Interchangeability of systems

Midline · Post by **Midline** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:11 am

Hello everyone,
first of all - wow! I've been looking through the last four years of the "equipment discussion" part of this forum, and your combined knowledge surely is impressive. But that's what makes forums like this interesting, right?

The reason for my "grave plundering" behaviour is that I'm about to abandon my (first) microscope system. I've loved my Bresser BioScience Trino, and it sure is "plug-and-play" with both smooth stage movement and focus, Köhler illumination and a trino head. I bought some accessories to it, among them a DSLR-adapter from Bresser (which works OK, I'd say a 3 out of 5) and a no-name dry dark field condenser which I love. It is, however, finite, and I'm experiencing a need for better optics and filter possibilities.

I've been gathering quotations from Olympus, Nikon and Zeiss. It's insane how large a home-made excel-file can get, once you start gathering data... New scopes are a bit too expensive (maximum budget of 2000€), as my fiancé is insisting on going abroad on holidays this summer. So I've been looking at used ones. From what I gather, I'm going to need a matching outfit and a ring with a special seal if I chose the Olympus BH2 - the consensus is that everyone seems to love them passionately! And why not, with all upgrades easily available on the interwebs.

Now, I've got a couple of questions that I hope some of you might be able to answer. Let's focus on Nikon and Olympus. Are any of the parts to the older systems (BH2, Labophot, etcetera) interchangeable with the newer systems (CX31, E200 and so on)? Like nosepiece, head, oculars etcetera? And what about thread- and head dovetail sizes, why aren't they specified or anywhere to be found? Isn't it possible to add a Brand X infinity corrected objective to a Brand Y infinity stand with a Brand Z Trino head? I expect optic optimisation with using the same brands, but is it completely out of the question?

In Sweden we call an individual like me an "Ordbajsare" (Ord like in "ORDeal", bajs like "BYES" and are like "ARREst"), which translates to word-pooper. Once I start, I cannot help myself. Sorry for that...

Best regards,
Björn (Like "burn" but with a J)

zzffnn · Post by **zzffnn** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:39 am

No, in general, older 160TL system parts cannot be exchanged with newer infinity parts. Not oculars or heads. Not too sure about nosepiece - I would guess not in general -some Optiphot quick-change nosepiece cannot be used on Labophot, for example - that is within older 160TL.

In some cases, condensers and mechanical parts may be exchanged.

I have invested in a Nikon Labophot 2 system. If I start over again, I will pick Olympus BH2, Zeiss or Leitz top 160TL scopes over Nikon 160TL and over in other infinity scopes. In my hands (and based on my DIY ability), BH2 offers more possibility of modifications, than Labophot 2. BH2 allows changing tube length slightly and quick-change nosepiece, Labophot does not, for example.

I said "in general" above, because some very specific infinity optics can be exchanged, if you know the fine details match. Even 160TL objective can be used on infinity scopes, but you would lose covr slip correction (0.17 mm becomes no cover) and working distance and magnification would change. In many cases, it is not worth doing.

Dovetail size is usually not provided, because you are not expected to use parts outside of the intended brand/model. But many of us do that anyway.

NikonUser · Post by **NikonUser** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 1:42 pm

I have a BH2/BHS and am very pleased with it. I believe the BHS is a far better option than a BH2.
However, if I was starting again I would go with Nikon simply because their CFN objectives can be used on their 'scopes AND can be used 'alone' on a bellows.
Now I have a full set of finite Olympus objectives AND quite a few Nikon CFN's for bellows work. Doubly expensive!

Ichthyophthirius · Post by **Ichthyophthirius** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 1:48 pm

Hi Björn,

I agree with Fan (zzffnn). The compatibility between 160 mm-part and the infinity microscopes of the same manufacturers is minimal. There are a few parts that can be exchanged between Zeiss 160 and ICS (some with modifications needed) and I was told also between Nikon 160 and Eclipse. It would be good to have a list of these parts

but I don't know about one. I don't think it's worth basing your purchase descision on this.

The great thing is that you have a working microscope already and thus are in no rush to buy your next one. Take your time and compare and find out what you want to do with it in the future. In particular what contrast techniques your new microscope should be capable of (fluorescence, DIC?). Wait and buy a system that is as complete as possible to start with and find out if any additional parts you want are compatible and readily available.

With $2000 you can aim for a medium-sized, fully extendable 160 microscope stand. If you had a little bit more money, you could go directly to an infinity microscope.

Which manufacturer you choose is mostly down to personal preference. The optics of the newer models (Zeiss from 1950s onwards; Leitz 160; Olympus LB; Nikon CF/CFN) are all great. The mechanical quality of the Zeiss and Leitz stands is somewhat better (they were just more expensive microscopes at the time).

The Zeiss "Standard" microscopes have an absolutely unrivaled compatibility of most of the components produced between 1950 and 1990. Very few components of the small and medium-sized stands are not interchangeable.

Leitz has different dovetail fittings for different product lines. If parts are not compatible, they will usually not fit.

My personal recommendations

Zeiss Standard RA or Standard 18 http://www.microbehunter.com/microscopy ... php?t=1946
(small footprint, very high expandability, incredibly robust mechanics)

Zeiss Standard WL http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=29534
(medium footprint, maximum expandability; most parts, including the stange, are interchangeable; very robust mechanics)

Leitz Orthoplan (an older, 170 mm stand) http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/art ... oplan.html
(large footprint, very robust mechanics, unlimited expandability although DIC and some other parts are very expensive)

Zeiss optics have a problem with delamination. If you think this will be a problem in searching for objectives etc., you can use any 160 mm optics as long as you combine objectives and eyepieces from the same company. Leitz 160 generally have the best value-for-money.

Good luck finding your microscope, Ichty

Alan Wood · Post by **Alan Wood** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:23 pm

Björn asked:

Are any of the parts to the older systems (BH2, Labophot, etcetera) interchangeable with the newer systems (CX31, E200 and so on)?

As far as I know, nothing from a BH-2 can be used on a CX31.

Alan Wood

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:50 pm

(maximum budget of 2000€), as my fiancé is insisting on going abroad on holidays this summer.

I don't see a problem, She can go - ?

Midline · Post by **Midline** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 12:25 am

Wow, thanks for all the great replies! I’ve already got the fact that you can’t intermix finite with infinite system parts. I’m just wondering about the possibility to change for example a condenser, stage or a light source between different model series, and perhaps even brands! I expect some machining or 3D-printing could be a necessity, but I’m just wondering about if it’s possible (and actually doable).

Zzffnn, thanks, interesting to hear that people actually modifies their microscopes so severely that they change the dovetails! Seems a bit out of reach for me though, with my current experience. Also thank you for your opinion on the Nikon systems.

NU, it’s great to hear your thoughts. Of course you should change system, if only just to match your epithet!

I’ve not gotten far enough in my model studies to know the specifics about the BHS, but I’ve added it to my “to-know-list”.

Ichty, thanks for your input! I’ve not considered footprint before, but I suppose that’s not a concern of mine (seriously hope my girlfriend is not reading this, we live in a small two-room flat and she doesn’t share my opinion). You also have a very good point – I do not need to rush my next purchase. I expect I will buy a nice stand, expand it with a trino head, and then perhaps buying an objective or two.

Alan, thank you for your answer! Is that because of differences in the optical systems (i.e. tube length) or just because of mounting threads, dovetails etcetera?

Chris, yeah, my thought exactly! Although Paris is a very nice city, and I’d love to try my new macro lens in the Jardin des Plantes…

Thanks again for your replies, it’s really great to hear your opinions and take part of your knowledge!

Best regards,
Björn

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 1:57 am

In the case of Nikon and Olympus I believe that you will find some compatibility in the newer (infinity) and older (finite) condenser mounts. But that is about it.

If photography is a big requirement, one thing that should be considered is the camera adaptation. In particular most ("Big 4") 160mm finite tube length scopes, (the exception being Nikon CF) used corrective optics in the eyepieces. Often the smallest format cameras for which the proper trinocular optics are readily available is 35mm (24x36mm film/sensor). This makes a full-frame camera (24x36mm) the easiest to configure on these trinocular heads. It is usually more complicated (and possibly much more expensive) to use an APS-C or MFT camera as effectively with these microscopes. (But even though Nikon CF objectives don't need chromatic correction it can still be tricky or quite expensive to come up with a good optical camera connection for the smaller frame cameras because of the way their trinocular heads are made.)

