I use Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II camera on a microscope in "direct projection" via extension tubes. It set up parfocally with the microscope's eyepieces.
The problem is that the image is a bit too small for the sensor: the camera field of view is significantly larger than with the eyepieces, and the image quality (sharpness and aberrations) degrades very significantly outside of the central part.
I'm thinking of buying an Olympus teleconverter to attach in front of the camera, so I get larger image and smaller field of view. Do you think it will work? Will the parfocality with the eyepieces be preserved?
Teleconverter with microscope direct projection
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23564
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Take a look:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 353#146353
I think that Waldo pwnell still uses this approach to take his wonderful photomicrographs, not sure.
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... econverter
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 353#146353
I think that Waldo pwnell still uses this approach to take his wonderful photomicrographs, not sure.
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... econverter
Pau
- enricosavazzi
- Posts: 1474
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
- Location: Västerås, Sweden
- Contact:
As far as I know, there is only one teleconverter for Olympus Micro 4/3 (the 1.4x Olympus MC-14, see http://savazzi.net/photography/olymc-14.html ). It is good but expensive, and optimized for long focal lengths (primarily the 300 mm prime and the 70-150 mm zoom). It cannot be attached to most other Micro 4/3 lenses, but an empty Micro 4/3 adapter without optics should not be a problem. I have used this teleconverter on Metabones Micro 4/3 adapters without problems. The bayonet itself is a standard Micro 4/3, no "funny business" extra lugs like in Nikon teleconverters.
It might be worth investigating whether a second-hand Olympus EC-14 teleconverter for 4/3 (not Micro 4/3) plus a 4/3 to Micro 4/3 adapter can be significantly cheaper. See for example http://savazzi.net/photography/olympus50-200.html . In this case, you need a 4/3 (not Micro 4/3) adapter on the microscope photo tube.
It may also be worth considering a teleconverter for APS-C Nikon or Canon DSLRs (the Kenko ones are regarded as good enough for most uses, and certainly cheaper than Olympus ones) with suitable adapters. Image resolution through a microscope is usually lower than what the camera sensor can record, so I would not be too concerned about aberrations introduced by the teleconverter.
It might be worth investigating whether a second-hand Olympus EC-14 teleconverter for 4/3 (not Micro 4/3) plus a 4/3 to Micro 4/3 adapter can be significantly cheaper. See for example http://savazzi.net/photography/olympus50-200.html . In this case, you need a 4/3 (not Micro 4/3) adapter on the microscope photo tube.
It may also be worth considering a teleconverter for APS-C Nikon or Canon DSLRs (the Kenko ones are regarded as good enough for most uses, and certainly cheaper than Olympus ones) with suitable adapters. Image resolution through a microscope is usually lower than what the camera sensor can record, so I would not be too concerned about aberrations introduced by the teleconverter.
--ES
The 4/3 sensor has 21.6 mm diagonal. This is close enough to the field number of most objectives and eyepieces to do not produce vignette, so maybe the trinocular photoport or adapter could be limiting the field. Also you may be aware that many microscope objectives do need eyepiece complementary correction of objective aberrations "compensating eyepieces", if it's the case direct projection is not a good idea
In general 1.2 - 1.3X secondary magnification is to be recommended for 4/3 sensors with non wide field microscopes.
What microscope, objectives and adapter do you use?. Pictures would help to understand the issue.
In general 1.2 - 1.3X secondary magnification is to be recommended for 4/3 sensors with non wide field microscopes.
What microscope, objectives and adapter do you use?. Pictures would help to understand the issue.
Pau
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23564
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
- enricosavazzi
- Posts: 1474
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
- Location: Västerås, Sweden
- Contact:
This is common in modern lenses, which are meant to be used mainly with autofocus. The "extra", or slightly "beyond infinity", focus capability is built into the system so that focusing at infinity remains possible even if the ambient temperature changes the actual focal length of the lens (and therefore its infinity focus) or, in the case of zooms, the lens does not focus parfocally at infinity at exactly the same extension at all focal lengths. The same applies to teleconverters (better allow for a little focusing beyond infinity, than come up short of it).bralex wrote:I recently bought the teleconverter and the olympus pro 40-150 lens. I love the combination; the only fault I find is that the actual infinity focus is slightly "inside" the mark - I spent about an hour figuring that out!
The only time this may become a problem in stills shooting is when the photographer manually sets the focus ring at infinity without checking the focus accuracy in the viewfinder/live view. This style of shooting was used in the past, especially before AF became available. Shooting movies still requires a zoom to be parfocal (or the use of precise manual focus pulling), because a hunting or abruptly readjusting AF would be annoying to viewers.
--ES
-
- Posts: 1152
- Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:24 am