Hi, decided to write up an article dedicated to camera adapting. There's lots of information on BH and CH, but not much on BX. Information is scattered across different websites and there are some pitfalls.
https://macrocosmosblog.wordpress.com/2 ... r-cameras/
Direct projection and photo eyepiece methods are examined. I also share my smartphone image capture method.
Notably, Olympus' original parts are inadequate for FF direct projection, I was able to fix the issues.
Smartphone photos.
Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
- Posts: 1527
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
- Contact:
Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range
Last edited by Macro_Cosmos on Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1636
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:26 am
Re: Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range
Direct projection onto aps-c certainly works well, though the ultrawide head to get best results is awfully pricey. I'm surprised full frame is an option with direct projection using Olynpus objectives, at least with a 180mm tube lens.
Re: Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range
Hi Macro_Cosmos,
This is a very interesting article.
IMO it would be much improved if complemented with actual picture tests of your different approaches and also would be nice to see the complete setups mounted.
This is a very interesting article.
IMO it would be much improved if complemented with actual picture tests of your different approaches and also would be nice to see the complete setups mounted.
Pau
-
- Posts: 1527
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
- Contact:
Re: Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range
I would have showed the complete photos of the setup in, but I currently only have one camera. I suppose I can just use a toy one as an illustration, I still have that nanoblocks Nikon F.
What kind of picture tests would you be applicable? Something like 10x+PE2.5x VS 10x+MagChanger 2x? I would consider doing one if I ever get a PE2x, 25x is pretty far off from 20x total magnification, but with a PE2x, it's 20 VS 20 -- great! There's currently no way for me acquire the same magnifications with either method.
-
- Posts: 1636
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:26 am
Re: Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range
That was a nice writeup. There is certainly less info which is a little frustrating. Olympus did make a nice black adapter which is the equivalent of the photomicro L but they are scarce.
I will second the request for a few photos--I didn't realize you could cover full frame, though i suppose it makes sense since with the uw tube lens tbr image produced is good to the corners of aps-c, so you'd expect the usable image circle to be bigger even if there's a little degradation. Maybe less so with the non ultrawide tube lens?
I should post the stl for the adapter I am using, which replaces the dovetail on top of a head or u-tlu and has m42 threads, though you might want to adapt on wider tubes for full frame.
I will second the request for a few photos--I didn't realize you could cover full frame, though i suppose it makes sense since with the uw tube lens tbr image produced is good to the corners of aps-c, so you'd expect the usable image circle to be bigger even if there's a little degradation. Maybe less so with the non ultrawide tube lens?
I should post the stl for the adapter I am using, which replaces the dovetail on top of a head or u-tlu and has m42 threads, though you might want to adapt on wider tubes for full frame.
Re: Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range
Yes, the toy Nikon F would look nice, phone photos of the actual camera also would do.Macro_Cosmos wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:36 amI would have showed the complete photos of the setup in, but I currently only have one camera. I suppose I can just use a toy one as an illustration, I still have that nanoblocks Nikon F.
Yes, what matters is to compare both image quality and magnification/field of view of both approaches. A phone or wide angle lens picture taken through the eyepiece also would be useful to compare with the visual imageWhat kind of picture tests would you be applicable? Something like 10x+PE2.5x VS 10x+MagChanger 2x? I would consider doing one if I ever get a PE2x, 25x is pretty far off from 20x total magnification, but with a PE2x, it's 20 VS 20 -- great! There's currently no way for me acquire the same magnifications with either method.
Pau
-
- Posts: 1527
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
- Contact:
Re: Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range
Alright, I'll see what I can do here.Pau wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:08 amYes, the toy Nikon F would look nice, phone photos of the actual camera also would do.Macro_Cosmos wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:36 amI would have showed the complete photos of the setup in, but I currently only have one camera. I suppose I can just use a toy one as an illustration, I still have that nanoblocks Nikon F.Yes, what matters is to compare both image quality and magnification/field of view of both approaches. A phone or wide angle lens picture taken through the eyepiece also would be useful to compare with the visual imageWhat kind of picture tests would you be applicable? Something like 10x+PE2.5x VS 10x+MagChanger 2x? I would consider doing one if I ever get a PE2x, 25x is pretty far off from 20x total magnification, but with a PE2x, it's 20 VS 20 -- great! There's currently no way for me acquire the same magnifications with either method.
The objective comparison will have to involve lower magnifications. At higher ones, it's just going to be optical enlargement, with no gained detail. For example, the 100x NA 1.4 resolves a monochrome sensor of around 9MP, 24MP colour sensor is a fair game but slapping a 2x onto it doesn't really bring out more detail.
Moreover, I'm limited by the condenser NA, which is at 0.9. I can use an oil immersion Apl Achro but that gives only brightfield.
Wish I had a PE2x.
Re: Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range
Yes, a 10X or 20X plan apo are usually the more adequate (lower mag ones often deliver worse corners and as you suggest higher mag easily goes into empty magnification)Macro_Cosmos wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 12:53 amThe objective comparison will have to involve lower magnifications. At higher ones, it's just going to be optical enlargement, with no gained detail. ...
Another interesting test is with true direct projection (mag changer at 1X) and APSc crop camera mode.
Pau
Re: Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range
I think that he is doing direct projection on FF with the magnification changer at 2X. Being 2.5X the old standard for 35mm film (=FF) with FN 18 or 20mm microscopes, 2X is not surprising to work nicely in wide field modern systems.Scarodactyl wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:50 amI will second the request for a few photos--I didn't realize you could cover full frame, though i suppose it makes sense since with the uw tube lens tbr image produced is good to the corners of aps-c, so you'd expect the usable image circle to be bigger even if there's a little degradation. Maybe less so with the non ultrawide tube lens?
Pau
-
- Posts: 1527
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
- Contact:
Re: Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range
Alright, some clarity is needed. I'll update the article tonight but I'll clear some confusion here.
My objectives have an FN of 26.5mm, full-frame is covered with an empty tube.
The magnification changer at 1x brings in mechanical vignetting due to the smaller aperture, not direct projection. Removing the magnification changer solves this straight away but I like the versatility of having 1.25x, 1.6x and 2x. There's no discernible difference between 1x and 1.25x anyway. I'm actually thinking about modifying the magnification changer by adding an IF550 or a polariser in the 1x slot so I can quickly see what I should expect without having to fiddle with swapping sliders and dropping filters in.
Nope, direct projection works straight away. Olympus' original parts weren't designed for it, that's it. Must remove the light blocking aperture and fully flock it.
My objectives have an FN of 26.5mm, full-frame is covered with an empty tube.
The magnification changer at 1x brings in mechanical vignetting due to the smaller aperture, not direct projection. Removing the magnification changer solves this straight away but I like the versatility of having 1.25x, 1.6x and 2x. There's no discernible difference between 1x and 1.25x anyway. I'm actually thinking about modifying the magnification changer by adding an IF550 or a polariser in the 1x slot so I can quickly see what I should expect without having to fiddle with swapping sliders and dropping filters in.
I have the normal trinocular head, not the ultra-wide one. That designed for FN22 tube lens does cover full-frame, and quite adequately.Scarodactyl wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:50 amI will second the request for a few photos--I didn't realize you could cover full frame, though i suppose it makes sense since with the uw tube lens tbr image produced is good to the corners of aps-c, so you'd expect the usable image circle to be bigger even if there's a little degradation. Maybe less so with the non ultrawide tube lens?
-
- Posts: 1636
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:26 am
Re: Article: Camera mounting for Olympus' modern BX range
Huh, that surprises me a bit, but I know if you call it 'adequate' it's got to be good. Your work speaks for itself.Macro_Cosmos wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 2:46 amI have the normal trinocular head, not the ultra-wide one. That designed for FN22 tube lens does cover full-frame, and quite adequately.