🔬 Why microscope cameras have separate optics connected | The two functions of reduction optics
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 січ 2021
- Microscope cameras have often optics installed in front of the sensor. Here I explain the function of these.
🖂 E-MAIL NEWSLETTER
Keep yourself updated: www.microbehunter.com/newslett...
🎈 SUPPORT THE CHANNEL
Become a Patron: / microbehunter
🔬 MICROSCOPE RECOMMENDATION (links to the Shop below each video)
Children’s/Introductory - Swift or National Optical SS110: • 🔬 Good and inexpensive...
For Amateurs - Swift SW380T (with phototube) or Swift SW380B: • 🔬 Pretty good microsco...
OM36 Microscope: www.microscope.com/compound-m...
👜 AMAZON AFFILIATE SHOP - As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
US/World: www.amazon.com/shop/microbehu...
Canada: www.amazon.ca/shop/microbehunter
Germany/Europe: www.amazon.de/shop/microbehunter
UK/Europe: www.amazon.co.uk/shop/microbe...
🎬 UA-cam CHANNELS
Microbehunter: / microbehunter
Microscopic Mysteries - Guess the specimen: / @microscopicmysteries
Microbe Talk - Ask a microbiologist! / @allthingsmicrobes
💻 OTHER LINKS
Main Website - Tons of microscopy info: www.microbehunter.com
MicroWorldArchive - www.microworldarchive.org
Forum - Connect to other microscopists: www.microscopy-forum.com
Instagram - Cool pictures I made: / microbehunter
Facebook - Here I post videos: / microbehunter
✔ Check these Hashtags! #microbehunter #science #microscope - Наука та технологія
Once again Thank You Sir Oliver. I have used a microscope cam for years with very good results simply working focus and position, etc. on my big computer screen. However, as always you take it to the next level to help me take even better photomicrographs. Here's a handshake across the miles!
It's so complicated, it's almost a full-time job trying to learn it all. But I'm taking it slow and easy since it's a hobby.
Very helpful video. I was always confused with intermediate optics and distances of sensors. Thank again, I guess I have a good starting point and know which direction to take.
This information is really difficult to find. Thank you for being so clear and thorough. There is not a lot of literature on this subject, I've found. Thank you so much!
Thanks, Very helpful.
This is so helpful. Thank you!
thank you for this.
very helpful, thank you
Very helpful video. I have an older Zeiss infinity scope (Axiostar) and started out using a cheap 2x adapter similar to the one in the video, however was really dissatisfied with the image quality (using APSC camera). I now shifted to a 30 mm to M42 adapter mounted directly in the trinocular port, coupled to an M42-K mount adapter which is coupled again to a 12 mm extension tube to achieve parfocality. This way there is still a small amount of vignetting, though easily corrected. Most importantly image quality is way better than with any adapter, including the stock Zeiss one. These adapters are available quite cheap in certain Chinese webshops.
If your scope has a smaller diameter trinocular port such as 23.2 mm or c-mount you will likely get more vignetting though. I think one solution might be to not use APSC sensor size but micro 4/3 instead, I think this is the sweet spot sensor size for microphotography.
I have a MFT camera and either the lens between C-mount adapter and trinocular port sucks, I either need a different lens or a dedicated camera is just the way to go as the image quality really, really sucks, and a GH5 is not a bad camera.
I agree, best way to connect camera is by direct projection, no intermediate photo lenses, not always possible, lots of variables :) It's an actual mine field when it comes to choosing right setup to get best possible outcome.
Awesome video/info! Thank you! Do you know what the bottom Black holder on the OM is called? Best Regards Danni, Denmark
You need intermediate optics for infinity corrected objectives in order to re-focus the "infinite" light beam back onto an image plane - but you can do that at pretty much and distance you want, that's right.
However, if you don't want any additional optics at all the best way would be to use a camera with a set of extension tubes (or bellows) and use a normal "finite" microscope objective at a standard extension of (for example) 160mm - so basically you ditch the rest of the microscope and/or re-use certain parts like the slide stage or the lighting/filter setup. That's actually very cheap, you can use 2020/40/60/80 V-slot profiles for the frame and they are very(!) stable and sturdy and readily available. And if you have a few hundred dollars to spare you can get a decent automatic focussing rail and get into focus stacking.
