Welcome to our new members.  Activity on this list list remains slow as most
of us enjoy summertime pursuits.  I look forward to cooler weather when I
can dust off my scopes and stay inside to pursue my hobby.  Please visit our
shared files area and contribute pics or tutorials.  Leave an email to the
group to alert us to any additions.
Here's an interesting link to a site in India which offers scopes,
microtomes and seems to specialize in projection systems.  If anyone
investigates the prices of their systems, please let us know the results.

http://www.radicalindia.com/

Cheers, Phil



Cheers, Phil

The URL is http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html
Enjoy, Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Walker <dave@...>
Date: Thursday, August 12, 1999 4:47 PM
Subject: August Micscape on-line


>Hello
>
>The August Micscape is now on-line. Many thanks to all the contributors
>for giving their time to share their interests, and thanks also to all
>our readers and site supporters.
>
>The contents are below.
>
>with regards
>
>Dave Walker
>pp. Micscape
>
>(If you prefer not to receive these monthly notes, please reply just
>with 'remove' in email body, thanks).
>
>August 1999 Contents
>
>Diatoms on strings - an illustrated look at some of the beautiful
>diatoms that adopt colonial string-like formations. By Jan Parmentier,
>Netherlands.
>
>Mitosis - an illustrated look at the stages of this form of cell
>division which can easily be seen in prepared sections eg. of plant
>roots. By Anne Bruce, UK.
>
>Mosquitoes: male vs. female - an illustrated look at the fascinating
>differences between the sexes of these insects. By Roland Mortimer,
>Brazil.
>
>Microscopy and art - using SEM images as inspiration for sculptures in
>school projects. By Liz Douglas, UK.
>
>Mounting radiolaria - a look at how to prepare permanent slides of these
>beautiful microscopic silica shells. By Richard Howey, US.
>
>'Micro flowers' - the attractive tinier flowers growing wild or in the
>garden are worth closer study. Maurice Smith, UK shares his enthusiasm
>for these marvels in miniature.
>
>Digital macroscopy on a shoestring - secondhand high definition video
>cameras and lenses from various sources can be the basis of a very high
>quality macro setup. John Wojtowicz, US shows how.
>
>Experiments in attaching a video camera to a microscope - domestic
>camcorders can be adapted for video microscopy. Tom Korolev (aged 12),
>Netherlands shares his experiences.
>
>Image gallery: two beetle images - an intriguing tortoise beetle from a
>prepared slide photographed by Bill Ells, UK and a garden casualty of
>this summer taken by Maurice Smith, UK.
>
>The 'Rockers' and 'wallers' - a look at some of the attractive smaller
>landshells that inhabit rocky habitats or live on walls. By Helmut
>Nisters, Austria.
>
>Sponge city - a look at the sponges and their fascinating structure.
>Sponge spicules are a spectacular subject for the microscope. By Bill
>Amos, US.
>
>Microscope diary - Thomas Aungst, US shares a further selection of some
>attractively illustrated pages from his diary of microscopy studies.
>

The "Sleeping Giant" is awakening.  I exaggerate a bit, but my thoughts are
once again returning to microscope related topics.  I knew it would happen
with the approach of cooler weather.  The heat index in this part of
Virginia dropped all the way down to 105 degrees F today.   I was perusing a
digital camera newsgroup today when an email caught my attention asking if
it was possible to put together a digital photomicrography  system for under
$1000.00 (US).  A fellow named Bob Dolson replied that he had done it with a
Nikon CoolPix 900 camera (upgraded by the 900S and 950), a camera to T-mount
adapter and a T-mount to microscope adapter.  If any of you non-traditional
(traditional=silver-based film) budding digital-photomicrographers (is that
a real word?) are interested, please read on.
   Bob offered a link to his humble (by his own admission) attempts at
photomicrography using the aforementioned setup:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=49802&a=459311
I was impressed by the clarity and contrast of Bob's efforts.  I followed
his advice and links to order a 28mm to T-Mount adapter for my CP900 from
www.ckcpower.com .  The T-Mount to microscope adapter is carried by Edmund
Scientific
http://www.edmundscientific.com/Products/ListProducts.cfm?catid=89 .

I'll let you know the results when all the parts arrive.  If anyone else is
interested in pursuing the digital route, I'm sure good deals on CP900s can
be found on eBay.  A 1.2 million pixel image is enough for me now, but those
2 million pixel cameras are appealing.
Cheers, Phil

Welcome new members.  During my exhaustive search of the Web for
microscopy-related sites, I stumbled upon this one.  It contains a good deal
of humor mixed with interesting info on interference microscopy and many
historical references.  http://members.aol.com/flauto1/index/index.htm
Cheers, Phil

Some really fine pics here with a bit on technique.
Cheers, Phil

http://www.durr.demon.co.uk/

Welcome new members.  I just wanted to bring an offline discussion out
into the sunshine of our group so everybody is able to participate.
   The subject is Digital Photomicroscopy.  Yes, I know, it's not everybody's
cup of tea and quite frankly, I'm thinking of re-acquiring a good 35mm SLR
as a backup image collector.  I would really like to buy the new Kodak/Nikon
Digital SLR and solve all my problems, but after searching for spare change
under the sofa cushions, I came up a bit short of the $29,000(USD) purchase
price.
   I use two adapters on my fixed-lens Nikon CP950 to mate it to the eyepiece
of the microscope.  A 28mm to T-mount adapter and the T-mount adapter
itself.  The eyepiece must be kept in place.  That of course introduces
extra glass into the equation and still produces some vignetting.  Tom
emailed me with a source for a better coupler using a Sony Mavica digicam
and suggested this coupler could possibly be made available for Nikons as
well.  Perhaps he will share his info with the group.  Mark emailed me with
some pics of his homemade, PVC coupler for his Nikon.  I don't recall if
vignetting was a problem, but perhaps he'll repost his info too.
   I'm a bit challenged when it comes to optics, but it seems I got best
results when the fixed lens of the Nikon was resting against the
microscope's eyepiece (no T-mount).  Not an ideal solution, but the image
fills the frame.
   If anybody has a suggestion, jump right in!  Living in Southeast Virginia,
getting steadily beat up by Tropical Storm/Hurricane Dennis has kept me
housebound for several days.  I have plenty of time to try any suggestions.
   Regards, Phil

I have posted some jpgs of an adapter that I made for my Nikon CP950 digital
  camera.  As Phil points out, you need to have the camera's lens very close
to the microscope's eyepiece - this adapter will accomplish this and even permit
the use of the camera's autofocus to work (in fact, I used auto everything for
the other images that I posted for examples).

It's made from two pieces of PVC adapters: a 3/4" coupling piece (that happens
to
fit almost exactly over my Bausch and Lomb 10X eyepiece, that fits into a 3/4"
to 1" threaded adapter (this required a little bit of filing but fits almost
perfectly over the outside diameter of the CP950 lens).  Hopefully the pictures
describe this better than my words.  It will require a little tuning for a
different eyepice of course.

A better attachment to the camera would be to use an adapter that threads into
the 28 mm lens mount on the camera; this would permit the use of the adapter
without additional support from a table-top tripod for the camera.  There is
such a piece available from B+H Photo in New York, it's a 28mm step-up ring.
This could be epoxied to the 3/4" PVC coupling very easily (I was too impatient
to wait for one to be delivered).

I've also posted some shots I have taken with the camera.  I regret that I
haven't identified the species properly but they show how you can get good
quality images with this setup.

Have fun!

Mark

----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Walker <dave@...>
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 1999 1:40 PM
Subject: September Micscape on-line


> Hello
>
> The September issue of Micscape is now on-line. There's a wide variety
> of articles so hopefully something of interest for everyone. Many thanks
> once again to all the hard work the contributors put in behind the
> scenes and thanks all our readers for supporting the site.
>
> Exciting new issues of our quarterly sister magazines Lightscape and
> MicroLight are now on-line accessed via the newly laid out Main Index,
> which also offers a wide variety of features.
>
> with regards
>
> Dave Walker
> pp. Micscape
>
>
> Main Site Index http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk
>
> September contents
>
> Introduction to microscopy - an exciting new suite of pages for the
> beginner with introductory illustrated articles by Wim van Egmond and
> Jan Parmentier, Netherlands. Includes links to other Micscape articles.
>
> The minimum microscope - an illustrated look at the Hensoldt Tami
> portable microscope ca. 1920's, which is still a very functional
> instrument. By Martin Mach, Germany.
>
> 'Micro flowers' - a new section on the Microscopy UK site to encourage
> an interest in the smaller flowers we take for granted. Compiled by Anne
> Bruce, UK. Please send in your images!
>
> Cleaning and adjusting the Open University McArthur portable microscope
> - Guido Santacana, Puerto Rico provides a clear description with many
> illustrations of how to service this amazing microscope.
>
> Guess what's in this jar? - Richard Howey, US takes a humorous look at
> the perils of mislabelling jars but with a serious message. Includes
> advice for preserving specimens.
>
> UFO: unidentified floating object - Bill Ells, UK studies the
> fascinating algae Oedogonium.
>
> Poppies - an attractive flower when viewed in close-up with plenty of
> features of interest. By John Garrett, UK.
>
> New microscopy diary pages - Thomas Aungst, US shares some of his recent
> delightful observations and drawings of freshwater life.
>
> Biological polarized light microscopy - cross polarised light can reveal
> fascinating aspects of live creatures, e.g. the muscles of Daphnia. John
> Wojtowicz, US shows how.
>
> Freshwater shells - a look at some of the attractive shells large and
> small that inhabit freshwater. By Helmut Nisters, Austria.
>
> Microscopic freshwater crustacea - a superbly illustrated look at some
> common types of crustacea. By Wim van Egmond, Netherlands.
>
> Life in the torrent - a fascinating insight into the aquatic moss
> Fontinalis, and the invertebrate community it supports. By Bill Amos,
> US.
>
> Book review: 'The Usborne Complete Book of the Microscope' - an
> attractive and informative book for youngsters, but just as useful for
> enthusiasts of any age starting out in the hobby.
>

In accumulating what I want I have come up with some extra
Nikon, Zeiss, AO and Swift stuff that I would like to trade
for things more useful to me. Everything is subject to return
if is not what it is represented to be. I ask the same for
what I trade for. I am looking for functional thing and
cosmetics are not a sticking point. Optical quality is.

What I have:

A Zeiss Epi attachment for material
work with an epiplan 40/.85 objective. It has bright
field and dark field. It has a couple of filter slots
and a diaphragm. It looks to be in great shape. This is
the light tube that attaches to a stand and includes the
turret. There is also an Attachment that allows it to attach
directly to a binocular head.

A Zeiss condenser that probably went with the epi stuff
it has a Epiplan .63 and 0.32 lens with two swing out filter
trays that snap into place. The condenser has centering screws.

A focusing gear for the  cream colored Zeiss.
I wish I had got to it before some scraped it for metal:{


A black Nikon triocular head with a 1.2 relay lens and
lighted pointer. The camera port is odd in that it comes
off horizontally instead of vertically. It is for a TV
camera and is not of standard eyepiece size.
It has some dings in the paint but nothing that can't
be detailed out. It says CirCon MV9585 micro optical system.


I have the Nikon binocular eyepiece head for it. It
is a 95108 and has some chipping on the paint and
needs cleaning. It has been forced from the retting ring
and has a couple of ding on the curricular dove tail.These
are not bad and can easily be filed out with no loss of
functionality.


A Zeiss binocular eyepiece head is cream and folds
in the center. It needs cleaning and the paint needs
retouching here and there. There no dings or dents.
Looking in the top at a good angle I can see some
dirt or discoloration on the edges of one of the
prisms where it is attached to the scope. This
cannot be seen looking directly into the eyepieces
and with eyepieces in the head. It appears to be
normal to the mounting process.

A AO cycloptic that has a loose prism. It shows
use. No stand or eyepieces. I would like to get
the prism repaired and find a stand for this.

A 170 mm Leitz missing eyepieces and condenser but
having a triouclar head. This is the 50 or 60 model
that the course and fine focus is on the same knob.
I really intend to keep this scope and most of what I
am looking for is for it.


A Binkmann Medical scope that I believe was made by
Zeiss in east Germany. Binkmann swears it is Zeiss
and Zeiss says They never made it. It is a nice scope
to use and is  very nice condition. I am very happy
with the scope. The only reason I mention it is that
it might be of interest to a Zeiss collector if it is
in fact made by Zeiss.

A 1 and 2 x head for a Swift binocular. It
uses large Eyepieces and is missing eye pieces and
stand. I would either like to find eyepieces and a
stand or trade this. If I can find a stand I will
machine adapters for standard eye pieces.

I have a Zeiss IKon 35mm w/focal plane
shutter and front reflex housing and an attachment
to eyepiece tube with photo eyepiece. I also have
a single eyepiece tube. I know where there is a
Second I can lay hands on if the deal is right.
I are not very interested in trading these but
would do it for the right stuff. Is in excellent
shape

Now my want list. I am willing to trade most
anything to end up with what I want.



I need some eyepieces; a pair of 8x, 15 x and a
couple pairs of 10 x.

A good condenser for  the Leitz. It is the one
that rides on a Dovetail.

I would like a good phase setup for the Leitz and
darkfeild would Be nice.

I need a stage micrometer. And I would be open to
trade for some books on invertebrates and protozoa.

I need a stand for the Cycoplotic if I can get it
fixed or I need a Stand for the Swift.

I would like to have a triocular head for the
Binkman. It has A larger flange than the Zeiss.
I can turn an adapter ring if necessary.

I am interested in adding functionality to the 170mm
Leitz

A couple of mirrors.

A good light source.

I am currently in the  San Francisco area for the next
couple of weeks. I have some of the stuff with me.
wold prefer to do business in person but I have done a great
deal of internet business and have no problems with that.

My goal is to end up with two working binoculars
and two working compounds  with TV capability. Eyepiece
cameras will be satisfactory For the binoculars. There
are two of us working on this and most of My work under
100x will be done with a macro camera not a binocular
Microscope. We have the video stuff already.

I am a ham radio operator and I have a good
collection of stuff and access To a lot more.
So if you want something in the electronics line
I might have it.

Gordon Couger

408 249 7483 until the 27 of September.
Call afternoon or evenings.
Gordon Couger
624 Cheyenne
Stillwater, OK 74075
405 624 2855 GMT - 6:00

What are the significant differences between a tube length of 160mm and 170mm? 
Are the newer scopes 160mm?
Regards, Phil

The difference is the distance the eye piece needs to
be from the objective to get the best correction and
resolution.

I don't beleive any new 170 stuff is being made. 160 and
infinity corrected are all that is being made.

Infinity is correct at any distance.

Gordon
Gordon Couger
624 Cheyenne
Stillwater, OK 74075
405 624 2855 GMT - 6:00
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Peterson <ppeters@...>
To: microscope@onelist.com <microscope@onelist.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 4:49 PM
Subject: [Microscope] Tube Length


What are the significant differences between a tube length of 160mm and
170mm?  Are the newer scopes 160mm?
Regards, Phil

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
     Van: Phil Peterson <ppeters@...>
     Aan: microscope@onelist.com <microscope@onelist.com>
     Datum: jeudi 16 septembre 1999 2:10
     Onderwerp: [Microscope] Tube Length


     What are the significant differences between a tube
length of 160mm and 170mm?  Are the newer scopes 160mm?
     Regards, Phil


There are no real differences between a mechanical tube
length of 160mm or 170mm, providing that objectives designed
for the correct mechanical tube length are used (see
further). The "mechanical tube length" is the distance
between the shoulder of the objective and the eyepiece rim.
This isn't the same as the "optical tube length"! ("Optical
tube length": the distance between between the objective's
back focal plane and the primary image plane). The standard
of 160mm mechanical tube length is only set by convention.
Originally it was 250mm.

Stands with "non-infinity corrected optics" from Leitz
usualy have a mechanical tube length of 170mm. (I don't know
if Leitz still uses their 170mm standard for some smaller
stands). The older stands from the Japanese brand Kyowa and
the stands from the Belgian brand O.I.P. also have 170mm.

Mechanical tube length 160mm: about all the rest, except the
stands with infinity corrected optics.

Using 170mm objectives on stands with a mechanical tube
length of 160mm results in loss of correction for spherical
abberation, thus in a worser image. This becomes very
noticiable when an effective NA of >0.5 is used...

Infinity corrected objectives only produce a virtual image.
A help lens in the tube is needed to produce a  real image.
The only advantage of this system is, that the tube length
is unimportant, so there's place enough for filters,
analyzers etc. between objective and eyepiece. For the rest
there isn't any difference in image quality between images
produced by infinity corrected optics and those produced by
non-infinity corrected optics (that is, if the same
objectives types are compared)... regardless what the
manufacturers say...

Yvan Lindekens.

Here are a couple of very basic first attempts at using my digital camera to
capture images through a microscope.  All images were auto-enhanced, cropped,
resized to 72 DPI and a width of 6 inches in PaintShop Pro.  The scope is a
Zeiss mono, 10xWF eyepiece, 3.2/0.10 Periplan objective.  The camera is a Nikon
CoolPix 950 set for matrix metering, aperture priority (f4.0), tungsten
lighting, fine image mode, 1/125 or 1/250 sec.  All specimens were prepared
slides except for the diatom which was living, using a 10x objective.  I placed
these images on one of my websites in order to save bandwidth and conserve space
in our shared files area.
   I've still got a long way to go before I'll be satisfied with the results. 
I'm still searching for that ultimate, affordable trinocular that will make
digital photography much easier and better suited to living specimens.  Critique
and criticism are most welcome.

1.  Annual rings - Cedar c.s.  http://wwwp.exis.net/~ppeters/80a.jpg
2.  Dicot stem - Pumpkin c.s.  http://wwwp.exis.net/~ppeters/81a.jpg
3.  Trackeids - Cedar l.s.  http://wwwp.exis.net/~ppeters/98a.jpg
4.  Help me identify the diatom!  http://wwwp.exis.net/~ppeters/diatoma.jpg

  Regards, Phil

Phil,

They look pretty good. I am getting close to haveing the
stuff for living stuff. I accidently put a bunch of stuff I was
going to sell/trade next to my suit case when my wife was
helping me pack. She made some comment about me
having a heart attack trying to catch the plane but I didn't
think anything about it until I unpacked and knew why my
luggage had be searched at customes and why the guy
helping me with my luggage said somthing about it being
heavy.  So I sent a message to this list and another and
a few guys that I know and worked a trade for a set of dark
field condensers and objectives through 100 x for the Leitz
Triocular I picked up a couple of months ago. I also got enough
light to do dark feild.

I am looking for a regular dove tail condenser and phase set
up. I still have a Nikon binocular head and werid nikon
triocular attachmet for a vidio camera.

I am taking a different tack on videio. I am using a snappy
digititizer and regular video cameras. One is a high res
moncorome and the other is on of the small $85 CCD
arrays that I intend on making an eyepice camera.

The monchrome I am going to mount on 4x5 astrophot and
use for microscope and macro photography. I am going to
try tri color images.

I don't have any images yet I won't be back home for till
a week from monday.

Any one in the bay area that needs a Nikon Binocular head
or the triocular attachment I would like to trade for something
I can use.

Gordon
Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK 74075
405 624 2855 GMT - 6:00
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Peterson <ppeters@...>



   Here are a couple of very basic first attempts at using my digital camera
to capture images through a microscope.  All images were auto-enhanced,
cropped, resized to 72 DPI and a width of 6 inches in PaintShop Pro.  The
scope is a Zeiss mono, 10xWF eyepiece, 3.2/0.10 Periplan objective.  The
camera is a Nikon CoolPix 950 set for matrix metering, aperture priority
(f4.0), tungsten lighting, fine image mode, 1/125 or 1/250 sec.  All
specimens were prepared slides except for the diatom which was living, using
a 10x objective.  I placed these images on one of my websites in order to
save bandwidth and conserve space in our shared files area.
   I've still got a long way to go before I'll be satisfied with the results.
I'm still searching for that ultimate, affordable trinocular that will make
digital photography much easier and better suited to living specimens.
Critique and criticism are most welcome.

Microscope-owner@onelist.com wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Welcome to the Microscope list. Please take a moment to review this message.
>
> I've been fascinated with the world of microscopy for well over twenty years.
> Presently, I own a Steindorff binocular that goes up to 1000x oil immersion. I
> collect and culture common pond specimens and would like to share techniques
for
>
> all facets of the hobby including photography.  Hobbyists, amatuers and
> professionals are welcome.  Any Electron Microscopists out there?  Jump right
> in!  Ain't no such thing as a dumb question!  Check out our Archive and Shared
> File areas for past links and discussions.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Phil Peterson

Thank you Phil

I goofed on my first post to the group by not getting my membership confirmed
properly... since the post was intended for YOU  here is the gist of it in case
it
gets in limbo somewhere...
I enjoyed your first efforts and remarked that they were pretty darn good for
a first-time with that camera.
I suggested two ways of eliminating the yellow tinge on the stained specimens.
One, add more blue with your image processor software
Two, the old-fashioned way use a blue filter over the illuminator of the scope
like a Wratten 82A we used to use to get Kodachrome to look good.
I use a program called THUMBS-UP to archive and organize my graphics. It has a
neat
feature which enables varying the red green blue ration and it made your
botanical specimens look just like you saw them thru the eyepiece.. a nice
magenta
on the stain and the background got real pure white.
The uneven background is always a problem at low powers... make sure the
light-bulb
and the iris diaphragm on the scope are dead-center to eliminate the edge
shadow.

Thanks again and look forward to seeing more.
Regards |
Bob Bowers

Welcome to the group Bob.  You're right about the yellow background.  I
should have tweaked that a bit more towards white.  I do have PhotoShop, but
it's such a pain in the butt to learn.  Paintshop is more intuitive and
could do the same thing but I tend to get caught up in the editing phase and
would never got around to posting the pics.  I'm also still battling the
condenser and vignetting, but we'll get there.
Regards, Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Bowers <vidmic@...>
To: <Microscope@onelist.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 1999 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Microscope] Welcome to Microscope@onelist.com

Just a quick note on using a digital camera with a trinocular
microscope.  I attached my Nikon CoolPix 950 to the photo tube using the
adapter from CKC.  I got a "pinhole" field of view, i.e., a small image
surrounded by a lot of black.  When using a 35mm film camera the entire
field of view was filled with the image.  I have had to resort to
attaching my digital camera to one of the oculars, but with good
results.  I am going to contact LOMO America as soon as I get a chance
to see if I can come up with a way to use the trinocular port (I am not
sure that "port" is the right term to use).  They have several different
tubes, including video tubes, that can be attached to that port.

Obviously I have a lot to learn about optics.  Any suggestions will be
appreciated.  I'll post an update as I continue to experiment.

Take Care, Bill Redfoot


>>> "Phil Peterson" <ppeters@...> 09/17/99 08:58PM >>>
   Here are a couple of very basic first attempts at using my digital
camera to capture images through a microscope.  All images were
auto-enhanced, cropped, resized to 72 DPI and a width of 6 inches in
PaintShop Pro.  The scope is a Zeiss mono, 10xWF eyepiece, 3.2/0.10
Periplan objective.  The camera is a Nikon CoolPix 950 set for matrix
metering, aperture priority (f4.0), tungsten lighting, fine image mode,
1/125 or 1/250 sec.  All specimens were prepared slides except for the
diatom which was living, using a 10x objective.  I placed these images
on one of my websites in order to save bandwidth and conserve space in
our shared files area.
   I've still got a long way to go before I'll be satisfied with the
results.  I'm still searching for that ultimate, affordable trinocular
that will make digital photography much easier and better suited to
living specimens.  Critique and criticism are most welcome.

1.  Annual rings - Cedar c.s.  http://wwwp.exis.net/~ppeters/80a.jpg
2.  Dicot stem - Pumpkin c.s.  http://wwwp.exis.net/~ppeters/81a.jpg
3.  Trackeids - Cedar l.s.  http://wwwp.exis.net/~ppeters/98a.jpg
4.  Help me identify the diatom!
http://wwwp.exis.net/~ppeters/diatoma.jpg

  Regards, Phil

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
     Van: Phil Peterson <ppeters@...>
     Aan: microscope@onelist.com <microscope@onelist.com>
     Datum: samedi 18 septembre 1999 2:54
     Onderwerp: [Microscope] Digital Photomicrographs


     Just a quick note: I don't know anything concerning
digital photomicrography, but I know one or two things about
diatoms: the diatom in the image
http://wwwp.exis.net/~ppeters/diatoma.jpg is a Pinnularia
species, probably P. gibba. Diffucult to judge from the
(very nice!) picture...

     Yvan Lindekens.

In order to attach the camera to the trinocular port a relay lens is needed
between
the objective and CCD sensor to expand the image. The microscope's trinocular
port
was meant for 35mm SLR cameras having a film plane which has a much larger area
than the CCD. I believe Edmund Scientific (www.edmundscientific.com) sells such
a
lens. It is the "Replacement-Type" video relay lens. Their part no. J37-820. The
lenses magnification is not stated, but I have tried other lenses with various
magnifications. They are expensive.

If you get one, please let us know how it works out.
--
Joe Geller
Geller MicroAnalytical Lab.
426e Boston St.
Topsfield, Ma 01983-1216
tel: 978 887-7000 fax: 978 887-6671
http://www.gellermicro.com

Yvan Lindekens schreef:

> From: "Yvan Lindekens" <yvan.lindekens@...>
>
>     -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>     Van: Phil Peterson <ppeters@...>
>     Aan: microscope@onelist.com <microscope@onelist.com>
>     Datum: jeudi 16 septembre 1999 2:10
>     Onderwerp: [Microscope] Tube Length
>
>     What are the significant differences between a tube
> length of 160mm and 170mm?  Are the newer scopes 160mm?
>     Regards, Phil
>
> There are no real differences between a mechanical tube
> length of 160mm or 170mm, providing that objectives designed
> for the correct mechanical tube length are used (see
> further). The "mechanical tube length" is the distance
> between the shoulder of the objective and the eyepiece rim.
> This isn't the same as the "optical tube length"! ("Optical
> tube length": the distance between between the objective's
> back focal plane and the primary image plane). The standard
> of 160mm mechanical tube length is only set by convention.
> Originally it was 250mm.
>
> Stands with "non-infinity corrected optics" from Leitz
> usualy have a mechanical tube length of 170mm. (I don't know
> if Leitz still uses their 170mm standard for some smaller
> stands).

