BX53 to Nikon z7

Paul Dowrick · Post by **Paul Dowrick** » Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:07 pm

Hello

I have a BX53 and Nikon z7. What connectors should I use to get the very best images?

Many thanks

Paul

enricosavazzi · Post by **enricosavazzi** » Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:59 pm

Assuming you want to fully use the full-frame sensor of the z7, and that you have one of the Olympus BX trinocular heads, you can go the way of the Olympus OM original adapters and photo eyepieces, topped with an Olympus OM to Nikon z adapter.

You need:

Olympus U-SPT photo tube
Olympus OM Photomicro Adapter L, see http://www.alanwood.net/photography/oly ... ter-l.html
Olympus PE 2.5x photo eyepiece (mounts in the U-SPT and is held in place by the L adapter)
Olympus OM to Nikon z adapter (third-party)

The cheap way to go with maximum image quality is to use a third-party photo tube with C adapter of the type without internal optics (or the more expensive original Olympus UIS/UIS2 adapter, which is functionally identical) and a C to z adapter. This will produce an image circle of about 26 mm, which will force you to crop in post-processing, or to use one of the camera's crop modes if available (I don't know whether the z7 has a suitable crop mode).

The C adapter produces a non-cropped image on Micro 4/3. This is a "natural" solution for BX microscopes that provides the maximum image quality because there is no photo eyepiece, and is also physically compact compared to the towering photo adapter + U-SPT.

Paul Dowrick · Post by **Paul Dowrick** » Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:08 pm

Thank you so much for your reply.

I am currently using a trinocular head with

U-TV1X-2 connected to a U-TMAD connected to the z7

I have attached a shot I have just taken using a 40x objective.

Is this the best I can hope for?

Would extension tubes help?

Paul Dowrick · Post by **Paul Dowrick** » Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:42 am

I asked Best Scientific what they would suggest and they came up with this. Is this a good solution?

enricosavazzi · Post by **enricosavazzi** » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:43 pm

Paul Dowrick wrote:Thank you so much for your reply.

I am currently using a trinocular head with

U-TV1X-2 connected to a U-TMAD connected to the z7

I have attached a shot I have just taken using a 40x objective.

Is this the best I can hope for?

Yes, in terms of field of view on the full-frame sensor. There is a small difference in image circle diameter with UIS objectives (about 22 mm) versus UIS2 objectives (about 26 mm), but the C adapter may also limit the image circle. To avoid vignetting on full frame you need an image circle of about 43.3 mm.

Would extension tubes help?

Not recommended, since this would force the objective + tube lens assembly to work outside their specifications.

There are two ways to obtain a larger image circle. One is using a tube lens of longer focal length (which is not available from Olympus, so only a theoretical possibility on an Olympus BX trinocular head). The other is using the photo tube, photo eyepiece and L adapter mentioned above (or equivalent third-party components).

I have no experience with the Best Scientific photomicrography system, so I cannot say anything about it, other that it does contain optics, and therefore has the potential of worsening the image quality if not well designed and built.

Regardless of the system you will use for photomacrography, you should always use the magnified live view of the camera (if possible on an external monitor or computer screen) to refocus before shooting a picture. Blindly relying on the parfocality of the photo tube is not a good idea, especially at high magnification.

Scarodactyl · Post by **Scarodactyl** » Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:37 pm

The best scientific ones are made by Optem (Qioptiq), so it could go either way on quality, they make some humdrum and some amazing stuff. I suspect they cost a lot more than either getting the pe 2.5x projective (60ish usd or less used?) and coupler or going the afocal route (if possible in this case?).

Pau · Post by **Pau** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:10 am

The easiest way to fill the sensor with the image your'e now getting is to put a high quality teleconverter at the camera side, a 2X will fit well while a 1.4X will still crop the corners although it likely will capture a wider field in a more square format.

In relation with the vision through the eyepieces, how does compare the camera field of view?

IMO the best option with this kind of microscope if you use UIS2 objectives is direct projection on sensor with a APSc or m4/3 high pixel density sensor but projecting a magnified image onto FF is also fine

enricosavazzi · Post by **enricosavazzi** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:51 am

Pau wrote:[...]
IMO the best option with this kind of microscope if you use UIS2 objectives is direct projection on sensor with a APSc or m4/3 high pixel density sensor but projecting a magnified image onto FF is also fine

I agree with the first part of the sentence, and can confirm from direct experience that with direct projection there is no vignetting on Micro 4/3 even with UIS objectives.

I am somewhat more reticent in recommending a teleconverter, since my experience with these is that they always degrade the image quality to some degree, usually to a visible degree. Others may have better luck with them.

enricosavazzi · Post by **enricosavazzi** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:32 am

Scarodactyl wrote:[...] or going the afocal route (if possible in this case?).

Afocal is always possible by using a high-eyepoint 10x eyepiece and a 30/45/60 mm camera lens (depending on sensor size), but one is usually left to one's own devices w.r.t. choice of lens, adapters, tubes etc.

Pau · Post by **Pau** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:56 am

enricosavazzi wrote:...
I am somewhat more reticent in recommending a teleconverter, since my experience with these is that they always degrade the image quality to some degree, usually to a visible degree. Others may have better luck with them.

My experience when young (I'm getting old...) both with teleconverters and zoom lenses was deceiving but nowadays optical design has improved quite a lot; I don't use teleconverters but my more usual camera lenses (not for macro) are zooms.
I had your very same opinion about teleconverters but some forum posts from Rik, Javier (seta666), Jin and Waldo Nell (pwnell) have changed my opinion about its utility for macro and micro:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 115#100115
https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 505#146505
https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 965#158965
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 411#142411

Scarodactyl · Post by **Scarodactyl** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:09 pm

enricosavazzi wrote:
Scarodactyl wrote:[...] or going the afocal route (if possible in this case?).
Afocal is always possible by using a high-eyepoint 10x eyepiece and a 30/45/60 mm camera lens (depending on sensor size), but one is usually left to one's own devices w.r.t. choice of lens, adapters, tubes etc.

Yeah, I suppose I mean practical rather than possible. I don't know much about olympus's eyepiece lineup and how suitable they are.
That said, the teleconverter trick sounds great for this.
I suspect you could try a teleconverter, afocal and a pe projective all and still save over the Best Scientific option.