Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range

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

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Macro_Cosmos
Posts: 1506
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
Contact:

Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range

Post by Macro_Cosmos »

Hi, decided to write up an article dedicated to camera adapting. There's lots of information on BH and CH, but not much on BX. Information is scattered across different websites and there are some pitfalls.

https://macrocosmosblog.wordpress.com/2 ... r-cameras/
Direct projection and photo eyepiece methods are examined. I also share my smartphone image capture method.
Notably, Olympus' original parts are inadequate for FF direct projection, I was able to fix the issues.

Smartphone photos.
Image
Last edited by Macro_Cosmos on Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Scarodactyl
Posts: 1616
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:26 am

Re: Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range

Post by Scarodactyl »

Direct projection onto aps-c certainly works well, though the ultrawide head to get best results is awfully pricey. I'm surprised full frame is an option with direct projection using Olynpus objectives, at least with a 180mm tube lens.

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 6038
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range

Post by Pau »

Hi Macro_Cosmos,

This is a very interesting article.
IMO it would be much improved if complemented with actual picture tests of your different approaches and also would be nice to see the complete setups mounted.
Pau

Macro_Cosmos
Posts: 1506
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range

Post by Macro_Cosmos »

Pau wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:30 am
Hi Macro_Cosmos,

This is a very interesting article.
IMO it would be much improved if complemented with actual picture tests of your different approaches and also would be nice to see the complete setups mounted.
I would have showed the complete photos of the setup in, but I currently only have one camera. I suppose I can just use a toy one as an illustration, I still have that nanoblocks Nikon F.

What kind of picture tests would you be applicable? Something like 10x+PE2.5x VS 10x+MagChanger 2x? I would consider doing one if I ever get a PE2x, 25x is pretty far off from 20x total magnification, but with a PE2x, it's 20 VS 20 -- great! There's currently no way for me acquire the same magnifications with either method.

Scarodactyl
Posts: 1616
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:26 am

Re: Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range

Post by Scarodactyl »

That was a nice writeup. There is certainly less info which is a little frustrating. Olympus did make a nice black adapter which is the equivalent of the photomicro L but they are scarce.
I will second the request for a few photos--I didn't realize you could cover full frame, though i suppose it makes sense since with the uw tube lens tbr image produced is good to the corners of aps-c, so you'd expect the usable image circle to be bigger even if there's a little degradation. Maybe less so with the non ultrawide tube lens?
I should post the stl for the adapter I am using, which replaces the dovetail on top of a head or u-tlu and has m42 threads, though you might want to adapt on wider tubes for full frame.

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 6038
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range

Post by Pau »

Macro_Cosmos wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:36 am
I would have showed the complete photos of the setup in, but I currently only have one camera. I suppose I can just use a toy one as an illustration, I still have that nanoblocks Nikon F.
Yes, the toy Nikon F would look nice, phone photos of the actual camera also would do.
What kind of picture tests would you be applicable? Something like 10x+PE2.5x VS 10x+MagChanger 2x? I would consider doing one if I ever get a PE2x, 25x is pretty far off from 20x total magnification, but with a PE2x, it's 20 VS 20 -- great! There's currently no way for me acquire the same magnifications with either method.
Yes, what matters is to compare both image quality and magnification/field of view of both approaches. A phone or wide angle lens picture taken through the eyepiece also would be useful to compare with the visual image
Pau

Macro_Cosmos
Posts: 1506
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range

Post by Macro_Cosmos »

Pau wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:08 am
Macro_Cosmos wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:36 am
I would have showed the complete photos of the setup in, but I currently only have one camera. I suppose I can just use a toy one as an illustration, I still have that nanoblocks Nikon F.
Yes, the toy Nikon F would look nice, phone photos of the actual camera also would do.
What kind of picture tests would you be applicable? Something like 10x+PE2.5x VS 10x+MagChanger 2x? I would consider doing one if I ever get a PE2x, 25x is pretty far off from 20x total magnification, but with a PE2x, it's 20 VS 20 -- great! There's currently no way for me acquire the same magnifications with either method.
Yes, what matters is to compare both image quality and magnification/field of view of both approaches. A phone or wide angle lens picture taken through the eyepiece also would be useful to compare with the visual image
Alright, I'll see what I can do here.
The objective comparison will have to involve lower magnifications. At higher ones, it's just going to be optical enlargement, with no gained detail. For example, the 100x NA 1.4 resolves a monochrome sensor of around 9MP, 24MP colour sensor is a fair game but slapping a 2x onto it doesn't really bring out more detail.

Moreover, I'm limited by the condenser NA, which is at 0.9. I can use an oil immersion Apl Achro but that gives only brightfield.
Wish I had a PE2x.

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 6038
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range

Post by Pau »

Macro_Cosmos wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:53 am
The objective comparison will have to involve lower magnifications. At higher ones, it's just going to be optical enlargement, with no gained detail. ...
Yes, a 10X or 20X plan apo are usually the more adequate (lower mag ones often deliver worse corners and as you suggest higher mag easily goes into empty magnification)

Another interesting test is with true direct projection (mag changer at 1X) and APSc crop camera mode.
Pau

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 6038
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range

Post by Pau »

Scarodactyl wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:50 am
I will second the request for a few photos--I didn't realize you could cover full frame, though i suppose it makes sense since with the uw tube lens tbr image produced is good to the corners of aps-c, so you'd expect the usable image circle to be bigger even if there's a little degradation. Maybe less so with the non ultrawide tube lens?
I think that he is doing direct projection on FF with the magnification changer at 2X. Being 2.5X the old standard for 35mm film (=FF) with FN 18 or 20mm microscopes, 2X is not surprising to work nicely in wide field modern systems.
Pau

Macro_Cosmos
Posts: 1506
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range

Post by Macro_Cosmos »

Alright, some clarity is needed. I'll update the article tonight but I'll clear some confusion here.
Pau wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:15 am
I think that he is doing direct projection on FF with the magnification changer at 2X. Being 2.5X the old standard for 35mm film (=FF) with FN 18 or 20mm microscopes, 2X is not surprising to work nicely in wide field modern systems.
Nope, direct projection works straight away. Olympus' original parts weren't designed for it, that's it. Must remove the light blocking aperture and fully flock it.
My objectives have an FN of 26.5mm, full-frame is covered with an empty tube.
The magnification changer at 1x brings in mechanical vignetting due to the smaller aperture, not direct projection. Removing the magnification changer solves this straight away but I like the versatility of having 1.25x, 1.6x and 2x. There's no discernible difference between 1x and 1.25x anyway. I'm actually thinking about modifying the magnification changer by adding an IF550 or a polariser in the 1x slot so I can quickly see what I should expect without having to fiddle with swapping sliders and dropping filters in.

Scarodactyl wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:50 am
I will second the request for a few photos--I didn't realize you could cover full frame, though i suppose it makes sense since with the uw tube lens tbr image produced is good to the corners of aps-c, so you'd expect the usable image circle to be bigger even if there's a little degradation. Maybe less so with the non ultrawide tube lens?
I have the normal trinocular head, not the ultra-wide one. That designed for FN22 tube lens does cover full-frame, and quite adequately.

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 6038
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range

Post by Pau »

Thanks for the clarification!
Pau

Scarodactyl
Posts: 1616
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:26 am

Re: Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range

Post by Scarodactyl »

Macro_Cosmos wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:46 am
I have the normal trinocular head, not the ultra-wide one. That designed for FN22 tube lens does cover full-frame, and quite adequately.
Huh, that surprises me a bit, but I know if you call it 'adequate' it's got to be good. Your work speaks for itself.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic