Viktor, thanks for performing the test.
Now is clear that Scarodactyl was right and I was wrong ...and Nikon....(put an icon of your taste)
My guess seemed (for me) more logical than the idea of Nikon making bad eyepieces as standard being able to make good ones .
(now I remember the worst camera I have used: a Nikon compact film one with plastic lens sold as autofocus but being just fixed focus rubbish... so they are able to sell both the most fine instruments and very bad ones under the same brand trade)
Olympus Projection Eyepieces turn apos into achros (not clickbait)
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
- Posts: 1619
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:26 am
Re: Olympus Projection Eyepieces turn apos into achros (not clickbait)
To be fair the CF line goes back to the 70s, and it is possible the eyepieces I tested were from that vintage rather than newer ones. But it's still kind of nuts.
-
- Posts: 423
- Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:43 am
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: Olympus Projection Eyepieces turn apos into achros (not clickbait)
I can add a comparison with the CFWNs next week.
-
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:53 pm
Re: Olympus Projection Eyepieces turn apos into achros (not clickbait)
Viktor, excellent succinct test! Purchase justified I guess :-)
There actually exists Nikon literature admitting the limitation in eyepiece design even in the CF era.
Even admitting the shortcoming in eyepieces, they stay steadfast with their objective/tube lens corrections.
There actually exists Nikon literature admitting the limitation in eyepiece design even in the CF era.
Even admitting the shortcoming in eyepieces, they stay steadfast with their objective/tube lens corrections.
-
- Posts: 423
- Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:43 am
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: Olympus Projection Eyepieces turn apos into achros (not clickbait)
Oh yes, I'm extremely grateful you found them!abednego1995 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 3:15 pmViktor, excellent succinct test! Purchase justified I guess :-)
-
- Posts: 423
- Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:43 am
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: Olympus Projection Eyepieces turn apos into achros (not clickbait)
I guess some of the blame also falls on the customers - at least for a while Nikon clearly made it possible to buy better eyepieces if they wanted to, but very few did. Seeing these results, I find that a little surprising. For a consumer-grade microscope, this makes sense, but there must have been a lot of labs that spent tens of thousands on fully equipped research-grade microscopes - but saved a little money (as a % of the total) by buying CFWs rather than CFDs.Pau wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 12:05 pmViktor, thanks for performing the test.
Now is clear that Scarodactyl was right and I was wrong ...and Nikon....(put an icon of your taste)
My guess seemed (for me) more logical than the idea of Nikon making bad eyepieces as standard being able to make good ones .
(now I remember the worst camera I have used: a Nikon compact film one with plastic lens sold as autofocus but being just fixed focus rubbish... so they are able to sell both the most fine instruments and very bad ones under the same brand trade)
To me, these results also shed some light on why the Chinese 10x/22 eyepiece can perform so well, since they seem to be a neutral 26mm design scaled down to 22mm. That would also be an interesting comparison that I could do.
-
- Posts: 1619
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:26 am
Re: Olympus Projection Eyepieces turn apos into achros (not clickbait)
I suspect that if you wanted to spend gigabux on a nikon scope in the 80s you would probably get an ultrawide head with cfuws.
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2021 12:51 am
- Location: Lund, Sweden
Re: Olympus Projection Eyepieces turn apos into achros (not clickbait)
Chiming in here, as I recently set up a nearly identical system at my work to the original post by macro cosmos, but using a teleconverter instead of a PE, and I was curious if the TC produced the same increased CA. I just did a quick test today with a diatom slide, comparing direct projection to the TC. Details: BX53 w/LED illumination, 10x X-apo, U-TV1X-2, U-TMAD, U-FMT T to F adapter, Nikon 1.7x TCE II, F to Z mount adapter, Nikon Z7ii. BF Köhler, although I forgot and left in the condenser DIC prism (polarizers and objective prism were out though). Maybe a diatom slide is not the best for this, but I didn't have a proper test slide.
Pixel level crop with the TC: Direct projection: I think the TC looks pretty decent?, but then again I don't have the eyes for spotting CAs like some do. It is resolving more detail, which it should because this objective should be out resolving the z7ii's sensor when direct projection is used. One of the newer TCs should do even better (1.4 or 2x TCE III or z mount TCs), but the older 1.7x TCE is nice because it is a perfect coverage on full frame for the 26.5 FN of the wide field eyepieces.
