about Wild/leica photoeyepiece ?

[Scarodactyl]

It might be worth trying a Nikon photo eyepiece, since Nikon used the same ISO standard as Wild for their photo ports. Just avoid the PL 2.5x, the performance just isn't great. Most photo setups from this era have that as a common refrain though: official setups which leave a lot of potential performance on the table.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/373718254075 I wonder if this might be the correct one, though there's no way to tell not being able to see the top.
That said while it doesn't answer the question it's hard to beat the combo of a surgical beamsplitter (https://www.ebay.com/itm/324891907820) and the direct projection attachment (https://www.ebay.com/itm/23345977497) (links for examples, not necessarily the best prices--deals take digging because they're frequently poorly or mislabeled). The only lens in the light path is a tube lens (of longer focal length than the normal tube lens but still good). Better yet perhaps is the newer style trinocular head which has no tube lens in the light path so you can put on your own high quality well-corrected lens of appropriate focal length.

[Perl]

This is the Right one

Regards
Pär

[Milou]

It might be worth trying a Nikon photo eyepiece, since Nikon used the same ISO standard as Wild for their photo ports. Just avoid the PL 2.5x, the performance just isn't great. Most photo setups from this era have that as a common refrain though: official setups which leave a lot of potential performance on the table.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/373718254075 I wonder if this might be the correct one, though there's no way to tell not being able to see the top.

Thank you for the link Yes it seems the right Wild photo eyepiec!
That's a shame it is located in USA, because French customs are greedy and furthermore the seller doesn't ship to France

and for your idea about Nikon...... worth to try if ever I couldn't find the Wild one !

All surgical beamsplitter and othe rparts are very good but extremely expensive (much too for me )........


Thank you Perl for your picture.
Yes indeed this one is included in the complex Wild system for reflex (an additional lenses 0.32 x is still required above this one!) as shown in this picture :

For compact or hybrid camera it's easier with the one I'm looking for!

[Milou]

Hello,

I've got the information Pau about this right Wild photoeyepiece :

- only "10x 21" is written on the top or sometimes on the side
- it is not focusable
- its top is absolutely flat

[Milou]

The pictured eyepiece seems just the normal viewing 10x/21 one (I have one of them on my desk right now, not saying that it would not be adequate for afocal photomicrography, I've used it few times)

Did you check if it's the same I'm looking for?
If yes and if you want to sell it (it would be easier for me than to buy it in USA!)...............

[Pau]

I have a pair of 10x/21 Wild eyepieces, one focusable and the other fixed. They have it engraved in the flat upper plastic and also printed on the metallic barrel with silver characters like the brand.
The fixed one looks exactly the same than both the one of your expert and the one at eBay linked by Scarodactyl. They look very close to yours, just the plastic upper part being flat (I suppose that yours are a a later version likely with the same optics, just a guess)

Not being myself a true expert in this stuff I would not qualify it as photoeyepiece despite -like I formerly suggested- it can be use afocally like most viewing eyepieces of decent quality.

Anyway, I don't think that a stereomicroscope is a good photomicrography device, I would not expect too much*. Mine is a Wild M5Apo, a good but pretty older design, but I've also used a Nikon SMZ1000 with Plan Apo objective which is clearly better but not at the level of a good macro setup or a compound microscope provided with good optics.

*there are several reasons for it formerly discussed in other threads, we could comment on them later if you want.

For possible trades, I later will send you a PM

[Scarodactyl]

If you jut want a flat top Wild eyepiece with 10x/21 engraved on top, the 10x/21c had "wild heerbrugg" applied in white paint which rubs off so they are sometimes cheap, as in https://www.ebay.com/itm/NONE-10x-21-Pa ... 3805966400
But these don't have the divot seen in the photo. I need to dig through my own eyepieces to see what I have.
Stereos are never the best choice for photography but if set up right can still give passable results, especially at web resolution. The revered Photoatlas of Gem Inclusions was largely shot on an SMZ-10 (not even the 10-A with a planapo option, just the plain old classic 10).

[Pau]

(your second link is not to a photoatlas (that I would like to see) but to the same eyepieces auction)

[Milou]

Hello,

I also agree with yours comments, Pau and Scarodactyl, as photos made with a binocular microscope are never very good!

I don't want to build such an expensive photo device, as shown above in the reflex Wild photo system....
But just finding a more adapted photo eyepiece for my 30 mm Wild phototube (picture above with a M7a).
That's only to make working pictures after dissections of insects, but I would like to improve them ...

When I want to make really good pictures, I'll use a macrophoto device with microscope or other set and not a binocular microscope

Therefore If ever anybody has such a Wild 10x21 photo eyepiece to sell, similar to the one shown on top of this file I would buy it......

Scarodactyl, I'm not sure at all than both ones in your last link in ebay auction are really the right eyepieces for photo (their lens seem wider!)

My "Wild fellow" also confirms my first opinion about them their are just regular eyepieces

[Scarodactyl]

Whoops, got that second link fixed.
Yet another option is to get a mirrorless camera so the flange focal distance is short enough to mount it directly on the trinoc port for direct projection. Not the cheapest of course.

[PeteM]

I've found several generic 30mm eyepieces with enough metal (optics not intruding), that they can be turned down to sit 4-5mm deeper into a Wild/Leica tube - thus maintaining parfocality. The wider field of view (22 or 23mm vs. 21mm) is a plus, along with a lower cost. These might cost $35 a pair new, and provide good images. The Leica 10x/21 (used) often seem to be priced above $100 for the pair.

[Pau]

Whoops, got that second link fixed.
Yet another option is to get a mirrorless camera so the flange focal distance is short enough to mount it directly on the trinoc port for direct projection. Not the cheapest of course.

With The Nikon SMZ1000 I tested the three typical options, all with the Canon EOS 7D:
- Afocal both with a Zeiss digicam adapter and a 50mm taking lens over one of the viewing eyepieces placed at the photoport.
- Photoeyepiece projection with Nikon PLI 2X and PLI 2.5X
- Direct projection with the camera body close to the end of the P-IBSS2 phototube
The best results and the simpler adaptation (with a bit of DIY work) was direct projection. It covered APSC pretty well except at the lower magnification end and quality was better or at least not worse than with the other approaches. I'm sure that it would not cover FF.
I managed to have it fully parfocal with the visual ones and through all the magnification range placing the camera lens mount about 13mm over the end of the phototube (no need of mirrorless in this case).
If the Leica 38mm tube has not only the same diameter but also the same optical specifications than the Nikon this also would work.

[Milou]

I've found several generic 30mm eyepieces with enough metal (optics not intruding), that they can be turned down to sit 4-5mm deeper into a Wild/Leica tube - thus maintaining parfocality. The wider field of view (22 or 23mm vs. 21mm) is a plus, along with a lower cost. These might cost $35 a pair new, and provide good images. The Leica 10x/21 (used) often seem to be priced above $100 for the pair.

Interesting indeed!
No chromatic aberrations with such noname eyepieces?
Did you also test your results thus obtained with different setups with true photoeyepiece, or without any eyepiece in the photo tube?
Like here :
https://www.microbehunter.com/microscop ... c05e50d7ce

@Pau
Very interesting your tests, thank you to present here your results
Therefore I'll also try this way, without eyepiece in the phototube. This is the most easy (and inexpensive!) way in fact
I've seen on another forum (see link just above) showing similar tests with Nikon and also with a Wild equipment.......

I'll therefore buy, or make, and adapter to fix my hybrid camera (Panasonic GX80) directly on the Wild phototube in order to test this setup

[Pau]

Having a micro 4/3 camera, direct projection is the first option to test.

The parfocal position of the primary image seems different in the SMZ1000 than in the SMZ-U and the Leica but with your short flange distance camera you can find it for sure.

[Milou]

Hello,
Not yet compared this option without eyepiece, as I'm looking for "rings" to fix my 4/3 directly on the photo tube.

I've also tried to contact persons having do that with Wild equipment on another forum Like here :
https://www.microbehunter.com/microscop ... c05e50d7ce
but registration seems to be difficult on MicrobeHunter.com Microscopy Forum as for one week mine is not yet effective.....
Therefore no mean to get additional information about that adapter

On the other hand, if anybody in USA would agree to help me buying this Wild photo eyepiece (the seller don't ship to France !), please PM me
https://www.ebay.com/itm/373718254075?h ... SwqMBhPVTO