Nikon's 60x oil CF N Plan Apochromatic.

[Mitch640]

Well, as you know, I do have another Nikon relay lens on the way. I already have the supplied 10x CF PL lens that came with the scope. I am thinking, that the 2.5x enroute, is going to be a different size and length altogether. Just going by the images of course, they just look different.

If they are different dimensions, this leads me to believe that since the Microflex arm for my Fluophot is in no way adjustable, up, down or sideways, nor is there any adjustment for the relay lens at the tube, then the distance between the actual glass in the relay lens, at least for Nikon, to the surface of the film/sensor is not an issue, it's all made up in the grind of the glass??? Possibly I should pop out my 10x and get an image of it to compare with the one from E-bay?

And is your Olympus Tinocular tube and the seat for the lens, the same length as the Nikon equivelant? Now my head is starting to hurt.

[NikonUser]

With all the pieces of your scope in position I would guess that the distance between the top of the 10x relay lens and the film plane on the supplied camera is correct.
I would doubt that changing relay lenses (i.e., just changing magnification would have any effect other than magn.; of course only for CF PL relay lenses).

Here is a photo of my CF PL 2.5x; it's quite different from my Olympus NFK 2.5x.

The Nikon trinocular tube looks a different length than the Olympus BH2 tube.

Mitch: you think your head is spinning, welcome to the club.
For the image read: 30mm and 42mm


NU10098

[Mitch640]

Just when you think it can't get more complicated, it does. I assume it's OK to post my images here. They appear to be not much alike, which really makes it harder to figure out how they made it work. I guess the proof will be in the pudding when my 20x Apo and 2.5x PL get here.





OOOps, that should be 2 9/16" total.

[NikonUser]

Maybe a simple answer. Where your lens says Nikon, mine say CF PL2.5x.
Where yours says 10x, mine says Nikon Japan.

Perhaps yours in not a CF and therefor suitable for neither CF N Plan, CF E Plan, nor any of the other CF objectives.

[Mitch640]

No, it's just an older model.

[NikonUser]

Is that a fingerprint? or a nasty scratch? - ouch.

[Mitch640]

LOLOL, no, it's a finger print from when I had to dig it out of the trinocular hole to get a picture. All clean now.

But you can see how old this thing is, which is why I was making all that noise about lens coatings that do not match with modern DSLR sensor filters.

A lot of questions are going to be answered come next week, for both of us.

[Charles Krebs]

NU,

The CS5 interface does take a bit of getting used to! (especially if you skipped CS3 and CS4)

One of the things that can be annoying (at least at first) is the opening of multiple images as "tabs". Fortunately you can set this aspect to function as the older versions:

Edit=>
Preferences =>
Interface... un-check the box "Open Documents as Tabs"

Close the program and then restart. Now documents will open in their own windows as with older versions pf PS.


As you've discovered, this model of the Olympus trinocular tube has a diameter that will only permit the (very narrow) Olympus photo-eyepieces to seat in the proper location. Since the way you are set-up you do not use the narrow dovetail at the top of the trinocular tube to mount the camera, it might be a simple matter to remove the dovetail (four screws I think) and use a flat plate in it's place that might allow the Nikon CF eyepiece to sit at the proper height. (... don't know.... never tried it.... just a thought... ). However, based on the images you've shown us here I don't know if it would be worth the extra effort.

You will undoubtedly get some unwanted CA using the Olympus NFK's with the Nikon CF objective. But I would think that the type of "introduced" CA would be of a nature that can be quite effectively corrected in PS itself, or with a plug-in like the excellent PTLens. I think you have clearly demonstrated that here, the results look excellent! (Frankly, these look about as "clean" as I get with the Olympus 60/1.40 S Plan Apo + NFK).

I would be curious to know if you get decent DIC with this objective if you use the 100X prism in the condenser. (Sometimes other "brands" work nicely, sometimes not so nicely).

(FWIW the Olympus 60/1.40 S Plan Apo was the hardest one for me to find... and when I did find a "mint" one, it cost me more than any other objective I have! )

[NikonUser]

Charles: Thanks for all you recent "thoughts".
Un-checking "Open Documents as Tabs" worked a treat.

My D90 allows for much flash control. Setting K @ 10,000 and cranking the magenta bias all the way up to max worked wonderfully for the blue end on the DIC.
Custom pre-set white balance worked equally well at the grey end of the DIC.

Images below are of a human cheek cell at grey end of analyser.
Nikon 60x NA 1.4 oil CF N Plan Apochromatic, BHS DIC with 100x prism in condenser and 2.5x NFK relay lens.
10 frames @ 1µ ZS PMax.

RAW frames with only WB corrected (very little needed) in PS.
Saved as jpgs and stacked with ZS.
My usual oversharpening in PS.
Top full frame, bottom crop.


Appeared to work OK ?

NUM10109

[Cactusdave]

Excellent rendering of a difficult and notoriously featureless 'test subject' for DIC. That's really putting the X60 Planapo through its paces. Clearly a fine lens.

[NikonUser]

Thanks Dave.
Not the most exciting of subjects (almost invisible with 'regular' transmitted brightfield), but as you say a good test subject for the DIC.