Though from what I've heard infinity corrected optics with tubes lenses should theoretically produce the best results.
Thank you for you videos. I have to connect a bresser resercher trino and a Fujifilm xh-1 (apsc sensor). I have an eos-fx adapter and a t2 adapter. You can provide me a link to buy a correct lens adapter for my camera? Tnx in advance!
Great info..thanks.. just want to add the possibilty of connecting an objective directly to DSLR with an adapter .. then no intermidiate optics is used and also no microscope..it is cheap.. but also no eyepiece magnification.. i am not sure how well it will work with high magnification objective but i saw people use i think with 10X or 4X
All that also applies when connecting digital cameras to telescopes. Only objective tubes have different diameters. On telescopes 1.25 or 2 inch and on microscopes 23.2mm seems to be a norm. Also telescopes project images directly on the sensor. The focuser allows the camera sensor to be placed directly at the spot of focus.
Interesting, I have made "scope cams" for my rifle scopes and friends, mostly for DIY night vision. Although i have made iphone mounts to record stuff also. Thought it would be roughly the same process adapting one but seems slightly different. I will try make something soon maybe 3D printable. I have in mind something that maybe can use a beam splitter so i can see with eyes while recording.
For a rifle scope you basically use a 12-16MM F1.2 lens and fix the camera using a tube (silicon engine coolant tube works well as its a snug push fit) the same distance from the scopes eye as your real eyes would sit. Normally this means a tube length of around the same size as a toilet roll tube. Camera normally just gets fixed using a waste pipe stop end or a small electronics project box and some glue.
For an iphone/android scope mount you do much the same only mount the phone the correct distance and "zoom in". Although you can get those clip on lens things. To mount the phone is very simple you just get an old "hard case" for whatever the phone is, glue on a waste stop end with a hole drilled in so camera can see out of and push fit that into the tube. Can also just glue the hard case onto the tube.
Waste stop ends (flowplast) come in set sizes for a scope i use 32mm stop end and 32mm silicon hose, the scopes eye is 30-32mm so its a snug fit, if its loose can use tape on the scope to put it over rather than inside, or you can use a clip / band. It;s stable enough to carry around in field so i expect similar for a microscope on the bench sitting still would be more than adequate.
Another way i have seen is putting a beam splitter (or prism) in the scope and making an exit in the top of scope tube for camera to sit and look into. Can be done externally also using a tube. I expect i could maybe do this with microscope also. Have a tube correct length to fit down into microscope. A beam splitter that allows any camera to adapt along the tube, and an opening at the top to look through with eyes. Possibly even full external would work using the normal eye lens and just sliding over that. I shell have to experiment. If i can mock something up that works perhaps i can turn it into a 3D printable format so others can remake it. I think it might be best to make it so it has say a standard lens mount / clamp for a phone. These things are cheap and easy to make but very expensive to buy. Could likely knock something up for less than a few pounds. My night vision units for rifles for example cost me a total of £50 including the IR torch and camera! An off the shelve unit producing the same results (or worse actually) can cost £350+.
Once i make a mockup i will post pics or video. :) Have an inkling F1.2 and an adjustable lens that goes in the range of 10 - 18mm will be whats needed mounted onto a board camera. IIR CCD will produce better than CMOS video (less ghosting and better low light capability)
In this point you're talking on step one of concentration 4x to 10x or high power. The question is what shall i do if the slide class has cover class and wanna to move to other high objects as 40x and e.t.c... the cover class has layer so that, can cover class bring risk to my high power lens? Hope from u in detailed answer . Thnks again Oliver
Hy! Can you tell me how to grow or where can i find cianobacteria and how to observ them?
I realy want to see some becouse they are have much more contrast then the reguler bacterias?
Thank you for your answer!
interesting video... love it... can I ask you your honest opinion? I have the option of buying the omax 5MP Camera USB 3.0 with reduction lense included, for $330 canadian. I have the option to purchase what I think seems to be a nice dslr. it is older one, Canon 7D 18MP camera with adapter for 500bucks. I don't know if the older canon will be compatible for this microscopy photo/video shooting. wich of these two will have better quality, and effictiency? thanks
Hello Oliver, very interesting topic for me as I want to add a camera to my microscope and stream a video on a laptop so I can observe microorganisms together with my children. I'm curious if there is any formula to calculate needed magnification for the sensor size of a camera? The camera I own has a IMX290 sensor with 6.46 mm diameter.
ua-cam.com/video/2JhWaMFBm4I/v-deo.html
Hi, This is a very interesting video. I have a question here in continuation to the video. What happens when I have a 0.5x reduction optics and a c-mount camera with sensor with size 5.7mm by 4.3 mm . I am not sure if I should be using 0.35x or 0.5x. Moreover, what is expected to happen to image quality if 0.5x is used instead of 0.35x or vice versa
the 0.5 will give of course a larger magnification, but the field of view is reduced. This might be helpful: www.lumenera.com/media/wysiwyg/support/pdf/selecting-coupler-magnification-application-note.pdf
How to use the same camera for an emdoscope?
Note that some manufacturers, like Zeiss, and possibly a few others, require compensating eyepieces to fully correct the image of all aberrations. If you have one of these brands, you need to use one of their eyepieces as a projection lens. You will have to do a little research to find a suitable adapter that can accommodate that companie's projection lens and your particular camera. Finding the right equipment can sometimes be a real challenge! I agree that ideally it would be better if you would not need any intermediate lens system, but some times you have to make due.
I would also like to add that infinity objectives actually do require the manufacturers designed lens system at the top of the tube, for example Zeiss and Nikon both require this. If you have an older microscope, or maybe just an infinity objective that you can adapt to your scope, you can cheat a little bit by setting up your dslr with (usually) a 200 mm camera lens to convert the infinity image back to something that you can capture with your dslr. The term "infinity" can be a little misleading or confusing as it refers to these microscope objectives since most companies that produce these objectives have an ideal tube length for "infinity". If I remember right, Zeiss infinity objectives are designed for 164 mm, while some Nikon scopes require a tube length in the 200 mm range. Other brands may use other tube lengths for their objectives. I suppose a generic camera adapter may be good enough, though you should do your own research to figure out what is best for your setup. I'm sorry if this comment is a little too verbose!
I use an infinity Zeiss and get perfectly fine images without intermediate optics. You are right that there is a tube lens but it is located at the bottom of the scope head for most models I think.
@@lodewijkvanwalraven2051 I think your correct about the placement of the intermediate optics. I think the idea is that you can insert accessories between the top of the objective, and the head without getting a magnification change and without needing corrective lenses as long as the distance change is within certain parameters.
Hi Oliver, I am A huge Fan. PLease guide me. I am planning to buy a cheap industrial microscope CMOS camera (eakins 48 megapixel) and pairing it with 0.5x reduction optics. Is this the ideal setup (factoring a total of 120 usd price) for making Histopathology teaching videos for youtube ?. Your input will be very helpful. thank you
have you been able to mount a smart phone on the photo tube , not the eye piece ???
I been thinking on using a Celestron NexYZ DX kit ,, I ordered one ,, do you think would work ???
You need an extra eyepiece, which you put into the phototube to connect the smart phone adapter to. I see no reason why it should not work.
@@MicrobehunterMicroscopy you mean an extra 10x eye piece the same as the binocular ???
Yes. Try if one of the existing eyepieces fit into the phototube. Look through the eyepiece in the phototube. You should be able to see everything normally. You can also try to connect a mobile phone adapter to try it out. You buy an extra eyepiece so that you can use the binocular and at the same time can make pictures.
I make cameras from webcams or action cameras. I'll remove the original optics and use an eyepiece.