Since 1980 they use 160mm tubelength for all their scopes.

> The older stands from the Japanese brand Kyowa and
> the stands from the Belgian brand O.I.P. also have 170mm.
>
> Mechanical tube length 160mm: about all the rest, except the
> stands with infinity corrected optics.
>
> Using 170mm objectives on stands with a mechanical tube
> length of 160mm results in loss of correction for spherical
> abberation, thus in a worser image. This becomes very
> noticiable when an effective NA of >0.5 is used...
>
> Infinity corrected objectives only produce a virtual image.
> A help lens in the tube is needed to produce a  real image.
> The only advantage of this system is, that the tube length
> is unimportant, so there's place enough for filters,
> analyzers etc. between objective and eyepiece. For the rest
> there isn't any difference in image quality between images
> produced by infinity corrected optics and those produced by
> non-infinity corrected optics (that is, if the same
> objectives types are compared)... regardless what the
> manufacturers say...
>
> Yvan Lindekens.
>
>



--


Fred Hess

Den Haag NL

tel +31 70 3258312
fax +31 70 3258634

______________________________________________________

      _o         With both feet
   _-\<,_           on the ground
  (_)/ (_)   you won't get far...?!

______________________________________________________

Kids and parents often think first of a microscope when buying something
to stimulate or foster their kids' interest in science.
   I have several websites which have as one goal stimulation of kids
interest in science. Most of these sites' subject matter could involve
microscopes at some point. My attitude is that toy microscopes are
useless and waste money that the kid could use better elsewhere. I am
rebuilding my http://www.disknet.com/indiana_biolab/kids.htm site and I
guess I should have a microscope page. I welcome comments, opinions, and
experiences of anyone related to helping kids with microscopes. I do not
know much about current cheap microscopes and their capability. I always
recommend used scopes from schools and colleges as the best buy.
   Six days ago a kid told me he had a microscope that did not work and
ran home to get it. It used a bare flashlight bulb for light, no
condensor. It had a zoom 10 to 18x eye piece. I claimed 100 to 1000X
total magnification. The batteries and bulb were gone. At 100X with
bright full sun, I could see nothing using reflected light. I think that
is a typical story.

Harold Eddleman

Phil,

I am working with my first video pictures with a Snappy and cheap B/w
camera with a count and some pentax lenses.

They are defiantly good enough for web publication and good enough
for careful journal publication.

I will be building them into eyepiece cameras for handy image capture.
It it will do 2 frames per second and pretty high roes considering the four
bit camera I am using. I am looking forward to the high res 8 bit camera
at home. This beats a web came to bits.

I would post a pix but I don't have ftp set up on the laptop.

Gordon
Gordon Couger
624 Cheyenne
Stillwater, OK 74075
405 624 2855 GMT - 6:00
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Peterson <ppeters@...>
To: microscope@onelist.com <microscope@onelist.com>
Date: Friday, September 17, 1999 5:34 PM
Subject: [Microscope] Digital Photomicrographs


   Here are a couple of very basic first attempts at using my digital camera
to capture images through a microscope.  All images were auto-enhanced,
cropped, resized to 72 DPI and a width of 6 inches in PaintShop Pro.  The
scope is a Zeiss mono, 10xWF eyepiece, 3.2/0.10 Periplan objective.  The
camera is a Nikon CoolPix 950 set for matrix metering, aperture priority
(f4.0), tungsten lighting, fine image mode, 1/125 or 1/250 sec.  All
specimens were prepared slides except for the diatom which was living, using
a 10x objective.  I placed these images on one of my websites in order to
save bandwidth and conserve space in our shared files area.
   I've still got a long way to go before I'll be satisfied with the results.
I'm still searching for that ultimate, affordable trinocular that will make
digital photography much easier and better suited to living specimens.
Critique and criticism are most welcome.

1.  Annual rings - Cedar c.s.  http://wwwp.exis.net/~ppeters/80a.jpg
2.  Dicot stem - Pumpkin c.s.  http://wwwp.exis.net/~ppeters/81a.jpg
3.  Trackeids - Cedar l.s.  http://wwwp.exis.net/~ppeters/98a.jpg
4.  Help me identify the diatom!  http://wwwp.exis.net/~ppeters/diatoma.jpg

Regards, Phil

Harold,

IMHO a stereo microscope is much more suitable to getting a kid started than
a compound
scope. The cheap Asian imports will do.  A hundred and a quarter will buy a
good use
ten x and $200 will buy a pretty good one. The used microscope dealers will
mail order
and most scrupulously honest. Lomo's have a pretty good reputation as well.
The Asian
scopes reportedly have spotty quality control.

The same money will buy more in a compound scope. Getting a decent Swift
which
I would consider the minimal acceptable quality.

