So frustrating! I've been in the photography business for 45 years, and never really had trouble finding info or adapters for various things. I got my first microscope for Xmas, and there doesn't seem to be any clear and easy solutions for using DSLR or mirrorless full frame cameras. I got a trinocular, thinking this should be no problem. WOW! There is an unmet market need here, I don't know why amscope just seems to ignore this. (Or it exists, and I haven't found it yet) Thank you for your video, now I'll go watch what you made. I thought I might have to build something myself anyway, but I'd rather just buy something correct without trial and errors.
I have a similar adapter and it is okay, at least it does not produce any big image artifacts. But I am also not very happy with that, because I would love to make photos with my Canon R6 which has a quite large sensor (fullframe). The problem is that only a small part of the sensor is illuminated. Instead of buying more useless adapters, I would be very thankful for some advices which adapters could work. By the way, I am using a Leica DM750 P.
I got one of these. I agree the diaphragm seems to be useless. With a bit of mucking about I managed to adjust the camera tube on my Swift trinocular to make it parfocal. I previously had it adjusted for a USB camera, but due to the problems with video I don't expect to have much use for that. Due to a computer problem I haven't been able to blow up images from it yet but it seems OK so far.
I'm glad that I didn't buy this. My previous Chinese microscope couldn't fill the APS-C sensor. I used a 2x Barlow lens for it, which I saw in your video where you played with over 1000x magnifications. It was not so bad, but I used some black material inside the Barlow to eliminate these glares. Now my Nikon Labophot-2 can fill the sensor without any other optics. Sadly it's not so parfocal, I have to change the focus a bit, but the labophot doesn't have prisms, I can rotate the head to switch between binoculars and camera. I think the most difficult thing in this hobby is to find the perfect solution between DSLR and microscope. It needs a lot of work and tryouts.
Hello! Could the issues of parafocal, be linked with the wrong length of pull? -On the older adapter, the issue could be due to the phototube of the binocular microscope having the wrong length (too long or too short) for the optics in the adapter. Try to lift the camera and see how the image change. If you are lucky, it maybe only needs a spacer. -The newer adapter problems could be due to the diaphragm device. The fact that, rather than restrict the amount of light, it acts as a variable field stop lets me think that it is at, or close to, the focal point of the lens element. The lack of parfocality in that version could come from an incorrect length in the assembly due to the aperture element. Can it be removed? Or maybe was it installed backwards? -The T ring: are you sure it's the proper type (Canon EF and RF have same connector, but significantly different flange distance), or is it built to specifications? Have you tested the device with another, known-to-work T-ring? -Is the lens where it should be? Maybe it has been unscrewing itself during transport or badly installed in the factory? I know, these issues should not exist if there was half decent QR, but never know... ;)
I'm legally blind and have an interest in microscopy. So I'm trying to find a good adapter for a dslr, but I don't actually need to use the other eye pieces at all. Would this still work for focus if the digital camera is the only tube being focused/used?
So, I have a technical question. I am going to buy a research-grade non-fluorescence microscope, and was wondering if I should buy an Axiocam or Olympus DP28 camera, or buy a full-frame Sony mirrorless camera. What are the advantages/disadvantages of buying a full-frame Sony vs the Axiocam or DP28? Given that the full-frame Sony would be much cheaper, would it be advisable over the other ones?
First check if a full frame camera is even able to capture the whole field of view. Sometimes the sensor is too large to directly project the image from the objective on the sensor. The image is then in a bright circle. It is usually better to buy a combination that the manufacturer recommends. So if you buy an Olympus microscope, then go for the DP28. You will have less issues with adapters, image quality etc. Any optics that you insert between the microscope and camera will degrade the image quality. So if you have a system which allows for the direct projection of the image on the sensor, then this is preferred. Consider: other uses besides microscopy, availability of adapters, necessity to have a computer next to the camera to record, cost, size, personal preference. Alternative: ask if you can test them and return.
Hello Sir, i think "SVBONY SV187 Variable Universal Camera Adapter" it's a good adapter because it has no lens inside and it is adjustable, i have none of this and it is adjustable for both Microscope and telescope. you can try that one sir.
I had seen that on AlieExpress. I figured it was promising more than it could deliver for the price. Sorry you blew 70 Euros on it. Still love your channel, though!
only microcops over 5 000 Euros have a sharp image in the camera and the stereoview. Amateurs need no adapters neither optics between a infinity objektiv and the camera sensor. Simply cut a plastic tube from the plumbers garbage at the right length and it works.
So frustrating! I've been in the photography business for 45 years, and never really had trouble finding info or adapters for various things. I got my first microscope for Xmas, and there doesn't seem to be any clear and easy solutions for using DSLR or mirrorless full frame cameras. I got a trinocular, thinking this should be no problem. WOW! There is an unmet market need here, I don't know why amscope just seems to ignore this. (Or it exists, and I haven't found it yet) Thank you for your video, now I'll go watch what you made. I thought I might have to build something myself anyway, but I'd rather just buy something correct without trial and errors.
