Nikon D850 DSLR to Nikon Eclipse E600 trinocular port

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Jesse
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:40 pm

Nikon D850 DSLR to Nikon Eclipse E600 trinocular port

Post by Jesse »

I recently purchased a Nikon eclipse E600 with APO objectives and a trinocular port: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Eclipse- ... 2733800044

It hasn't arrived yet, but I'm taking some time to plan out how to attach my Nikon D850 DSLR to it. It seems I have some options:
  • 1.) DIY direct projection - 3d print an adapter of some kind, rig up some cardboard tubing, use a tripod and a bellows, whatever.
    • advantages:
      • a.) cheapest
        b.) no additional lens
      disadvantages:
      • a.) DX only view, but this is probably fine because I'm pretty sure I can do 4k video in DX with the D850.
        b.) Depending on the materials used I could see some reflections in the image from the materials.
        c.) Could be a pain in the butt to maintain due to movement, vibrations, etc.
        d.) no lens - will this be more likely to accumulate dirt on my sensor?
    2.) Nikon hardware direct projection using Nikon's F Mount Adapter and F TV Tube part numbers MXA29010 & MXA29011 respectively - http://www.seoenterprises.com/shop/prod ... ctid=16343
    • advantages:
      • a.) metal, solid mount
        b.) assumedly at the perfect distance and will be super simple to use
        c.) no additional lens
      disadvantages:
      • a.) $824 (assuming it's even really for sale still - discontinued item)
        b.) no lens - will this be more likely to accumulate dirt on my sensor?
    3.) Lensed FX using:
    Nikon V-T Photo Adapter https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Stereo-P ... 2964448118 and
    lmscope DSLRNFTC_Pro https://www.lmscope.com/en/lmscope_out2 ... mit=Search
    • advantages:
      • a.) FX sensor coverage using full resolution of camera for photos
        b.) lensed, so possibly less dust on sensor
      disadvantages:
      • a.) adds another lens to complex optical system - additional lens of completely unknown quality
        b.) most expensive. $120 for V-T Photo Adapter + $1258.6 for DSLRNFTC_Pro = $1378.6 at least
    Questions:
    • 1.) Are there options I am missing/unaware of?
      2.) Which solution will deliver the best quality photography/video?
      3.) Which solution will be the easiest to use and require the least fiddling?
      4.) What would you recommend I do?
Thanks for the feedback ahead of time!


abednego1995
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:53 pm

Post by abednego1995 »

Congrats on your purchase! The E600 is a beautiful instrument.

About direct imaging using it, I doubt the rear port of the Y-IDP unit allows an image circle of 43mm(FF) direct through it.
I've seen people mount APC-C(27mm diagonal), which nearly matches the intended maximum image circle of the objective(OFN) with nice results, but 43mm is too much.
And also, the MXA29010 & MXA29011 don't have relay optics inside so you'll be again stuck with DX image size.

Getting max FOV out of your D850, you should try the (V-T adapter MAB53410)+(PLI 2.5x relay lens)+(TMS-F F mount adapter tube)
The combination will project an 18mm diameter field magnified 2.5x to the sensor plane.
That Lmscope thing is way too expensive...

The TMS-F F mount adapter tube is obsolete and probably hard to get, but it's only a dumb tube with 123.8mm extension from the lower flange to F-mount so it's
simple to get it machined, assembled with available (cheap) parts, or use a bellows instead.
The V-T tube and PLI2.5x comes up frequently on the bay, so it'll probably end up the cheapest option.

John

Image

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 6053
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Post by Pau »

abednego1995 wrote:...Getting max FOV out of your D850, you should try the (V-T adapter MAB53410)+(PLI 2.5x relay lens)+(TMS-F F mount adapter tube)
The combination will project an 18mm diameter field magnified 2.5x to the sensor plane.
In fact the FOV with the 2.5X photoeyepiece will be much reduced compared with direct projection on APSC, what you gain is the use of the full sensor, as you say it will be a good match for 18mm FN eyepieces but will throw out a big portion of the of the primary image field provided by the objectives.

What option is better? It depends of the objectives and the user goals.
- With the 2.5X you would be able to capture a some more resolution with low power high NA objectives like the 4/0.20 and 10/0.45 but not with higher power ones with which you'll get more easily empty magnification. Also it would be preferable with objectives with not so good performance outside the centre, maybe the 4X and lower and in cases like DIC it would be easier to have a more uniform background, and as said, you'll put the full sensor in use.

- With direct projection the main advantage is to have a wider field profiting your wide field system. The image will fit better the visual one through the eyepieces. You can get sharper images at high magnification because you can use higher NA objectives to cover a given field. In most cases it will be the best option for my taste.