Hello Sir.i m very interested in microlivingworld.plz can u suggsst me microscope for viewing living micro objects.cells,bacteria,etc.
much info here: www.microbehunter.com/category/buying-microscopes/
Hi Oliver -
I’m a beginner who is wondering what you think about this microscope. - www.amscope.com/40x-2000x-3w-led-siedentopf-binocular-darkfield-compound-microscope.html
It has darkfield but comes with a separate dry darkfield condenser rather than a patch stop (Are there any differences?). I also don’t need a trino cular head as I won’t be taking many photos, if any. I’ve been enjoying your videos - keep it up!
Don't know much about specific models, but the specs say that it has all of the relevant features. So I don't see any issues.
on my opinion DLSR is not a good solution, because this
camerasare not construkteted for
mikroskopie and to heavy and clumbsi for a normal microskope.
Mirrorles DLSR tha is not negociabel
ich verstehe nicht warum man ueberhaupt noch durch Okulare gucken muss, wenn man einen grossen Monitor an der Kamera angeschlossen hat, da macht man sich doch nur die Augen kaputt und die sind doch das Wichtigste beim mikroskopieren. Ausserden spart man viel GEld dabei.
Aus mehreren Gründen: 1. Wenn man durch die Okulare blickt, dann ist das Auge ins Unendliche fokussiert. Da macht man sich nicht die Augen kaputt, eher das Gegenteil. Wenn man auf den Monitor blickt, dann ist das Auge in die Nähe fokussiert und das kann (langfristig) zur Kurzsichtigkeit beitragen. Kurz: Mikroskope (und Teleskope etc). sind eher Vorteilhaft. 2. Man bekommt duch den Blick durchs Okular einen höheren Kontrast. Das Bild sieht daher besser aus und einige Details sind besser sichtbar. 3. Gute Kameras sind extrem teuer, auch ist eine schnelle Anbindung an den Computer notwendig. Herkömliche USB Kameras sind noch zu langsam, das wird sich sicherlich ändern. Jedoch: in manchen Anwendungsgebieten wird tatsächlich voll digital gearbeitet (zB Virtuelle Mikroskopie, wo die Objektträger gescannt werden). Manche Mikroskope werden tatsächlich nur mit Kamera (ohne Okulare) angeboten. Es kommt auf das Anwendungsgebiet an. Ich selber habe auch eine Kamera direkt an den Monitor angeschlossen und wechsle hin und her. Das Beste aus beiden Welten.
@@MicrobehunterMicroscopy Ich glaube eigentlich nicht, dass die Fotos wesentlich besser werden, wenn der Blick durchs Okular schaerfer oder kontrastreicher ist, aber die Frage, ob Okular oder Bildschirm bzw Projektion besser fuer die Augen ist wohl schwierig zu beantworten, da zu viele Faktoren eine Rolle spielen. Ich selbst finde die Arbeit an einem grossen Monitor oder Beamerprojektion weniger anstrengend als am Binokular, insbesondere fuer den Ruecken und die Nackenmuskulatur. Auch wenn man mal aufstehen und umhergehen kann, denn das Lange sitzen am Mikroskop ist extrem ungesund. Das Mikroskopieren mit Pojektion oder Bildschirm ist in jedem Falle kommunikativer und so macht das Mikroskopieren erst richtig Spass. Jeder hat wohl einen Fernseher und so ist es auch billiger als ein wirklich augenschonendes Binokular, im Hobbybereich hat Geld doch eine gewisse Bedeutung. Argumente wie Schaerfe, Aufloesung etc spielen da wohl eine untergeordnete Rolle. Wirklich gute professionelle Bilder kann man sich auch im Internet ansehen. Am Bildschirm muss man dazu nur die Quelle umschalten, ich finde das isteine unglaublich informative und lehrreicher Moeglichkeit. Noch ein Wort fur Mikrofotografie. Es ist wohl klar, dass man heute so ziemlich alle Objekte in hervorragender Bildqualitaet aus dem internet sekundenschnell bekommt. Was aber immer mehr in Vergessenheit geraet ist aber das Zeichnen der Praeparate, was das dikdaktisch wertvollste und lehrreichste Mittel der Mikroskopie ist. Und beim zeichnen ist ein grosser Bildschirm oder eine Projektion ein hervorragendes Hilsmittel.
Sadece konuşuyorsun. Uygulamalı olarak deneyin.