the trinocular tube and carefully move it up an down to see if there is a location where the subject comes in focus in the camera (without changing the microscope focus). With SLR cameras this is most often not possible, since the camera body depth prevents you from getting it close enough to the microscope to get the image in focus. But it is quick and easy to try, and it will show you if you have yet another option... that of mounting the camera body with no intervening optics in the trinocular tube. (Your in-camera magnification would be low... only 0.7X to 4X, but the images should be pretty sharp. And frankly, depending on the pixel density of the camera used, "enlarging" them by cropping and resizing in post-processing would provide results quite comparable to those recorded already enlarged optically with the optics in the trinocular tube.
-
amoebahydra
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:58 am
Thank you Charles for your detail explanation and research.
You are right, there should be just sufficient optical elements for better image quality. There is no harm to try direct projection first as it should have the best image quality but with only 0.7 to 4X magnification, however, I guess high probability of not feasible due to not enough back focal distance. The image plane formed by the objective is usually inside the eyepiece holder and I believe it is same for the photoport which yet to find out.
Afocal should be the worst scenario and I believe eyepiece projection is the way to move on. I used to use relay lens for eyepiece projection in taking deep sky objects in order to obtain longer back focal length but severely degrade image quality and I don't think this is way to go as well.
Of course, the best is having original Leica adapters for connection of DSLR camera to the scope; however, I think Stereozoom 6 photo is out of production long time ago and wonder if these accessories are still available from the dealer.
In my bid, there should be a pair of original 10X ocular and the 20X Nikon pair one is just bonus.
Everything have to wait unit the scope arrive, as even the internal diameter of the photoport I have no idea at all, may be 38mm ISO.
You are right, there should be just sufficient optical elements for better image quality. There is no harm to try direct projection first as it should have the best image quality but with only 0.7 to 4X magnification, however, I guess high probability of not feasible due to not enough back focal distance. The image plane formed by the objective is usually inside the eyepiece holder and I believe it is same for the photoport which yet to find out.
Afocal should be the worst scenario and I believe eyepiece projection is the way to move on. I used to use relay lens for eyepiece projection in taking deep sky objects in order to obtain longer back focal length but severely degrade image quality and I don't think this is way to go as well.
Of course, the best is having original Leica adapters for connection of DSLR camera to the scope; however, I think Stereozoom 6 photo is out of production long time ago and wonder if these accessories are still available from the dealer.
In my bid, there should be a pair of original 10X ocular and the 20X Nikon pair one is just bonus.
Everything have to wait unit the scope arrive, as even the internal diameter of the photoport I have no idea at all, may be 38mm ISO.
-
Charles Krebs
- Posts: 5865
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
- Contact:
Yeah... just play with it when it arrives.
From the little I have been able to glean from your posts, it seems you have good experience with astronomical imaging (of which I know next to nothing). I don't know if you are aware that in microscopy, many of the systems made over the years relied on eyepieces and projection type photoeyepieces that were calculated to provide the final (most often chromatic) correction. And since there was very little consideration for formats smaller than 35mm (24x36mm) it can be tough to get a good image fit on APS-C and smaller sensors while still incorporating that final correction provided by eyepieces. So the afocal method still has a solid place with these microscopes. (Don't think corrective eyepieces were used with stereo scopes... but I could be wrong).
As far as "made for microscope" pieces are concerned there is a fair number of good 2.5X projective type eyepieces floating around for microscopes that were intended for use with the 35mm format. But there are very few that provide a good magnification match for the APS-C format. (Olympus made an NFK 1.67X, but it is corrective for Olympus objectives, scarce, and ridiculously expensive). The only current production projection type photoeyepieces made by a microscope manufacturer (that I'm aware of) that would come close is a 1.9X made by Meiji (Part # MA986). (Typically on a microscope you are taking an objective image of ~18-20mm diameter and trying to size it for a good sensor "fit". So 2.5X worked well for 35mm and about 1.5X is good for an APS-C sized sensor. ).
But it looks as though you have quite a collection of promising optics to play around with already. So let us know how it works out.
Many feel that way but I've seen many superb images done this way. Both Zeiss and Leica used an implementation with their microscopes, so if done right it can't be too shabby!Afocal should be the worst scenario
From the little I have been able to glean from your posts, it seems you have good experience with astronomical imaging (of which I know next to nothing). I don't know if you are aware that in microscopy, many of the systems made over the years relied on eyepieces and projection type photoeyepieces that were calculated to provide the final (most often chromatic) correction. And since there was very little consideration for formats smaller than 35mm (24x36mm) it can be tough to get a good image fit on APS-C and smaller sensors while still incorporating that final correction provided by eyepieces. So the afocal method still has a solid place with these microscopes. (Don't think corrective eyepieces were used with stereo scopes... but I could be wrong).
As far as "made for microscope" pieces are concerned there is a fair number of good 2.5X projective type eyepieces floating around for microscopes that were intended for use with the 35mm format. But there are very few that provide a good magnification match for the APS-C format. (Olympus made an NFK 1.67X, but it is corrective for Olympus objectives, scarce, and ridiculously expensive). The only current production projection type photoeyepieces made by a microscope manufacturer (that I'm aware of) that would come close is a 1.9X made by Meiji (Part # MA986). (Typically on a microscope you are taking an objective image of ~18-20mm diameter and trying to size it for a good sensor "fit". So 2.5X worked well for 35mm and about 1.5X is good for an APS-C sized sensor. ).
But it looks as though you have quite a collection of promising optics to play around with already. So let us know how it works out.
-
amoebahydra
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:58 am
Similarly in photomicrography I am next to nothing, the only experience I have is using Photar 1:5.6/120 and 1:2.5/25 in macrophotography. I hope I can get up to speed quickly from member of this forum like your goodself.
I initially plan to use my Canon 1DX as imaging camera, which fortunately is a full frame 24x36 format. However, in longer term I may deploit my peltier-cooled research camera, which is a APS-C high quantum efficiency imager, used in astro-imaging for photomicrography when I move in to real micrography after passing the stage of low magnification using stereomicroscope. Partial chromatic correction in eyepiece and objective is another problem area and I don't know whether the Stereozoom is design in this way or not.
After further reading in the subject, it seems the projection eyepieces that I use in astroimaging are not suitable for photomicrography work because the magnification is too high; my longest focal length, i.e. smallest magnification, projection eyepiece is 24mm which roughly equivalent 10X (250mm/24mm). I am a leicaphile and trying to locate Leica photo ocular from eBay and see whether I can succeed in doing so.
I am waiting for the stereozoom to start working on the optical chain for a Canon EOS connection. I may have to reply on your experience again when encounter problem. For this, I have to thank you in anticipation.
I initially plan to use my Canon 1DX as imaging camera, which fortunately is a full frame 24x36 format. However, in longer term I may deploit my peltier-cooled research camera, which is a APS-C high quantum efficiency imager, used in astro-imaging for photomicrography when I move in to real micrography after passing the stage of low magnification using stereomicroscope. Partial chromatic correction in eyepiece and objective is another problem area and I don't know whether the Stereozoom is design in this way or not.
After further reading in the subject, it seems the projection eyepieces that I use in astroimaging are not suitable for photomicrography work because the magnification is too high; my longest focal length, i.e. smallest magnification, projection eyepiece is 24mm which roughly equivalent 10X (250mm/24mm). I am a leicaphile and trying to locate Leica photo ocular from eBay and see whether I can succeed in doing so.
I am waiting for the stereozoom to start working on the optical chain for a Canon EOS connection. I may have to reply on your experience again when encounter problem. For this, I have to thank you in anticipation.