The simple coupling you used for this pictures is called direct projection. Of course it works, but because the objectives do need secondary corrections at the eyepiece the periphery of the image can't be good.
It will work perfectly with full corrected objectives like Nikon CF
mayapapaya wrote:...
i tried a method that Pau suggested which was to keep the zeiss eyepieces in and just sort of close in with the camera. i noticed in his pics that he used a dslr lens in between. i tried this and got awful results. perhaps i misunderstood the method but no matter what, everything seemed to blur.
This is the right method, and is the only one used in all the original zeiss dedicated cameras and camera adapters of this era. May be your problems come from an inadequate camera lens or its position over the eyepiece. What camera lens do you use?
Remember: the eyepiece must be high eyepoint type (I think yours are), the lens must have the entrance pupil not too recessed (many zooms are not adequate, but others are), the camera lens must be focused to infinite and with its diaphragm wide open and the camera lens must be well centered and postioned as close as posible to the eyepiece.
mayapapaya wrote:the next thing i will try is eliminating the 35mm lens between the camera and microscope. the big issue with this afocal method (is that what it's called?) is that i don't have a trinocular head so getting the angle and distance is really tricky. I like being able to view things through the camera itself when focusing versus the old method of using an adapter and relying on the secondary eyepiece for focus. never ever worked. so i'll try this way by removing the lens and seeing if i can get the distances and angles just right as to get a nice field of view and decent clarity.
This is eyepiece projection, another classic method. But with a 10X eyepiece to get good focus and coverage you need to place the eyepiece in higher position than normal and you need to focus the microscope at different distance than designed. Despite this caveats some members like Arturo get excellent results with this approach.
mayapapaya wrote:the method i use now i feel works quite well and would be stellar if i got the lighting right and practiced my focus stacking so the focus intervals were exact. also a remote to trigger the shutter would help immensely (though i've seen improvements in setting the mirror lockup function). the big thing is, this only works well at 10x and below. forget about 40x.
Yes, the right illumination technique is as much important (or more) than the equipment. And its importance dramatically incrases with the objective power
What camera doyou use?
mayapapaya wrote:i have what appears to be a nice neofluar objective that looks like total crap when used this way. i'm coming to grips with the fact that the zeiss compensating eyepiece is an essential part of this process.
Yes, the effect is often more noticeable with high power better corrected objectives.
mayapapaya wrote:i've been toying with the idea of building an adapter. assuming i kept the binocular head onboard, i'm wondering if there's a way to build something that can incorporate my existing 10x eyepiece. in other words, it pops into the existing slot and at the other end, where your eye would be, is some sort of adapter locked onto it that has an adjustment that shifts the camera forwards and backwards as to get the accurate distance, mimicking the distance of your eye. is this possible? does it already exist?
Ther are at ebay some old desing adapters that keep the eyepiece inside, but in principle I recommend you again to work the afocal setup.
)
well, i've simply fashioned some extension tubes and dropped them on top of the body, sans binocular head. this works okay, i can see everything clearly and focus by looking through the camera eyepiece and making my adjustments that way. this has been leaps and bounds better than the crappy amscope slr adapter i purchased awhile ago. 