www.photomacrography.net :: View topic - Superwide Trinocular head vs regular trinocular?
www.photomacrography.net Forum Index
An online community dedicated to the practices of photomacrography, close-up and macro photography, and photomicrography.
Photomacrography Front Page Amateurmicrography Front Page
Old Forums/Galleries
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Superwide Trinocular head vs regular trinocular?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Beginners Micro
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Davids



Joined: 31 Jan 2016
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 10:32 am    Post subject: Superwide Trinocular head vs regular trinocular? Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ichthyophthirius



Joined: 07 Mar 2013
Posts: 729

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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/olympus-bx-51-brochure.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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Charles Krebs



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 5762
Location: Issaquah, WA USA

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 Smile 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/viewtopic.php?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.
_________________
http://www.krebsmicro.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ichthyophthirius



Joined: 07 Mar 2013
Posts: 729

PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 Smile 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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Davids



Joined: 31 Jan 2016
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CesarG



Joined: 28 Jun 2017
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alan Wood



Joined: 29 Dec 2010
Posts: 239
Location: Near London, U.K.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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:



Alan Wood
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CesarG



Joined: 28 Jun 2017
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Beginners Micro All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group