Gordon
Gordon Couger
624 Cheyenne
Stillwater, OK 74075
405 624 2855 GMT - 6:00
-----Original Message-----
From: Harold Eddleman Ph.D. <indbio@...>
To: microscope@onelist.com <microscope@onelist.com>
Date: Saturday, September 25, 1999 8:28 AM
Subject: [Microscope] Kid's microscopes


>From: "Harold Eddleman Ph.D." <indbio@...>
>
>Kids and parents often think first of a microscope when buying something
>to stimulate or foster their kids' interest in science.
>  I have several websites which have as one goal stimulation of kids
>interest in science. Most of these sites' subject matter could involve
>microscopes at some point. My attitude is that toy microscopes are
>useless and waste money that the kid could use better elsewhere. I am
>rebuilding my http://www.disknet.com/indiana_biolab/kids.htm site and I
>guess I should have a microscope page. I welcome comments, opinions, and
>experiences of anyone related to helping kids with microscopes. I do not
>know much about current cheap microscopes and their capability. I always
>recommend used scopes from schools and colleges as the best buy.
>  Six days ago a kid told me he had a microscope that did not work and
>ran home to get it. It used a bare flashlight bulb for light, no
>condensor. It had a zoom 10 to 18x eye piece. I claimed 100 to 1000X
>total magnification. The batteries and bulb were gone. At 100X with
>bright full sun, I could see nothing using reflected light. I think that
>is a typical story.
>
>Harold Eddleman
>
>

Gordon,
   Do let us see the fruits of your labor when you get settled back home.  I
have a Sony Hi-8 video camera but haven't hooked it up to a scope yet.  I
also have tried Snappy but couldn't get very good image captures.  I'm
thinking a video capture board might be the best way to go.  The new digital
video cams are also interesting, but believe it will be some time before
resolution exceeds 640x480.
Good Luck, Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Gordon Couger <gcouger@...>
To: <Microscope@onelist.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 1999 5:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Microscope] Digital Photomicrographs


> From: "Gordon Couger" <gcouger@...>
>
> Phil,
>
> I am working with my first video pictures with a Snappy and cheap B/w
> camera with a count and some pentax lenses.
>
> They are defiantly good enough for web publication and good enough
> for careful journal publication.
>
> I will be building them into eyepiece cameras for handy image capture.
> It it will do 2 frames per second and pretty high roes considering the
four
> bit camera I am using. I am looking forward to the high res 8 bit camera
> at home. This beats a web came to bits.
>
> I would post a pix but I don't have ftp set up on the laptop.
>
> Gordon
> Gordon Couger
> 624 Cheyenne
> Stillwater, OK 74075
> 405 624 2855 GMT - 6:00
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Peterson <ppeters@...>
> To: microscope@onelist.com <microscope@onelist.com>
> Date: Friday, September 17, 1999 5:34 PM
> Subject: [Microscope] Digital Photomicrographs
>
>
>   Here are a couple of very basic first attempts at using my digital
camera
> to capture images through a microscope.  All images were auto-enhanced,
> cropped, resized to 72 DPI and a width of 6 inches in PaintShop Pro.  The
> scope is a Zeiss mono, 10xWF eyepiece, 3.2/0.10 Periplan objective.  The
> camera is a Nikon CoolPix 950 set for matrix metering, aperture priority
> (f4.0), tungsten lighting, fine image mode, 1/125 or 1/250 sec.  All
> specimens were prepared slides except for the diatom which was living,
using
> a 10x objective.  I placed these images on one of my websites in order to
> save bandwidth and conserve space in our shared files area.
>   I've still got a long way to go before I'll be satisfied with the
results.
> I'm still searching for that ultimate, affordable trinocular that will
make
> digital photography much easier and better suited to living specimens.
> Critique and criticism are most welcome.
>
> 1.  Annual rings - Cedar c.s.  http://wwwp.exis.net/~ppeters/80a.jpg
> 2.  Dicot stem - Pumpkin c.s.  http://wwwp.exis.net/~ppeters/81a.jpg
> 3.  Trackeids - Cedar l.s.  http://wwwp.exis.net/~ppeters/98a.jpg
> 4.  Help me identify the diatom!
http://wwwp.exis.net/~ppeters/diatoma.jpg
>
> Regards, Phil
>
> >

Dr. Eddleman,
   I think the minimum scope should have a 4x, 10x, 40x objective, 10x
eyepiece and built-in light source.  Carolina Biological Supply
www.carosci.com   offers several starter models as do many other companies.
Inferior optics and lighting can quickly discourage a budding microscopist.
Buying used scopes from schools and colleges might be an answer, but I'm
sure many of these would be too complex or in need of too much maintenance
for a young person.  Perhaps there are some grant $$$ out there to help fund
a project to fan that ember of curiosity in our young people and make a
decent scope more obtainable.
Regards, Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Harold Eddleman Ph.D. <indbio@...>
To: <microscope@onelist.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 1999 1:02 AM
Subject: [Microscope] Kid's microscopes


> From: "Harold Eddleman Ph.D." <indbio@...>
>
> Kids and parents often think first of a microscope when buying something
> to stimulate or foster their kids' interest in science.
>   I have several websites which have as one goal stimulation of kids
> interest in science. Most of these sites' subject matter could involve
> microscopes at some point. My attitude is that toy microscopes are
> useless and waste money that the kid could use better elsewhere. I am
> rebuilding my http://www.disknet.com/indiana_biolab/kids.htm site and I
> guess I should have a microscope page. I welcome comments, opinions, and
> experiences of anyone related to helping kids with microscopes. I do not
> know much about current cheap microscopes and their capability. I always
> recommend used scopes from schools and colleges as the best buy.
>   Six days ago a kid told me he had a microscope that did not work and
> ran home to get it. It used a bare flashlight bulb for light, no
> condensor. It had a zoom 10 to 18x eye piece. I claimed 100 to 1000X
> total magnification. The batteries and bulb were gone. At 100X with
> bright full sun, I could see nothing using reflected light. I think that
> is a typical story.
>
> Harold Eddleman
>
> >