A good intermediate option would be the 2X PLI photoeyepiece.The 2.5X specification just seems a remain of former times when FN 18 eyepieces was the standard.
Another option is to use direct projection but use a teleconverter at the camera
Pau

abednego1995
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:53 pm

Post by abednego1995 »

Pau, thank you for the follow up. Pardon me for the FOV jargon, I have to be more diligent on my phrasing.
Absolutely, I completely agree with you.

Yes, if it were a APS-C camera I'd choose direct projection without hesitating. Wider FOV, better matching pixel pitch with low mag high NA images.
And if using a enlarging projection system, the 2x would be a better option than the 2.5x. Though a practical consideration with the 2x projection lenses would be their scarcity (I think Nikon has dropped the PL lenses from their product lists, and only have stock to sell new.)

And the teleconverter option is quite intriguing! Have you tested a setup??

John

JohnyM
Posts: 463
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 7:02 am

Post by JohnyM »

Just food for thought:

All CFI objectives i've tested (10x SFluor, 20x VC PA, 40x PF Oil) easily cover FF sensor and in fact can even be pushed down quite a lot (135mm tube, with significant corner/border image degradation, anything lower than that will vignette).

But when mounted on microscope (LV100ND) they can only cover APS-C sensor on Nikon own 200mm tube.
Some part of microscope (i dont know if it's trinocular or vertical illuminator, or both) are causing severe vignetting.

Since you dont have any intemediate components, you could try to mount your FF camera with 135mm + lens (prime lens or a zoom lens on tele end) via filter screw to nikon dovetail INSTEAD of trinocular tube and obtain much sharper images.
It may be possible that you even get some degree of zoom with ~150-200mm zoom objective, althrough that's more realistic with smaller sensors.

Jesse
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:40 pm

Post by Jesse »

JohnyM wrote:Just food for thought:

All CFI objectives i've tested (10x SFluor, 20x VC PA, 40x PF Oil) easily cover FF sensor and in fact can even be pushed down quite a lot (135mm tube, with significant corner/border image degradation, anything lower than that will vignette).

But when mounted on microscope (LV100ND) they can only cover APS-C sensor on Nikon own 200mm tube.
Some part of microscope (i dont know if it's trinocular or vertical illuminator, or both) are causing severe vignetting.

Since you dont have any intemediate components, you could try to mount your FF camera with 135mm + lens (prime lens or a zoom lens on tele end) via filter screw to nikon dovetail INSTEAD of trinocular tube and obtain much sharper images.
It may be possible that you even get some degree of zoom with ~150-200mm zoom objective, althrough that's more realistic with smaller sensors.
"dovetail" means removing the microscope head and Y-IDP attachment, correct? This is an interesting idea I wasn't aware of. I'll probably do a test and see how this looks.

My 70-200mm VR II isn't the best lens in the world. It's not a true 200mm when focusing close. It will be interesting to see how it performs.

UPDATE: But wait... would I even need a lens? Wouldn't I just place the camera 200mm above the port?

Doing some more research, it appears the Y-IDP attachment (which is what is on my scope) only allows up to 45% of the available light to go to the camera port. Looks like I may want to consider a Y-TT head at the very least, as they appear to have Photo-only mode, which I assume allows closer to 100% of the light to go to the trinoc port. Very interesting.
Last edited by Jesse on Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:05 am, edited 4 times in total.

Jesse
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:40 pm

Post by Jesse »

Pau wrote: Another option is to use direct projection but use a teleconverter at the camera
I have the Nikon AF-S FX TC-14E III (1.4x) Teleconverter. Should be an interesting experiment if I end up with a DX direct projection setup.

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 6053
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Post by Pau »

abednego1995 wrote:...
And the teleconverter option is quite intriguing! Have you tested a setup?
John, no need to apologize, just an small error like all we do

I've not tested this approach myself (lack of the equipment) but I rely in other's experience.

Here you have some relevant links on the use of TCs both with microscopes and macro setups with microscope objectives (that in fact are custom microscopes):

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 621#135621

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 322#146322

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 115#100115

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 505#146505

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 965#158965

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 411#142411
Pau

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 6053
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Post by Pau »

Jesse wrote:My 70-200mm VR II isn't the best lens in the world. It's not a true 200mm when focusing close. It will be interesting to see how it performs.

UPDATE: But wait... would I even need a lens? Wouldn't I just place the camera 200mm above the port?

