Scales and wings

[Saul]

Charles,

Very useful information. Your answer leads to another question , related to the your MM type design - usage of the microscope head. My setup is pretty heavy and I'm keeping it on the floor (carpet). So observation, focusing and some preparation procedures are very uncomfortable ( back pain ). Tethering to the laptop is not the best solution either. Using microscope head, like in your design, would be perfect solution ! What are requirements for the trinocular head ? Can it be Labophot/Optiphot trinocular head ? Can I use teaching head like
http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item.vi ... 91&alt=web ?
This will be used just for the final preparation, for the initial I'm using stereo binocular or compound microscope.

Thanks again,
Saul

[Charles Krebs]

Saul,

You need to consider camera, objectives in advance.

I use Canon APS-C sized sensors. These have a sensor diagonal of 26.7mm. The trinocular head I used on the MM-11 "hybrid" is the Olympus U-SWTR-3. This is a "super-widefield" head where the eyepieces used have a field number of 26.5mm. With "direct projection" the image is placed directly on the sensor. As a result, when using this arrangement I see nearly exactly the field size recorded on the camera. This is a key aspect that makes it such a pleasure to use. The trinocular head has a 180mm tube lens built in. This allows me to use the Olympus (180mm focal length tube lens) infinity objectives, as well as Mitutoyo and Nikon infinity (at 10% lower magnification than marked). Another key feature of the trinocular head is the ability to "split" the light between viewing eyepieces and trinocular tube (100:0, 20:80, 0:100).

Some years ago I had set up a "finite" Vanox trinocular head to use Nikon 210mm finite M Plan objectives. This worked well but was not without some disadvantages (and was more work). With most 160mm finite trinocular heads it is very hard to attach a camera close enough to achieve direct projection (although it is a little easier now with some of the thinner bodied mirrorless cameras). It was this "experiment" that provided the impetus for the current arrangement. For some thoughts and considerations on that older finite set-up, see:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=10536

[benjamind2014]

So I wouldn't be able to use my Canon 600D with my Olympus FHT microscope? I have an adapter for it.

I also have a Samsung NX300M with an adapter that fits and seems to work with my scope but it has a 1x relay lens.

[Charles Krebs]

So I wouldn't be able to use my Canon 600D with my Olympus FHT microscope? I have an adapter for it.

I also have a Samsung NX300M with an adapter that fits and seems to work with my scope but it has a 1x relay lens.

No, there is no reason you can't use your cameras for photography on your FHK. It would just be a different set-up than used and described here.

We're talking about something a little different. This is a "direct projection" set-up using a "super-widefield" head and eyepieces with a FN of 26.5mm, and used with objectives that are designed to be used at such large field numbers. Besides the required (built-in) tube lens, no other optics are used in the trinocular tube. (All chromatic aberration correction is done in the objective). This works nicely for my purposes here, but it is not a common arrangement. (And it is quite different from my set-up with my "biological" Olympus BHS).

Photography with Olympus 160mm finite objectives on the FHT should ideally be done with a FK projection type photoeyepiece (FK2.5X). But it could also be accomplished with an appropriate afocal set-up as well.

[benjamind2014]

Charles, the 1x relay lense and adapter with my Samsung NX300m worked fine with my FHT.

What I'm wondering is, if my Canon 600D would work the same way, I don't have a 1x relay lense, so in the case of the 600D it would be direct projection onto the sensor, which is APS-C, I'm unsure of what the objective image size would be, but I'm presuming the field size is 18mm, so I would definitely see vignetting on the image if it was directly projected, or even at 1x, as the size would be the same.

I think 2.5x would likely provide a much better image as it would be larger, and the entire sensor would receive a rectangle within the 18mm field produced by the objective.

[Saul]

Charles,

Will it work with this type of the head and adding tube lens?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Optiphot- ... SwbqpT0mp1

I'm using Nikon D7000, Mitu 5x, 10x, 20x and Nikon 50x 0.55 ELWD

Thanks,
Saul