Alan Wood · Post by **Alan Wood** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 8:22 am

Björn

Differences between BH-2 and CK31:

Eyepieces: BH-2 compensating, CK31 not compensating
Head: BH-2 no tube lens, CK31 tube lens
Nosepiece: BH-2 interchangeable, CK31 fixed
Objectives: BH-2 finite, CK31 infinite
Stage: BH-2 interchangeable, CK31 fixed
Condenser: BH-2 dovetail mount, CK31 cylinder mount

You can probably use the same mains lead and 45mm filters.

Alan Wood

Midline · Post by **Midline** » Sat Mar 04, 2017 3:22 am

Charles, thanks for your input. Photography is an important factor, albeit not the dominant. I’d rather have a bino microscope for a while, than an infinite microscope lens with bellows and a suitable tele lens on a rail. I observe much more often than I take pictures. Interesting point you make with the full-frame cameras, I haven’t gotten into much details in that specific area yet. What do you mean with “Big 4”?

Alan, thank you, that was a very clear comparison and just the sort of info I was seeking! I’m almost ashamed to say this, but I hadn’t realised that the BH-2 wasn’t an infinite optic system!

How do all you BH-2 owners adapt your microscopes for temporarily polarising light, or other types of filters? I mean, you cannot prolong the light path by adding a sector and raising the head from the body in a finite system!?

This is really exciting, I’m almost overwhelmed with all your helpful answers! Wish you all a great weekend!

Planapo · Post by **Planapo** » Sat Mar 04, 2017 8:18 am

Björn,

the "Big 4" stands for Zeiss, Leitz/Leica, Olympus and Nikon.

How do all you BH-2 owners adapt your microscopes for temporarily polarising light, or other types of filters? I mean, you cannot prolong the light path by adding a sector and raising the head from the body in a finite system!?

See e. g. page 21 of the brochure downloadable from Alan's site here.

Or see Greg McHone's site for further reference, especially on parts to equip BH-2 stands as polarizing microscopes like they are used mostly by geologists/mineralogists.

As you can see the available various intermediate "add-on" tubes, which are to be used attached beneath the binocular/trinocular tubes, enlarge the magnification by a factor of 1.25 .

--Betty

Pau · Post by **Pau** » Sat Mar 04, 2017 8:37 am

maximum budget of 2000€

If this is the final price (and not only the starting point for now) a good approach could be to maintain your Bresser in use and upgrade the optics to 160 DIN optics of ONE of the 4 Big (Olympus, Nikon, Zeiss, Leitz), looking for Plan Apo and/or Plan Fluorite objectives and the matched eyepieces: optics are much more important than the stand

Later you could upgrade to a better stand and condensers for more sophisticated illumination techniques

Alan Wood · Post by **Alan Wood** » Sat Mar 04, 2017 2:33 pm

Björn asked

How do all you BH-2 owners adapt your microscopes for temporarily polarising light, or other types of filters? I mean, you cannot prolong the light path by adding a sector and raising the head from the body in a finite system!?

Olympus made a very thin analyser that sits in the bottom of the recess into which the head's dovetail fits. It is on the right in this picture (polariser on the left):

They also made thicker analysers that raised the head and included optics to compensate for the extra distance; these had a magnification factor of 1.25x. The same compensation allowed drawing tubes and other attachments to be used.

Alan Wood

Pau · Post by **Pau** » Sun Mar 05, 2017 2:05 am

You can do the same with almost any microscope -including your Bresser- just dropping a good quality polarizer as analyzer inside the microscope head over the objectives and placing a good polarizer (even a good plastic sheet one) over the illuminator or at the filter try under the condenser, you just need one to be easily rotatable.
I've done it for years before getting an intermediate pol piece for my microscope and still I do it at the school lab with chinese Oly CH clones.
Of course original parts fit better.