I have telescopic adaptor tube where you can regulate distance of camera so you can get parfocality
I have a similar adapter and it is okay, at least it does not produce any big image artifacts. But I am also not very happy with that, because I would love to make photos with my Canon R6 which has a quite large sensor (fullframe). The problem is that only a small part of the sensor is illuminated.
Instead of buying more useless adapters, I would be very thankful for some advices which adapters could work. By the way, I am using a Leica DM750 P.
The placement of the diaphragm and lens of he adapter was built in the wrong order?
I got one of these. I agree the diaphragm seems to be useless. With a bit of mucking about I managed to adjust the camera tube on my Swift trinocular to make it parfocal. I previously had it adjusted for a USB camera, but due to the problems with video I don't expect to have much use for that. Due to a computer problem I haven't been able to blow up images from it yet but it seems OK so far.
I'm glad that I didn't buy this. My previous Chinese microscope couldn't fill the APS-C sensor. I used a 2x Barlow lens for it, which I saw in your video where you played with over 1000x magnifications. It was not so bad, but I used some black material inside the Barlow to eliminate these glares.
Now my Nikon Labophot-2 can fill the sensor without any other optics. Sadly it's not so parfocal, I have to change the focus a bit, but the labophot doesn't have prisms, I can rotate the head to switch between binoculars and camera.
I think the most difficult thing in this hobby is to find the perfect solution between DSLR and microscope. It needs a lot of work and tryouts.
I am having all sorts of problems with an Amscope adapter. It doesn't appear to be par focal either. Very frustrating.
what is the link for the video you mention at the end - building a photo tube without optics - id love to watch that :)
Hello!
Could the issues of parafocal, be linked with the wrong length of pull?
-On the older adapter, the issue could be due to the phototube of the binocular microscope having the wrong length (too long or too short) for the optics in the adapter. Try to lift the camera and see how the image change. If you are lucky, it maybe only needs a spacer.
-The newer adapter problems could be due to the diaphragm device. The fact that, rather than restrict the amount of light, it acts as a variable field stop lets me think that it is at, or close to, the focal point of the lens element. The lack of parfocality in that version could come from an incorrect length in the assembly due to the aperture element. Can it be removed? Or maybe was it installed backwards?
-The T ring: are you sure it's the proper type (Canon EF and RF have same connector, but significantly different flange distance), or is it built to specifications? Have you tested the device with another, known-to-work T-ring?
-Is the lens where it should be? Maybe it has been unscrewing itself during transport or badly installed in the factory?
I know, these issues should not exist if there was half decent QR, but never know... ;)
I wouldn't use a DSLR with a microscope. A quality C-Mount microscope camera is designed for the job and will give far better results.
I think the point is to use what you already got, but dedicated purpose built is better for sure.
I'm legally blind and have an interest in microscopy. So I'm trying to find a good adapter for a dslr, but I don't actually need to use the other eye pieces at all. Would this still work for focus if the digital camera is the only tube being focused/used?
So, I have a technical question. I am going to buy a research-grade non-fluorescence microscope, and was wondering if I should buy an Axiocam or Olympus DP28 camera, or buy a full-frame Sony mirrorless camera. What are the advantages/disadvantages of buying a full-frame Sony vs the Axiocam or DP28? Given that the full-frame Sony would be much cheaper, would it be advisable over the other ones?
First check if a full frame camera is even able to capture the whole field of view. Sometimes the sensor is too large to directly project the image from the objective on the sensor. The image is then in a bright circle. It is usually better to buy a combination that the manufacturer recommends. So if you buy an Olympus microscope, then go for the DP28. You will have less issues with adapters, image quality etc. Any optics that you insert between the microscope and camera will degrade the image quality. So if you have a system which allows for the direct projection of the image on the sensor, then this is preferred. Consider: other uses besides microscopy, availability of adapters, necessity to have a computer next to the camera to record, cost, size, personal preference. Alternative: ask if you can test them and return.
Same issues here, it's just bad. I went for a 3D printed direct projection adapter, very similar to the one you made.
Damn.... I have orderd this 5 days ago and it is still on its way. I hope I can send it back... (it is on Ebay too)
Try it out before you send it back. Would be interested in the results, it you have the same problems.
@@MicrobehunterMicroscopy Okay, I will test it for you!
Hello Sir, i think "SVBONY SV187 Variable Universal Camera Adapter" it's a good adapter because it has no lens inside and it is adjustable, i have none of this and it is adjustable for both Microscope and telescope. you can try that one sir.
I had seen that on AlieExpress. I figured it was promising more than it could deliver for the price. Sorry you blew 70 Euros on it. Still love your channel, though!
only microcops over 5 000 Euros have a sharp image in the camera and the stereoview. Amateurs need no adapters neither optics between a infinity objektiv and the camera sensor. Simply cut a plastic tube from the plumbers garbage at the right length and it works.