Perhaps I am naive, but I would not be super surprised if the photo eyepieces from the film era are not a great match for high res digital cameras / those in pursuit of the best image quality. Most researchers just want to be able to easily obtain a passable image of what they are seeing, and even today most camera systems marketed by the major microscope manufacturers are more about convenience and work flow than ultimate image quality (niche applications excepted). I bet many people were struggling just to get critical focus and correct exposure back in the days of film cameras on microscopes? Idk
Pixel level crop with the TC: Direct projection: I think the TC looks pretty decent?, but then again I don't have the eyes for spotting CAs like some do. It is resolving more detail, which it should because this objective should be out resolving the z7ii's sensor when direct projection is used. One of the newer TCs should do even better (1.4 or 2x TCE III or z mount TCs), but the older 1.7x TCE is nice because it is a perfect coverage on full frame for the 26.5 FN of the wide field eyepieces.
Perhaps I am naive, but I would not be super surprised if the photo eyepieces from the film era are not a great match for high res digital cameras / those in pursuit of the best image quality. Most researchers just want to be able to easily obtain a passable image of what they are seeing, and even today most camera systems marketed by the major microscope manufacturers are more about convenience and work flow than ultimate image quality (niche applications excepted). I bet many people were struggling just to get critical focus and correct exposure back in the days of film cameras on microscopes? Idk
- blekenbleu
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 5:37 pm
- Location: U.S.
- Contact:
Re: Olympus Projection Eyepieces turn apos into achros (not clickbait)
I will go further, having e.g. a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS at 20D DSLR introduction,Stephen_De_Lisle wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 4:15 pmPerhaps I am naïve, but I would not be super surprised if the photo eyepieces from the film era
are not a great match for high res digital cameras / those in pursuit of the best image quality.
after which Canon introduced their 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II using a new optical formula,
with film-era optics limitations becoming obvious to amateur pixel peepers.
Careful practitioners have always worked around equipment limitations,
but digital sensors, autofocus, focus peaking and Live View facilitate pushing those limits.
Metaphot, Optiphot 1, 66; AO 10, 120, and EPIStar 2571
https://blekenbleu.github.io/microscope
https://blekenbleu.github.io/microscope
-
- Posts: 1511
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
- Contact:
Re: Olympus Projection Eyepieces turn apos into achros (not clickbait)
Congratulations on the new setup.Stephen_De_Lisle wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 4:15 pmChiming in here, as I recently set up a nearly identical system at my work to the original post by macro cosmos, but using a teleconverter instead of a PE, and I was curious if the TC produced the same increased CA. I just did a quick test today with a diatom slide, comparing direct projection to the TC. Details: BX53 w/LED illumination, 10x X-apo, U-TV1X-2, U-TMAD, U-FMT T to F adapter, Nikon 1.7x TCE II, F to Z mount adapter, Nikon Z7ii. BF Köhler, although I forgot and left in the condenser DIC prism (polarizers and objective prism were out though). Maybe a diatom slide is not the best for this, but I didn't have a proper test slide.
Pixel level crop with the TC:
TE.jpg
Direct projection:
DP.jpg
I think the TC looks pretty decent?, but then again I don't have the eyes for spotting CAs like some do. It is resolving more detail, which it should because this objective should be out resolving the z7ii's sensor when direct projection is used. One of the newer TCs should do even better (1.4 or 2x TCE III or z mount TCs), but the older 1.7x TCE is nice because it is a perfect coverage on full frame for the 26.5 FN of the wide field eyepieces.
Perhaps I am naive, but I would not be super surprised if the photo eyepieces from the film era are not a great match for high res digital cameras / those in pursuit of the best image quality. Most researchers just want to be able to easily obtain a passable image of what they are seeing, and even today most camera systems marketed by the major microscope manufacturers are more about convenience and work flow than ultimate image quality (niche applications excepted). I bet many people were struggling just to get critical focus and correct exposure back in the days of film cameras on microscopes? Idk
Yes, the images look nice and clean, though as you have said, Diatoms imaged this way are not really that suitable. You can try using a stage micrometer, if there is no coverslip, adhere one with immersion oil. Any CA will become very apparent.
With direct projection, the periphery of the frame is surrounded with mechanical vignetting due to my fluorescence arm. I am thinking about getting a Z-mount 2x teleconverter and dropping projection eyepieces altogether.
Re: Olympus Projection Eyepieces turn apos into achros (not clickbait)
Interesting...although I must admit that I don't understand the graphs (or if they could be considered graphs at all)abednego1995 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 3:15 pmThere actually exists Nikon literature admitting the limitation in eyepiece design even in the CF era.
Even admitting the shortcoming in eyepieces, they stay steadfast with their objective/tube lens corrections.
Could you kindly share the Nikon document? (link....)
Pau