Superwide Trinocular head vs regular trinocular?

Starting out in microscopy? Post images and ask questions relating to the microscope and get answers from our more advanced users on the subject.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Davids
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:20 pm

Superwide Trinocular head vs regular trinocular?

Post by Davids »

I'm looking into purchasing a used Olympus BX51 and have the option of either the superwide trinocular head or the regular trinocular head. Obviously the superwide head adds significant cost and was wondering what the benefits of having it are? I'll be attaching an APSC sensor size camera to the trinocular.

Thanks!
David

Ichthyophthirius
Posts: 1152
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:24 am

Post by Ichthyophthirius »

Hi David,

Great microscope :wink: The BX2 system is complex; if no-one else answers you, I suggest contacting your local Olympus rep.

In these microscopes, you can get vignetting when you add several intermediate tubes (like fluorescence or ergonomic tubes). Instead of having the maximum field of view, it becomes reduced to FN 22 or even 20.

The superwide tube is designed for full use of the SWH10x eyepieces with FN 26.5. See table on page 19: http://www.well.ox.ac.uk/_asset/file/ol ... ochure.pdf

I assume you either can't fully use the SWH eyepieces with a normal tube or that you can't use them fully with a normal tube in some situations, like when using a fluorescence intermediate tube.

For a full overview see the systems chart on pages 21/22 and note the green/red asterisks and notes *1 and *2.

Regards, Ichty

Charles Krebs
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Contact:

Post by Charles Krebs »

David,

The super wide-field head uses the 26.5mm FN eyepieces. The FN for the "regular" head is 22mm. It may not sound like a big difference, but when viewing it is rather dramatic. At any given magnification you can see a much larger portion of the subject. Some people really like this, others find it almost too much. With 20 or 22mm FN eyepieces you can keep your head in the exact same location and simply and naturally move your eyes about and easily see the image to the edges of the image circle. With the super-wide head I find myself sometimes needing to move my head around to get a good look at a detail at the edges of the much larger circle. (This could be just me :) but I have heard the same thing from others.)

But I specifically chose the super wide-field for my MM-11 adaptation for a very specific reason.
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=17656

I wanted to mount my camera so that I had "direct projection" onto the camera sensor (no additional optics added to the trinocular "connection".) My Canon APS sensors have a diagonal of 26.8mm. So the 26.5mm eyepieces show me just about exactly what I get on the sensor. With 22mm or 20mm FN eyepieces I can't see much of what the camera would record.

As Ichthy pointed out you may get slight vignetting with some added components. The original Olympus U-TMAD adapter vignetted a little so I needed to (easily and non-destructively) remove a baffle in the adapter. But since I really wanted the freedom to rotate the camera 360 degrees I made up my own rotating mount with a much wider throat.

Frankly, if I were not so intent on using "direct projection" into my cameras I would probable be very content with the 22mm FN head and eyepieces.

Ichthyophthirius
Posts: 1152
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:24 am

Post by Ichthyophthirius »

Charles Krebs wrote:With the super-wide head I find myself sometimes needing to move my head around to get a good look at a detail at the edges of the much larger circle. (This could be just me :) but I have heard the same thing from others.)
Hi Charles,

Me too :wink: I have a pair of 10x/26.5 and with glasses on, I can't see the edge of the field. This makes the eyes wonder around and is very tiresome. I just replaced them with some FN 22 eyepieces and finally my eyes have something "to hold onto". Much better.

Good point about having the same image circle for direct projection. For David, do you know if the normal tube still covers the full image circle of 26.7 mm through the photoport? On my Olympus, it does.

Regards, Ichty

Davids
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:20 pm

Post by Davids »

Thank you all for the feedback. Honestly, I'm not sure what I'll end up doing. The sensor I'll be using is 28.29 mm diagonal. The superwide heads are quite expensive and if I don't need it then I may pass. I keep going back and forth on purchasing a microscope or trying to recreate Charles' robust setup. If I could find a working Nikon mm-11 stand if probably go that route than investing significant funds into a microscope.

CesarG
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:21 pm

Post by CesarG »

Sorry to revive a months old thread. Do any of you know if the Bx-45 will fit any of the U-SWETTR trinoculars? Any knowledge would be greatly appreciated.

Alan Wood
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 3:09 pm
Location: Near London, U.K.
Contact:

Post by Alan Wood »

From looking at system charts, the BX-41 and the BX-45 appear to take the same heads, but the U-SWETTR is not shown.

A Quekett member brought an Olympus BX-41 with U-SWETTR head on a recent excursion:

Image

Alan Wood

CesarG
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:21 pm

Post by CesarG »

So I took the plunge & picked up a U-SWETTR-2 on ebay. The main difference with the Bx-45/46 other than the low stage is that it it achieves focus by moving the nosepiece up & down (unlike the 41/51/etc) which move the stage. The main incompatibility I could imagine is vignetting as mentioned above.

When I get the trinocular I'll set it up and report back.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic