Meiji EMZ-13TR - Canon ID Mark II - Charlie Krebs

Smokedaddy · Post by **Smokedaddy** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:18 pm

Grettings,

I am totally new to this forum as well as microphotography. I am planning on purchasing a Meiji EMZ-13TR at the moment. I should mention that I am not new to digital or film photography and am quite active in astrophotography, image processing etc. Currently I have a Canon 1D Mark II and an old Olympus 4040Z.

My initial question is for you Canon folk:

1. Do you think my Canon ID Mark II will work with this scope and if so, what sort of adapters will I need to make it work? My goal is to get every essential item necessary so I can get started once I order the microscope.

2. Any (notice the ANY) additional accessories that I should purchase initally would be apprecaited as well. Keep in mind that I have absolutely nothing related to this hobby (eyepieces, projection eyepiece, cleaning fluids, slides, like nothing). I haven't a clue, I am just throwing out words for bait.

Sincerely,
-SD:>)

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:33 am

Greetings and welcome Smokedaddy...

Lets get started

While the Canon 1D II is a super camera, there are several considerations that need to be made when any SLR is used with a stereo microscope. Here are some thoughts...

The first problem might be the weight (this is only conjecture on my part!) The 1D is a pretty hefty camera -- about 3.5 lbs -- more than 3 digital Rebels combined! Stereo microscopes focus by moving the entire "unit" up and down (as opposed to most compound microscopes that move only the stage). My concern is the the additional weight would cause the focus to "slip" downward. If the tension on the focus is adjustable, this might be avoided, but it might also make focusing seem too stiff. Perhaps Ken could jump in here with his thoughts as he has the same stereo microscope you are considering. Might not be an issue, just don't know.

There is the issue of vibration caused by the mirror and shutter mechanisms. The mirror can be "locked up" (pre-released) but the shutter can also be a source of image degradation due to vibration. With a compound microscope one approach (the one I have chosen) is to separate the camera from the microscope by mounting it on a separate stand. This approach is not really feasible with a stereo since the entire microscope moves up and down as you focus... unlike a compound where only the stage moves. This means you would need to always move the SLR as well to get accurate focus. If the weight turns out not to be an issue, and the camera is mounted on the trinocular tube, just how serious the shutter vibration might be is hard to say. It depends on the shutter mechanism, mass and rigidity of the microscope stand, magnification, and shutter speed used. Really the only way to know is to try it. (Sorry about all the "if's" and "might be's", but since I don't have the specific equipment you mention, all I can really do is bring the pertinent issues and concerns to your attention).

With a SLR camera there are three "methods" to consider when mounting it on a microscope. One is to use the camera with a lens mounted on the camera, and a "normal" eyepiece in the trinocular tube. The camera lens focus is set to "infinity" and it is positioned close to, and looking into the eyepiece. (This is also the method used with cameras with non-removeable lenses).

The second is to use an eyepiece to "project" the microscope image onto the camera sensor (no camera lens is attached to the SLR body).

The third (not commonly used and not always possible, depends on the physical configuration of the microscope) would be to postion the camera body so that the image formed by the microscope objective falls directly on to the sensor with no intervening eyepiece or camera lens. Even if this were possible, you might find that the magnification of the recorded image seems lower than the observed magnification. The two methods mentioned above provide addition image magnification with the eyepiece.

Take a look at the "T2-9", "MA512", and "MA150/50" on this page:
http://www.meijitechno.com/camera_adapters.htm

This would be the "normal" method for using a SLR on the microscope you mentioned. It is probably the approach I would try first. (By the way, I have a "MA150/50" and a "MA512" you could borrow and try, to see if it will work for you before you go out and buy them. Hopefully I can locate them in the mess that passes for my "lab"). If this mounting method worked but vibration is still a problem you might then consider incorporating electronic flash in the lighting. Not always as easy as it sounds, but it goes a long way toward minimizing equipment motion problems.

With a compound microscope, getting a good "optical coupling" to a SLR can be tricky. I've never worked with a stereo, but I think the issues discussed above are important.

Regards.... Charlie

Smokedaddy · Post by **Smokedaddy** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:45 am

Charles Krebs wrote:Greetings and welcome Smokedaddy...

The third (not commonly used and not always possible, depends on the physical configuration of the microscope) would be to postion the camera body so that the image formed by the microscope objective falls directly on to the sensor with no intervening eyepiece or camera lens.

Hello Charles,

Before I forget, thanks for the adapter offer and of course all of the advise! Seeing that I am complete novice, there is quite a bit to digest overall. I was hoping the 3rd method was the most used method as that is what I am most familiar with because of my astrophotography background. I suppose back foucs is the culprit here? I know one of my astro-cameras (not mentioned in my origional posting) has a back focus of 17.5mm.

If the camera turns out to be to heafty, I have no problem buying another digital camera but it would need to be a Canon. Or on another note, any suggestions in cameras would be appreciated, even dedicated ones, for this microscope. I do have a Canon Rebel XT (350D) spectrum enhanced camera with built-in astronomical UV/IR blocking filter for astro-usage.

Not to clutter this forum my astrophotos ... but here is a Solar close up with an inexpensive video camera.

-SD:

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:50 am

SmokeDaddy has already addressed the MK 1D II issue to me there Charlie and I expressed the same thoughts as you about keeping the camera and microscope in focus. I did not know the Mk 1D was so heavy. The Meiji in question does have a tension adjustment and focusing is quite smooth, better than most stereos I have tried out but it would make focusing sticky if you were to tighten it to hold an extremely heavy camera body and therefore making criticle focusing almost impossible. Yes the camera body would have to be attached to the microscope head by some means so it, the camera body, could travel with the head. I don't know nor have ever seen any other configuration showing otherwise, however, there are other stereoscopes that do accept such a large camera but they cost an equally large sum, much more than the EMZ-13TR and a research grant from some university somewhere interested in your work would be the only way to obtain one, unless you win the lottery or something.

Focusing an eyepiece in the photo tube of the Meiji for use in using a set up like mine can be a painstaking ordeal but not impossible. I have only recently re-focused mine and now I am getting much better images than I have ever gotten before without using a flash of some sort. I recommend the the Sony DSC-P200 or W5 for the EMZ-13TR with the Orion SteadyPix adapter. It is a much cheaper route and the image(s) are not all that bad actually. See my example below:

Double Rim Lichen

Powder Puff Lichen
These was taken with the DSC-W5 with focus at infinity, no flash, and shot through a 10X Wide Field eyepice in the Meiji's photo tube. Lighting was provided by the built in halogen illuminator only. Maybe not as professional an image as some would like but it really is not a bad quality image IMO.

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:10 pm

SD... Very cool.... uhhh... I guess that should be HOT image. Glad to see you are in contact with Ken as he certainly knows about that particular stereo.

Your astrophotography experience has likely given you the "Rube Goldberg" skills needed to play around with atypical methods

For "method 3" it is a physical constraint. Canon EOS has a flange-to-sensor distance of 44mm. The real image formed by the microscope objective will be located at the diaphram position of the eyepiece. So it simply becomes a matter of "can you get the sensor in the right location?" With some trinocular tubes is is not that hard to do, with others the "fixed" portion is too long, and without major surgery it's not really possible.

Now I don't know what the "quality" image circle dimensions are for a stereo. With a compound microscope, you can figure on about a 20mm diameter (perhaps 25mm or more for the latest with "infinity" optics). The sensor in your 1D has a diameter of 34.5mm, so there might be vignetting and the need to crop the final image. From that point of view, as well as the weight issue, a digital Rebel is probably a better choice if you want to stick with Canon DSLR's.

Smokedaddy · Post by **Smokedaddy** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:12 pm

Me again,

I noticed on the Meiji site that they offer Meiji Techno Digital CCD Video Cameras. They look very much like my astro-cameras. Meaning my SKYnyx 2-2 mono made by Lumenera. I am curious if anyone might know if that is the case? I did email their technical support just to let you know. That is an 1.25" nose adapter in the image below.

CCD Specs(s) are:

Bit Depth: 8 or 12
Color/Mono: Monochrome
Dark Current: <2 e-/s
Frames Per Second: 12
Lens Mount: T
Pixel Array: 4.4um
Readout Noise: 12 e-
Resolution: 1616 X 1232
Sensor Depth: 1/1.8" CCD
Well Depth: 14,000 e-/ul>

-SD:

Smokedaddy · Post by **Smokedaddy** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:40 pm

Ken,

Soon these type of questions will end.

1. What stand would you suggest to be used with the EMZ-13TR Trinocular Zoom Body?

2. I noticed on another site you mentioned a Duel Pipe Fiber Optic Halogen Illumination System. What illuminator would you suggest for this stereomicroscope? Is there something else I should look into?

3. Since I have purchased quite a few things from Siebert Optics, what do you think (from the link) about his Universal Camera Adapter compared to what you are currently using?

Does anyone have suggestions on "other things" I should be looking into purchasing? It's sort of hard to give examples since I don't know what I need. If you think of something please be specific, brand etc., like tweezers, slides .... dunno what to say here.

Ken, thanks for Sony tip too,
-SD:

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:43 am

Lets start from the bottom and go up. The camera adapter you linked to has a rather large mount and would not fit the photo tube of the Meiji because it is, I think now, a .96 diameter tube, the kind you find on most student microscopes and dept. store telescopes. This adapter you have linked to should work nicely with some sort of bushing inside the mount with the set screws. The Orion SteadyPix that I am currently using is also designed for 1.25 telescope eyepieces and I had to use hard rubber bushings to get it to fit the tube. The one you have linked to is much better constructed than the Orion adapter for sure and would be a much better adapter I think with some backyard engineering.

Now as for illumination, the built in halogen illuminator of the Meiji works extremely well and provides great contrast when photographing but gets in the way if you place larger specimens on the stage plate sometimes. It can be easily removed with a small screwdriver, don't loose the screws or spacers, and unplugs from the base unit of the stand. A fiber optic illuminator can be purchased for about $350 to $400 with duel pipes and it also provides good contast and even illumination of the subject from both sides. You can obtain one from Jim. Some FO illuminators can be up to $1000.00 depending on your needs and tastes. Mine can from LWS and cost about $350.00. The lamps are quite expensive also, about $35.00 each and have a life of a few thousand hours. The only thing my illuminator does not have and I wish that it did, is the ability to use colored filters in the light path, preferably a blue filter. So the illumination source is up to you and the subject being studied. The fluorescent ring lights work well but give a fuzzy look to some specimens and contrast is quite low, however if you plan on photographing rocks and minerals, the fluorescent illuminators are really much better for these type subjects, since the light from them does not scatter from shiney surfaces or bits of metal, i.e. pyrite or fools gold. My suggestion here would be to have an assortment of illuminators because you never know what you may require. Oh and lets not forget a flash unit if you are going to use a more advanced camera set up. I know little about flash photography with a microscope of any kind, I try to keep life simple

, so back to Charlie for that info.

Meiji offers a multitude of stands for their stereo heads, mine is a PBH Stand, the most common. The advantage to this type stand is that you can raise or lower the head to accomodate the subject being studied, so your focusing block is not fixed as in some of the other stands, the PBH Stand is very versitle. They also offer atriculated arms which bolt or clamp to a desk or table surface. These I would imagine would be subject to a lot of vibration when trying to photograph a subject. So to shorten this long story, I would suggest the PBH Stand. It is solid and quite heavy and takes a lot to just move around on the table.

Smokedaddy · Post by **Smokedaddy** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 1:37 pm

Ken Ramos wrote: Meiji offers a multitude of stands for their stereo heads, mine is a PBH Stand, the most common. So to shorten this long story, I would suggest the PBH Stand.

Hi Ken,

I realize you suggested the PBH, just curious if you were aware of this new model (about halfway down the page)? I wasn't sure if it would be better than the PBH or not?

-SD:

Smokedaddy · Post by **Smokedaddy** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 1:49 pm

Ken Ramos wrote:The adapter you have linked to should work nicely with some sort of bushing inside the mount with the set screws. The one you have linked to is much better constructed than the Orion adapter for sure and would be a much better adapter I think with some backyard engineering.

Good news,

That is why I wanted to ask you about it. It looked like a little better mount. I have a machine shop in my home, so I can machine a bushing for it. At least I am at the intermediate level in machining unlike this hobby.

Thanks again,
-SD:

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 1:50 pm

That is a nice stand. The wider work area will of course accomodate most anything and it has LEDS of course which means a cooler source of illumination. Which ever stand you prefer on something like this. You will be the one using the scope. Me, I have had the PBH for a long time now and I am sort of set in my ways with it. If I were to upgade the EMZ-13TR PBH, I would put a fingertip controlled mechanical stage on it.

Smokedaddy · Post by **Smokedaddy** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:24 pm

Hi,

I received an email from Meiji Microscope today about my inquiries regarding my Lumenera camera (posted above) and the weight of the Canon 1D Mark II. Here’s what they wrote whatever it’s worth:

Dear James,

Thank you for contacting Meiji Techno.

To answer BOTH of your questions:

You should have no problem with the Canon 1D on the trino tube. The thumbscrew clamp is quite robust and we've never had any weight issues reported.

The Lumenera SKYnyx appears to have the larger ISO aperture so, no, we do not support that aperture size ( just the C-mounts like in the Lumenera INFINITY Series cameras).

One COULD have a machinist make it work but you would be "on your own" on that....

That being the case it looks like the Camera "should work" and I would say my SKYnyx "should work" as well. It seems it's simply a matter of an nose piece adapter for the SKYnyx triocular tube. What do you think about the camera?

Anyone?
-SD:>?

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:06 pm

Using the Canon would be worth a try. The EMZ-13TR is built quite well and is more than sturdy enough I would think to give it, the camera, a try. If all fails, you could always use the Meiji as a boat anchor as it would be more than heavy enough.

There is a tension adjustment for the focusing block and you could tighten or loosen to what ever is needed for the camera. Personally I would go with a lighter digital camera that has reasonably good resolution or have Meiji costom design ($$$) your camera mount for optimum performance if you are looking for those type of images that Charlie and the others post which have us drooling all over the place.