Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Microscope] Camera Mounting Adapter was CoolPix 5000 with Leitz Periplan eyepiece

Expand Messages
  • Gordon Couger
    Mounting the camera to the microscope is problem. I built a piece to go in a Zeiss camera adapter like this one:
    Message 1 of 94 , Jan 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Mounting the camera to the microscope is problem. I built a
      piece to go in a Zeiss camera adapter like this one:
      http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3862033968
      that is close to ideal for trinocular scopes with a small
      diameter eyepiece tube. It seems to fit any regular microscope
      even though Zeiss tubes are slightly thinner than ever other
      make I have ever measured. It is a bit in the way with the
      camera removed on an eyepiece you look thorough.

      I make the part a bit thicker than than the one on ebay so it
      works with the camera adapter bells that have a spring loaded
      plunger so they are easier to take on and off.

      I lost the images in a disk crash, or at least I haven't found
      them yet.

      The only down side is the Zeiss part is not easily found. You
      can make the part work for almost any camera if you make it to
      fit a Pentax SLR thread or 37 mm filter thread and use
      commercially available adapters to make it fit what you need.
      You have to be very careful you don't ding the camera lens if
      you are using one with a lens with the eyepiece.

      If you have a Zeiss camera adapter you should be able to get one
      made anywhere for not too much money if you take camera adapter
      bell and go to a machinist with the bell and the filter adapter
      ring and have him make a part that fits the bell and has a
      shoulder you can epoxy the adapter ring to the part. Cutting the
      .75 threads per mm is not something that most US marching shops
      think they can do. But 32 TPI is less than 6% error and will
      work fine on the 3 or 4 treads on a filter ring.

      If you use aluminum it is still best to use a commercial adapter
      ring even if you have it cut to exactly the correct thread
      because aluminum without special treatment tends to stick to
      things rather badly. If you gave it a light coat of oil and
      didn't leave the aluminum screwed into the camera it will work
      fine. But I doubt that there is a shop on earth that will cut
      any thread at all for less than the $8 bucks the filter adapter
      costs.

      This is one of the best camera mounting methods I have found and
      fits every Zeiss port of the right sex made by Carl Zeiss since
      after WWII and possibly some before. I don't know about Zeiss
      aus Jena or Lomo if they use the same dovetail but I don't think
      so. It is the same dovetail and the binocular head that fits on
      all post war Carl Zeiss scopes. But with the camera adapter bell
      it fits anything that the bell will fit and that is every plain
      eyepiece tube I have ever seen.

      Gordon
      Gordon Couger

      I collect links on information related to light microscopes.
      http://www.couger.com/microscope/links/gclinks.html
      Please forward anything you think might be useful to others.
      Microscope Documentation is at www.science-info.org



      Aaron wrote:
      >
      > Hello All,
      >
      > I ran the experiment with the Coolpix using the Leitz periplan
      > eyepiece as a relay lens. It works very well as you can see from
      > the images I uploaded to my photos folder. See stained01.jpg,
      > unstained01.jpg.
      >
      > The specimen are slides of a small mouse L.S. The area is of the
      > fur showing the hairs and the folicles. One image is brightfield
      > from a stained slide. The other is DIC from an unstained slide.
      >
      > The objective is a 25X phase Neofluar. Also there is a picture of
      > the components; the camera, the shroud (Nikon part UR-E6), the
      > adapter (the Nikon MDC) and a C-mount. Of course the Leitz eyepiece
      > slips into a 23mm ID phototube. The periplan eyepiece is marked
      > with the number 519749.
      >
      > I hope this helps.
      >
      > Aaron
      >
      >
      > --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, Frank Jahnke <jahnke@f...> wrote:
      >
      >>It would be most useful to find out if the CP5000 et. al would
      >
      > work with
      >
      >>the shroud and a standard eyepiece. For the price mentioned, even
      >
      > a
      >
      >>cheapskate like me would not consider that a detriment. So Aaron,
      >>please do give this a go when you get the opportunity.
      >>
      >>I do need a camera for fluorescence work. I've not tried the
      >
      > CP990 yet,
      >
      >>but do not have high hopes (primarily due to noise). Has anyone
      >
      > here
      >
      >>any experience with a consumer or prosumer camera for this
      >
      > purpose? The
      >
      >>cooled cameras are undoubtedly better, but much more costly.
      >>
      >>Frank
      >>
      >>On Fri, 2004-12-31 at 13:01, Aaron wrote:
      >>
      >>>Hi,
      >>>
      >>>With regard to the CP5000 and others CP cameras with the
      >
      > extended
      >
      >>>front lens. Nikon makes a metal shrouds that screw onto the
      >
      > camera,
      >
      >>>extend beyond the zoom lens and provide the 28mm threads. The
      >>>shroud was designed to accept their line of auxilliary lenses.
      >
      > It is
      >
      >>>only about $10-$15. The Leitz eyepieces will screw into this
      >
      > shroud
      >
      >>>and as a practical matter the CP500 camera can be mounted to the
      >>>microscope with the Leitz eyepice.
      >>>
      >>>However, at the time that I switched to the CP5000 I also
      >
      > installed
      >
      >>>a c-mount on my microscope and switched to the Nikon MDC relay
      >
      > lens
      >
      >>>made by Nikon for the purpose. So I cannot say for certain that
      >
      > this
      >
      >>>setup will work optically.
      >>>
      >>>I do have a Leitz eyepiece and will attempt to get some images
      >
      > with
      >
      >>>it and the CP5000. It will take me a few days to do the work as
      >
      > I
      >
      >>>am otherwise busy with family matters. However, I will report
      >
      > how
      >
      >>>it works out.
      >>>
      >>>Aaron
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>--- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, Frank Jahnke <jahnke@f...>
      >
      > wrote:
      >
      >>>>David,
      >>>>
      >>>>You are right, of course: for the CoolPix 950/990/995/4500,
      >
      > the
      >
      >>>Leitz
      >>>
      >>>>eyepiece (or Zeiss, in your case) we have been discussing
      >
      > serves
      >
      >>>both as
      >>>
      >>>>the relay lens and the camera adapter in a single convenient
      >>>
      >>>package.
      >>>
      >>>>Aaron had mentioned a different CoolPix (in the 5000 series, I
      >>>
      >>>believe)
      >>>
      >>>>earlier in the thread. If I understand correctly how these
      >>>
      >>>cameras are
      >>>
      >>>>used, they do not accept such threaded eyepieces. One still
      >
      > needs
      >
      >>>a
      >>>
      >>>>relay lens, and some means to fit it to the camera.
      >>>>
      >>>>My point was that you really do have to think through all of
      >
      > the
      >
      >>>steps
      >>>
      >>>>involved with using a digital camera, including image transfer
      >
      > and
      >
      >>>>manipulation. It just turns out that the 950/990/995/4500 are
      >>>>particularly simple from a hardware viewpoint.
      >>>>
      >>>>Hope that helps.
      >>>>
      >>>>Frank
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Frank Jahnke
      I did some preliminary testing with my CP990 on fluorescent images. First, a somewhat embarrassing admission. I had had some difficulties with image
      Message 94 of 94 , Jan 6, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        I did some preliminary testing with my CP990 on fluorescent images.

        First, a somewhat embarrassing admission. I had had some difficulties
        with image intensities and uniformities, so I took apart and cleaned
        my epi head. There were all kinds of dirt and smudges, and, most
        important, a couple of pieces of paper that partially obstructed the
        light source. They came from the shutter (the one that you use to
        block the light source or not); apparently over the years the adhesive
        had loosened and they simply fell off. I did that a while ago and did
        not really check how well this improved image intensities and
        uniformities.

        What a difference!

        So I moved the microscope over near the television monitor (the
        fluorescence scope is usually in another room) but too far from the
        computer to use its control. I have a slide where one object has
        very strong autofluorescence that is excited even by halide sources
        and is visible through the filter cubes (I hate to use the Hg source
        unless necessary, particular for work that does not last very long).
        Since the camera was not controlled by the computer, I figured out for
        the first time how to use the manual settings on the camera. I set it
        for a 1 second exposure (as Rene mentioned for usual fluorophores) and
        got a pretty good image. There are a few stuck pixels that I should
        map out, but all-in-all, it is quite nice, particularly since I do not
        have a cable release and had to get the exposure by pressing the
        shutter manually.

        I think with a bit of work (and perhaps going back to raw files) this
        will work out fine.

        Rene, you are right about image quality for publication. Page limits
        have gotten severe, and any images published are so much reduced in
        size that resolution often is not a big deal. I think often this
        trend has gone overboard, as the story the image is telling sometimes
        gets lost in the desire to compress things. Perhaps I should have
        said "on publication covers."

        Frank


        On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:08:11 -0800, Frank Jahnke <frank.jahnke@...> wrote:
        > Rene,
        >
        > That's good to know. It looks like I simply will have to try it once
        > I finish my current set of experiments (which are monoplizing the
        > camera at the moment). FWIW, I have a 100W Hg lamp, so for the right
        > fluorophores I ought to do reasonably well. I'll report back in a
        > while.
        >
        > Frank
        >
        >
        > On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:39:24 -0000, rvanwezel <renevanwezel@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Hello to all, back again from much needed holidays without internet
        > > access, but glad to see everybody using their free time so well. It
        > > did cost me quite a bit of time to read up to latest posts...
        > >
        > > Anyway, I hope I can reassure Frank with my experience with a Cp995
        > > on a Zeiss stand which I used for fluorescence of plant sections
        > > (GFP, DAPI). I never went above 4s integration time, usually .5
        > > (DAPI) and 2s for GFP (and similar for FITC) with a 40/0.75 lens. The
        > > Axiophot had a Xenon 75W bulb, which for these purposes (DAPI/FITC)
        > > is not *very* much better in output then a 50W Hg, and certainly far
        > > less then a 100W Hg, so that seems the cheapest option if noise
        > > becomes an issue. I've routinely used these pics for publication
        > > (this usually takes lesser quality then people might think--but I'm
        > > not talking confocal here).
        > > Furthermore, my new Cp990 only showed a couple of bright pixels at 8s
        > > integration, if that info is of any use for you.
        > >
        > > Best for 2005,
        > >
        > > Rene.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > ________________________________
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Microscope/
        > >
        > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > > Microscope-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > >
        > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.