second attempt - fly`s eye

michabir · Post by **michabir** » Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:41 pm

yes , i checked it using an eyepiece in the trinoc tube.
i

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:09 pm

If the camera view and the eyepiece in the trinoc tube have different centers, then the problem must be in the camera adapter.

Does the adapter show any signs of damage or tampering or tipped elements?

--Rik

michabir · Post by **michabir** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 12:24 am

let me rephrase my last post.
when i stick eyepiece in the camera tube, it agrees with the camera not the regular eyepiece (upto magnification, the image in the camera is smaller then the image in the eyepiece).

the adapter seems fine

michabir · Post by **michabir** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 12:26 am

the camera view and the eyepiece in the trinoc tube have the same center

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 3:22 am

Ah, so then it is the trinoc tube and the other eyepieces that have different centers?

Seems like that would mean there is some problem with the head. Perhaps a prism or mirror has been knocked out of place? If there is a slide that you have to move to send the image one place or the other, perhaps the slide is not moving all the way?

I do not know anything about how the head is built on your scope. I hope that some other forum member has more information about this.

--Rik

Craig Gerard · Post by **Craig Gerard** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 3:50 am

Are you able to remove the head from the scope and replace it with a DSLR and a set of extension tubes relevant to the tube length of the objective? I only suggest this as a short term exercise whilst you are isolating components.

Here is an example of the type of arrangement to which I am referring:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=17656

Craig

michabir · Post by **michabir** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:12 am

i think ill try to verify that the alignment problem is the cause for the blurriness in the images before i try remove the head which will probably void my warranty

Craig Gerard · Post by **Craig Gerard** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:40 am

Is this your scope?

http://www.bresser.com/microscopes/bres ... copes.html

Craig

michabir · Post by **michabir** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:41 am

yes it is

NikonUser · Post by **NikonUser** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 12:47 pm

You have chosen a difficult specimen to 'trouble shoot' your setup.
I believe a fly wing would be a much better subject. Place a wing on a microscope slide, add a drop of glycerin and then cover with a glass coverslip.
This will give you a reference slide that can be kept indefinitely (if kept flat). You can them compare images form various setups using the same specimen.
Fly wings are essentially flat and clear but have a nice series of hairs and spines with nice sharp edges; great for detecting problems with vibration, lens quality, and perhaps lighting.

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 1:07 pm

How would you rate the clarity of the image visually observed through the "binocular" eyepieces with the image visually observed through the trinocular tube if you placed one of the regular eyepieces into the trinoc tube? Find some small bright detailed subject and carefully compare both views. (If the height of the trinocular tube is adjustable it should be raised/lowered so that when the subject is focused in the binocular tubes is is also simultaneously in focus through an eyepiece placed in the trinocular tube. This is not the source of your problem but it can't hurt to set it properly.)

If you have the type of camera adapter that I think you have (a photo or link might help), another thing you might try is to insert it into one of the viewing eyepiece holes and take a picture and then take the same picture through the trinocular tube... then compare. There should not be much difference. If both photo images appear to have about the same quality, but both are very obviously worse than the visual view, then your adapter is a likely culprit. If the picture taken through the viewing eyepiece tube is obviously superior to the one taken through the upper trinocular tube then the adapter may be OK but there is an issue with the optics directing the image upward to the camera.

A slight difference in the image center between what is viewed and what is obtained in the camera is, unfortunately, not terribly uncommon. But it should be slight (you seem to indicate a significant difference). On some heads the trinocular tube is fixed, on others it is attached with machine screws and some slight x/y "mechanical adjustment" is possible.

I agree that this one image (and subject) is not a good one to use for "troubleshooting". Get a rigid, flat , detailed subject.

michabir · Post by **michabir** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:09 pm

thank you all for your help,
i contacted the microscope manufacturer and he will get back to me about how to align the centers.
the first image is taken using the eye tube (red marks the center in the eyepiece)
the second image was taken from the cam tube
i didn't pay attention to focusing ,its just to demonstrate the center misalignment .
the length of the line that is next to the red mark (on the right) is ~half the radius of the image i see on the eyepiece.

i also noticed that when i take the eyepiece out and put my eye in the right location i can see an image that is significantly larger then i can see with the eyepiece in.

when i look with an eyepiece in the camera tube and eye tube it is very hard for me to tell if one is better then the other and both look great (it seems the camera tube is brighter).

when i take a picture the eye tube image looks sharper then the camera tube image.
in both cases the image i see with my eyes is better then the image taken with the camera.

so my conclusions are:
1) the camera tube is more susceptible to motion blur then the eye tube,
or/and the camera tube optics is worse then the eye tube.

2) in addition either the lens adapter is degrading the image or/and motion blur is degrading the image

i got the camera adapter from ebay
http://www.ebay.com/itm/CANON-DSLR-SLR- ... 0561745414

i will try to take some test shots of a fly wing with minimal vibrations to get more definite answers.

again, thank you all for your help
micha

Craig Gerard · Post by **Craig Gerard** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:25 pm

Which relay lens do the manufacturers recommend?

Does the the trinoc head have the capacity for adjusting light ratios between eyepiece and trinoc tube? 100/0, 50/50, 0/100

Craig

michabir · Post by **michabir** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:32 pm

manufacturer didn't have a recommendation.
there is no light adjustment.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:12 pm

michabir wrote:the first image is taken using the eye tube (red marks the center in the eyepiece)
the second image was taken from the cam tube
i didn't pay attention to focusing ,its just to demonstrate the center misalignment .

I suggest to repeat this exercise paying very close attention to focus.

The two images that you have right now suggest that the regular eyepiece tube gives a sharp image and the trinoc tube does not.

If this same thing happens even when you try very hard to get the trinoc tube in perfect focus, then it will clearly indicate that something associated with the trinoc tube is out of whack.

--Rik