Hi All,
I'm completely new to all things "microscope" and am writing here in the hope that somebody can help.
I've recently acquired a Reichert stereo microscope which, unfortunately, has only one of the pair of eyepieces.
The existing eyepiece is marked:
6.3X W.S. 452 Reichert Austria
It measures 28.9mm outside diameter by 38mm overall (inserted) length.
As I understand things, this is not the standard 30mm dia. eyepiece.
Do you know where I might purchase a matching eyepiece or, failing that, a suitable replacement pair?
As the objectives are 2X, 4X, and 8X I would not want to stray too far from the original 6.3X, say between 5X and 10X.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Reichert stereo microscope
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
I think that the only way you will solve this problem will be to purchase a pair of 23mm size oculars in 10x or 15x and have sleeves made to center them in the ocular tubes.
When you say stereo do you mean a stereo scope with an objective for each eyetube or do you really mean a compound scope that has a binocular viewing head. Reichert made both. Maybe post a picture of th critter.
Depending on the the type of scope it is there could be further complications.
You will also need to determine the correct Z (focusing) axis position for the oculars you adapt.
Your probablility of finding a matching mate to the one you have are a very tiny tiny bit greater than zero.
When you say stereo do you mean a stereo scope with an objective for each eyetube or do you really mean a compound scope that has a binocular viewing head. Reichert made both. Maybe post a picture of th critter.
Depending on the the type of scope it is there could be further complications.
You will also need to determine the correct Z (focusing) axis position for the oculars you adapt.
Your probablility of finding a matching mate to the one you have are a very tiny tiny bit greater than zero.
Reichert stereo microscope
Hello g4lab,
Many thanks for the reply, even if the news is not so good; don't shoot the messenger, right!
I can confirm that the microscope is a stereo instrument with pairs of objectives.
As for posting an image, I'd love to but, having read the "guidelines for posting", I'm still mystified as to just how.....I'm afraid that I still find more than the most basic use of the web to be something of a black art. I'll keep at it and post here if I can sort it out.
Having sleeves made to convert 23mm oculars to the required 28.9mm is a possibility as I have a machinist pal who has made me several lens/camera adapters. Is there any way, other than trial and error, for determining the quoted Z axis position?
As a last resort, if nothing can be done, I can take some comfort in the fact that its heavy enough to make a very serviceable door-stop.
Many thanks for the reply, even if the news is not so good; don't shoot the messenger, right!
I can confirm that the microscope is a stereo instrument with pairs of objectives.
As for posting an image, I'd love to but, having read the "guidelines for posting", I'm still mystified as to just how.....I'm afraid that I still find more than the most basic use of the web to be something of a black art. I'll keep at it and post here if I can sort it out.
Having sleeves made to convert 23mm oculars to the required 28.9mm is a possibility as I have a machinist pal who has made me several lens/camera adapters. Is there any way, other than trial and error, for determining the quoted Z axis position?
As a last resort, if nothing can be done, I can take some comfort in the fact that its heavy enough to make a very serviceable door-stop.
-
Harold Gough
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
Re: Reichert stereo microscope
I just wanted to say that you are not alone. My images are on film and I have got as far as purchasing a suitable scanner but, due to ongoing other priorities, not as far as using it.vendav wrote: As for posting an image, I'd love to but, having read the "guidelines for posting", I'm still mystified as to just how.....I'm afraid that I still find more than the most basic use of the web to be something of a black art. I'll keep at it and post here if I can sort it out.
Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.
Pretty much everything that Reichert made was very nice. As nice as any of the other Germanic makers. Not quite as well known or widely distributed.
Trial and error will be the name of the game for the Z axis position.
The spot where the highest mag objective pair focuses should be a good starting point.
The objective sets are probably parfocal.
Trial and error will be the name of the game for the Z axis position.
The spot where the highest mag objective pair focuses should be a good starting point.
The objective sets are probably parfocal.
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23606
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
vendav, welcome aboard! 
About uploading images, I'm sympathetic. I've spent over 40 years working with computers, and I still find this web stuff pretty arcane at times. The short story on uploads is that you prepare an image using whatever process you like, as long as it produces a JPEG file no bigger than 800x800 pixels and no longer than 200 KB. Then you press a few of the forum's buttons, tell your browser what file to upload, press another couple of buttons, and it's done. Of course there are about a million ways to push the buttons, and only a handful of them actually work, so, ahh, there is some potential for difficulty.
When you get to the point of wanting to post images, send me an email and I'll walk you through the process.