Doing some more research, it appears the Y-IDP attachment (which is what is on my scope) only allows up to 45% of the available light to go to the camera port. Looks like I may want to consider a Y-TT head at the very least, as they appear to have Photo-only mode, which I assume allows closer to 100% of the light to go to the trinoc port. Very interesting.
- Be aware that a telephoto used as tube lens must to be focused to infinite, so is the infinite focus performance what matters. In plus the lens is severely stopped down by the objective itself.
- Nope, you need a lens, "tube lens" in the microscopy jargon, to focus the objective image on to the sensor, It would be the case with finite corrected objectives, although at a different distance.
- having simultaneous view through the eyepieces is absolutely convenient when dealing with living critters. I have two trinocular heads and I only use the one that allows simultaneous live image and photo. Maybe when used to your microscope you could contemplate that expensive change.
Pau

Jesse
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:40 pm

Post by Jesse »

Well, here's a weird update regarding option #2. I called SEO enterprise to inquire about stock, rather than just paying $800 and hoping. Haha. They said they didn't carry any stock but would inquire with Nikon directly and call me back.

I checked back this morning and the product page has been removed. Called and they said the item is definitely discontinued and out of stock. However, Nikon is releasing a new f-mount and the USA should be receiving stock end of this month (August 2018). Part number MXA29015.

They mentioned this is an odd move as the tube itself is discontinued, so they're not sure what good an f-mount will do without a tube. Fair point, but the tubes may be more common on ebay than the f-mounts, so maybe this is a good thing.

Jesse
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:40 pm

Post by Jesse »

I'd like to give direct projection a try. However, I need to know the distance between the trinocular port and the top of the f-mount so I can fabricate an adapter.

Does anyone either have these measurements available or know how I can figure them out?

UPDATE: Unfortunately direct projection won't work. I performed an experiment using live view with my camera. The image plane is inaccessible somewhere inside the trinoc tube. It comes progressively more and more into focus as I lower the camera body down until finally the camera body hits the trinoc port, but the image still isn't sharp.

I guess it's PLI 2.5x relay lens time.

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 6053
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Post by Pau »

Jesse wrote:I'd like to give direct projection a try. However, I need to know the distance between the trinocular port and the top of the f-mount so I can fabricate an adapter.

Does anyone either have these measurements available or know how I can figure them out?

UPDATE: Unfortunately direct projection won't work. I performed an experiment using live view with my camera. The image plane is inaccessible somewhere inside the trinoc tube. It comes progressively more and more into focus as I lower the camera body down until finally the camera body hits the trinoc port, but the image still isn't sharp.

I guess it's PLI 2.5x relay lens time.
I don't think that the image would be placed inside the tube, but likely it is not high enough to focus on your sensor.
Have you tried removing the short tube?

I've googled Nikon "Y-IDP" and found some interesting images and info.
Some ones:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Y-IDP-Du ... SwelZbdtZw
https://www.nikoninstruments.com/en_EU/ ... te-Modules

In many of them a C mount camera is placed very close to the end of the short tube, this could be indicative of the image placed short over it, something different of typical photo tubes in trino heads.

About how to find the image plane, quoting myself from a related thread ( http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=3427 )
Pau wrote:...
You need to determine the position of the primary image and its distance to the trino exit flat surface when the microscope is well focused with the eyepieces. A 10X objective is normally the more adequate to do so. Use a high contrast small detail to focus (a dust particle at the slide can do). You can do it with the camera without lens in Live View or with a translucent paper or frosted glass.
-The length of the tube must be this distance less 44mm (flange focal distance of the Canon EF bayonet mount).
-Then you need to make or order a tube with a fit to the trino port (your current adapter mount seems a good model) and a Canon EF mount at the other end. Usually is easier to get it with M42x1 or M42x0.75 (T mount) and an easy to find adapter to Canon.
-You could include a focusing helicoid to fine tune parfocality.
-To prevent vignetting use a wide enough tube, avoid C-mount adapters.
-You also want that the inner surfaces of the tube are well flocked to avoid glare due to reflections. If you use camera extension tubes in most cases they are, if not you can flock them with a material like Protostar.
...
Just change Canon EF for Nikon F and 44mm (Canon) for 46.50mm (Nikon)
Pau

Jesse
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:40 pm

Post by Jesse »

Pau wrote: Have you tried removing the short tube?
Yes, I can get it mostly in focus, but the grip and nose of the camera body get in the way, so the camera body is tilted a bit, which isn't ideal for focus.

10x APO ISO 500 1/50 FX:
Image

10x APO ISO 500 1/50 DX:
Image

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 6053
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Post by Pau »

It's a pity.

A mirrorless camera like a Sony alpha APSC or Olympus 4/3 would fit because the much shorter flange focus distance.

Before buying phototubes, photoeyepieces and adapters I would ask Nikon to get advice on the adequate adapters for your Y-IDP photoport. I've browsed for you quite some Nikon manuals and I've only seen small sensor C-mount cameras at this port, not sure if something like the setup shown at https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Y-IDP-Du ... SwelZbdtZw would be adequate or not.
Pau

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic