Hmmmm
https://www.petvacc.com/blog/2020/9/16/ ... -tapeworms

Afaik, it was assumed that a high-NA, coverslip-corrected objetives are simply inusable with no-coverslip. This thread shows that you can use use such objective with no coverslip getting more than aceceptable (to say the least) result. This trick has been referenced here before (it's the same as th...

Macrero wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 17, 2024 4:09 am

So my debunking thread got debunked?

I was careful to say partially rebunked. I think we've ended up with a much better picture of what's possible and what the optical costs are. It's not free optically but the results are still impressive.

I guess in the end we can say the myth has been at least partially rebunked. It's possible to adjust coverslip correction by changing tube lens focus but it does end up affecting image quality in a noticeable way particularly in the corners, which is kind of what you'd expect in the end. I assume we...

I would try using flocking paper first rather than baffles to limit flare.

The working distance is 1mm when used to spec, not sure how different it is when used this way.

ray_parkhurst wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 13, 2024 1:12 pm

mkbn wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 13, 2024 11:36 am

Which would be neat! I really love mine and I got it used at an OK price,

It was just released and you were already able to buy it used? That seems odd. Why did the seller let it go?

I believe he is referring to his Laowa 25mm

I have seen old listings for PA20s. I imagine when the cheap 20x apos hit the market they became the hottest commodity. The planapo 10x uses the pf10 slider.
Here's a link to a document with most of the details http://cdn-10.nikon-cdn.com/pdf/Optics_Bio_Chart.pdf

You're off to a great start. I do notice you have focus banding though, you missed a few slices in your stack so they remain blurry in the final stack. But your lighting is nice and diffuse and you're capturing a lot of detail, looks like you probably got one of their good 4xes.

Correction can be done partially (ie Leica HC) or entirely (Zeiss) in the tube lens on infinity objectives. We just don't use them for photography by and large.

Field number is the objective field in your chart normalized to 1x. The rating on them is nomjnally 24mm. So far I still don’t understand how this characteristic can help me choose a 100-110 mm photo lens...(( The point is that no objective is specced for this kind of use. If it works it is exceedi...

Field number is the objective field in your chart normalized to 1x. The rating on them is nomjnally 24mm.

Oh yes, I was not meaning to suggest you were wrong, you're absolutely right. Some objectives like the BE series or many Mitutoyo objectives go way beyond their nominal spec. It's just good for people to know that it is not typical to get good coverage like this and they shouldn't expect it from obj...

Using a 100mm tube lens on aps-c assumes an objective with a field number of something like 54mm. That's way beyond what any objective has ever been specced for so don't expect many to give great results, only the ones with the widest of fields.

That sure sounds like chatgpt to me. By chatbot you mean me? Not at all, I mean "Ushavilash". Their one other post is nonsensical, this one is probably a chatgpt output (note it's almost relevant but also completely off base of the topic). In a few weeks those posts will likely be automatically edi...