About the eyepieces, I don't think the optics will give you much trouble. First off, the low power objectives found in stereo microscopes are not very sensitive to where the eyepiece needs to focus. If you got the Z position wrong by even as much as 10 or 15 mm, the image quality would still be fine. But you can probably get it right within 1 or 2 mm.
Here's what I would do. First, verify that the current eyepiece actually does work OK. If it does, then pull it out and look into its bottom end. If you can see the field stop, that's where the image should focus. (The "field stop" is the aperture that makes the crisp black border around the image.) If there is no field stop, then look through the top of the eyepiece as normal, stick a Q-tip underneath it, move the Q-tip around until it's in focus, then measure where the Q-tip is when that happens. The focus point will probably be inside the tube of the eyepiece, about 10 mm below the shoulder. If you're unlucky and the eyepiece has some glass that keeps you from getting the Q-tip close enough, then just start by assuming the proper point is 10 mm below the shoulder and confirm with your new eyepieces that that point works OK.
When you make the sleeves, be sure to leave a thin lip so they can't slip completely down inside the tubes. That will raise the new eyepiece maybe 1 mm, which will have no visible effect on the images.
g4lab mentions "parfocality". That refers to the concept that if you focus with one pair of objectives, then switch to a different pair, you're still focused at the same point. If the eyepiece Z position is wrong, you lose parfocality. But for most casual users of a stereo scope, parfocality is not a big deal because they'll be changing focus all the time anyway. My own scope has zoom objectives that shift focus a little from one end to the other, and I've never found that to be a problem.
Hope this helps -- we'll be happy to answer more questions as they come up.
--Rik
About uploading images, I'm sympathetic. I've spent over 40 years working with computers, and I still find this web stuff pretty arcane at times. The short story on uploads is that you prepare an image using whatever process you like, as long as it produces a JPEG file no bigger than 800x800 pixels and no longer than 200 KB. Then you press a few of the forum's buttons, tell your browser what file to upload, press another couple of buttons, and it's done. Of course there are about a million ways to push the buttons, and only a handful of them actually work, so, ahh, there is some potential for difficulty.
When you get to the point of wanting to post images, send me an email and I'll walk you through the process.About the eyepieces, I don't think the optics will give you much trouble. First off, the low power objectives found in stereo microscopes are not very sensitive to where the eyepiece needs to focus. If you got the Z position wrong by even as much as 10 or 15 mm, the image quality would still be fine. But you can probably get it right within 1 or 2 mm.
Here's what I would do. First, verify that the current eyepiece actually does work OK. If it does, then pull it out and look into its bottom end. If you can see the field stop, that's where the image should focus. (The "field stop" is the aperture that makes the crisp black border around the image.) If there is no field stop, then look through the top of the eyepiece as normal, stick a Q-tip underneath it, move the Q-tip around until it's in focus, then measure where the Q-tip is when that happens. The focus point will probably be inside the tube of the eyepiece, about 10 mm below the shoulder. If you're unlucky and the eyepiece has some glass that keeps you from getting the Q-tip close enough, then just start by assuming the proper point is 10 mm below the shoulder and confirm with your new eyepieces that that point works OK.
When you make the sleeves, be sure to leave a thin lip so they can't slip completely down inside the tubes. That will raise the new eyepiece maybe 1 mm, which will have no visible effect on the images.
g4lab mentions "parfocality". That refers to the concept that if you focus with one pair of objectives, then switch to a different pair, you're still focused at the same point. If the eyepiece Z position is wrong, you lose parfocality. But for most casual users of a stereo scope, parfocality is not a big deal because they'll be changing focus all the time anyway. My own scope has zoom objectives that shift focus a little from one end to the other, and I've never found that to be a problem.
Hope this helps -- we'll be happy to answer more questions as they come up.
--Rik
-
Harold Gough
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
In the labs in which I worked (I had a Wild, aka Leitz, M20, still with me as a retirement gift), the microbiologists were the only ones to have a Reichert (huge, research microscope) of which they were very fond and very possessive.g4lab wrote:Pretty much everything that Reichert made was very nice. As nice as any of the other Germanic makers. Not quite as well known or widely distributed.
Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.
Undoubtedly the mighty Zetopan Reichert's answer to the Ortholux IIn the labs in which I worked (I had a Wild, aka Leitz, M20, still with me as a retirement gift), the microbiologists were the only ones to have a Reichert (huge, research microscope) of which they were very fond and very possessive.
and to Zeiss' Universal.
-
Harold Gough
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
All I remember (it was at least 25 years ago) is that it was rather angular and of (at least) the order of size of a PC tower, in all three dimensions. But, then, I only looked upon it, in reverence, and from across the lab, a few times.
Harold
Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.