lilewis wrote:I accepted the 33x as gospel from Jens without understanding the technical aspects as you are describing because I think his credentials are impeccable.
The issue is not anybody's credentials, but rather what they mean when they say "33X".
A microscope would be labeled "33X" if the image as seen by eye through the eyepieces has 33 times larger angular span than the real object would have when viewed at a distance of 10 inches. A print would be labeled "33X" if the image on the print is 33 times longer than the real subject. Projection optics would be labeled "33X" if the projected image is 33 times longer than the real subject. A zoom lens would be labeled "33X" if the ratio between maximum and minimum magnification is 33:1. An add-on lens might be labeled "33X" if it provides 33 times more magnification than you'd get without the lens. These different uses are all industry standard, and it's anybody's guess whether Jens was thinking about one of those or even something different.
When cropped to a rectangle, the field that you're getting with the add-on triplet is about 10 mm wide. That corresponds, roughly speaking, with what you would see through a 33X microscope, so in that sense "33X" can be a reasonable description (though non-standard) for what you get when you point the camera+triplet directly at a subject.
But that is a very different meaning of "33X" from what you'll find in use here at photomacrography.net. It's important to be aware of the difference.
Obviously with a background like that I was not going to question anything he tells me.
With respect, that strategy can be improved. It is always fair game to ask questions that are aimed at making sure the listener heard what the speaker intended to say. There's a big difference between issuing a challenge posed as a question and asking a question aimed at clarification. Since you really had no idea what "33X" might have meant, asking for clarification would have been completely appropriate.
I tried to take a photo just now by placing the C5050/triplet set to infinity with the stock 10x microscope eyepiece (not high point) and the result was a small bright spot that's completely unusable. Maybe I'm missing something that should be completely obvious - a setting somewhere?
It sounds like what you're missing is that I did not say camera
plus triplet, I just said camera -- meaning the camera by itself, no triplet. Just the camera looking into the eyepiece. The lens of the camera plays the role of your eye looking into the eyepiece.
When used in this way, you're still likely to get some vignetting. The amount of vignetting will depend on the zoom setting of the camera, so you'll have to play with that to see what gives the best result.
--Rik