Here's a site containing a goldmine of microscopy information.  It contains
tips for slowing the movement of protozoa (a recent question in this group),
fixing and mounting specimens and much more.  Discussion topics are grouped
under Light Microscopy, TEM, SEM, Computing, Lab Safety, Photography and
Miscellaneous.  There are also archives and links.
http://www.biotech.ufl.edu/~emcl/tips.html

   I ended up with two copies of How to Know the Protozoa by Jahn, Bovee and Jahn
in my meager microscopy library.  Paperback, spiral-bound, line-drawings, 279
pages, new.  I paid $31.95 plus $3.00 shipping.  I'll send anywhere in the U.S.
for $25.00.  First come, first served.
   Members of this group may be in the best position to help others with their
needs.  If you have a microscope, part or accessory to sell or want to buy,
please post a note here.
Regards, Phil

Phil,
Where do I send the money.

Gordon
     -----Original Message-----
     From: Phil Peterson <ppeters@...>
     To: Microscope@onelist.com <Microscope@onelist.com>
     Date: Friday, October 01, 1999 2:55 PM
     Subject: [Microscope] Tips and Tricks


       Here's a site containing a goldmine of microscopy information.  It
contains tips for slowing the movement of protozoa (a recent question in this
group), fixing and mounting specimens and much more.  Discussion topics are
grouped under Light Microscopy, TEM, SEM, Computing, Lab Safety, Photography and
Miscellaneous.  There are also archives and links.
     http://www.biotech.ufl.edu/~emcl/tips.html

       I ended up with two copies of How to Know the Protozoa by Jahn, Bovee and
Jahn in my meager microscopy library.  Paperback, spiral-bound, line-drawings,
279 pages, new.  I paid $31.95 plus $3.00 shipping.  I'll send anywhere in the
U.S. for $25.00.  First come, first served.
       Members of this group may be in the best position to help others with
their needs.  If you have a microscope, part or accessory to sell or want to
buy, please post a note here.
     Regards, Phil

I am looking for a 1.3 or greater condenser for a 50's vintage
     Leitz. I would like the flip up type.

     I am also looking for another Leitz of the same vintage. Preferably
     a triocular.

     Also other stuff for the Leitz.

     Surplus to my needs.

     I have a black Nikon binocular head and a triouclar video attachment
     for it. The video port comes out the side. I suspect this may have
     infinity optics. Can any one tell me how to check if the optics are
     designed for infinity or not?

     If I can find another Leitz I have
     a Brinkmann microscope from the late 50's or early 60's. According
     to Brinkmann it was made for them by Zeiss according to Ziess
     America they never made scopes for Brinkmann. I am pretty sure
     it is the East German Zeiss. It is a very nice scope with low coaxial
     stage controls. It has seen very little use. A medical student bought
     it in the 70's and it spent most of its life in storage. It has all parts
     with the same serial number and eye peices say 10 x pl. From the
     flatness of the field it assume it has plan objectives. Can anyone
     tell me how to check for this? I would trade this for a simular Leitz.
     I would also be interested in any information about this scope that
     you might have.

     I also have access to some vacuum pumps and lots of odd electrical
     stuff that could be traded for microscope parts. If a college or hospital
     has it I can probably get it.
     microscope stuff.

     If we have a webmaster among us I have space for wants and for
     sale page or three. I am making some good connections with
     microscope collectors, dealers and high tech junk men. I am considering
     a mailing list of wants that circulate among us high tech dumpster
     divers. The reason for wants only is so the dealers will read it. They
     don't really care what's for sale that's what they are doing. A wants
     list give them a place to sell and after visiting a couple of them they
     have lots of things they throw or give away that some of us need.

     Gordon

     Gordon Couger gcouger@...
     Stillwater, OK
     405 624-2855   GMT -6:00   www.couger.com/gcouger

All,

I have seen a darkfeild image from my Leitz on a video
screen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have some alignment problems with the camera be a few shims will fix that.

I haven't hooked up the Snappy yet but is will work with the camera.

I also have a very good macro setup as well.

I am almost there.

Thanks to all of you that helped with advice and parts and encouragement.

I will have monochrome images tomorrow. A filter wheel will take longer.

Thanks,

Gordon

Gordon Couger gcouger@...

Stillwater, OK
405 624-2855   GMT -6:00   www.couger.com/gcouger

http://www.couger.com/gcouger/images/onion.jpg
is the first image off my Leitz Triocular with darkfield
condenser using a 10x objective and 15 x ocular.

The subject is a slice of onion in thick sugar syrup undergoing
dehydration

The camera was a monochrome RCA with good resolution digitized
with a Snappy set for single frame capture. I had too much
vibration for multi image enhancement. I caught a little more the
4 bits of brightness and the only digital enhancement is a very
little noise added to obscure some banding in the dark areas.

I am amazed at the detail that darkfield allows you to see.

I had to switch the video feed from the monitor to the snappy because
I did not have enough adapters. The equipment I have has a mixture of
UHF, BNC and RCA connectors. And when I find what I think is the
right adapter it is the wrong sex.

Thanks to all that helped on this.
Gordon