Microscope

[Murks]

A had  just purchased this microscope 7X45X New trinocular microscope am using a barlow lens 0.7 a notice can't see the image properly unless a move close to the barlow and the microscope distance issue that I'm having can't getting view from my work distance   o

[Waggy]

You may need to play around with the lens configuration, did you get any extra with the scope? If so try changing the combinations until one works for you. My setup gives me around 15-20 cm of work space under the scope depending on how zoomed in I am. From the picture you sent it seems like you are in the same ballpark?

[Murks]

Yes Is round the same distance but a guess have to use a 0.5 lens instead I reckon a do not have one I'm still waiting for it only have the 0.7 lens

[Waggy]

Can't remember what mine is, but it's enough to get the movement on a holder or cushion under the scope with enough additional room to comfortably use my screwdrivers. I now do +90% of my work under the scope and a very good investment, mine came with the rubber eye shields and I was surprised to find that they make it a much more comfortable experience if you plan to spend a long time at the scope:

[spectre6000]

The standard Barlow for watchmaking distances is 0.5. 0.7 is going to be far enough away to get your hands under the lens to manipulate the movement, but you'll not be getting much tooling under there. I'd honestly appreciate something just a bit less in a Barlow (0.3 maybe?). I could just just a hair more distance to avoid hitting the lens with the tops of my knuckles. It's super dry here in the winter, and lotion is a necessity to keep knuckles from spontaneously leaking red fluid. It's one sort of smudge or another...

[Neverenoughwatches]

3 hours ago, spectre6000 said:

The standard Barlow for watchmaking distances is 0.5. 0.7 is going to be far enough away to get your hands under the lens to manipulate the movement, but you'll not be getting much tooling under there. I'd honestly appreciate something just a bit less in a Barlow (0.3 maybe?). I could just just a hair more distance to avoid hitting the lens with the tops of my knuckles. It's super dry here in the winter, and lotion is a necessity to keep knuckles from spontaneously leaking red fluid. It's one sort of smudge or another...

Barlow lens ? is that the objective lens that multiplies and divides up the eyepiece magnification ?

[tomh207]

1 minute ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

Barlow lens ? is that the objective lens that multiplies and divides up the eyepiece magnification ?

If you mean the one that screws on the main lens to reduce magnification and increase work space then yes that is the Barlow Rich.

 

Tom

[Neverenoughwatches]

10 hours ago, Waggy said:

Can't remember what mine is, but it's enough to get the movement on a holder or cushion under the scope with enough additional room to comfortably use my screwdrivers. I now do +90% of my work under the scope and a very good investment, mine came with the rubber eye shields and I was surprised to find that they make it a much more comfortable experience if you plan to spend a long time at the scope:

Field of view is important to me, how workable is the lowest magnification, the field on my fixed mag. Scope is only around 16mm  with x10 mag. which is the lowest it can go .  x5 would be much more manageable for basic assembly.

 

7 minutes ago, tomh207 said:

If you mean the one that screws on the main lens to reduce magnification and increase work space then yes that is the Barlow Rich.

 

Tom

Ah thanks Tom, i was unsure if the main objective lens was swapped out for one of a different size. My most used scope is a fixed lens AmScope, so I'm restricted by the eyepiece magnifications of x10 and x20. With a small field of view. Might be time to upgrade.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Neverenoughwatches

[gpraceman]

2 hours ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

Field of view is important to me, how workable is the lowest magnification, the field on my fixed mag. Scope is only around 16mm  with x10 mag. which is the lowest it can go .  x5 would be much more manageable for basic assembly.

 

Ah thanks Tom, i was unsure if the main objective lens was swapped out for one of a different size. My most used scope is a fixed lens AmScope, so I'm restricted by the eyepiece magnifications of x10 and x20. With a small field of view. Might be time to upgrade.

The usual configuration that I have seen for watchmaking is with the 0.5X Barlow lens and the 10X eyepieces.  That gives a pretty good working distance to use screwdrivers.  Though, I agree with @spectre6000 that it may be nicer to use a 0.3X Barlow lens to give even more.  I do notice that Amscope offers a 0.3X Barlow.  Though, having a stand that allows the head to tilt could lessen that lens smudging issue.

As for the camera, I am hoping that a 0.35X camera adapter will get the field of view through the camera to be closer to that I see through the eyepieces.  My microscope came with a 0.5X adapter and the field of view is much smaller for the camera.  I have a 0.35X camera adapter on order, but it is taking its sweet time getting here.

Edited December 5, 2023 by gpraceman

[Neverenoughwatches]

12 minutes ago, gpraceman said:

The usual configuration that I have seen for watchmaking is with the 0.5X Barlow lens and the 10X eyepieces.  That gives a pretty good working distance to use screwdrivers.  Though, I agree with @spectre6000 that it may be nicer to use a 0.3X Barlow lens to give even more.  I do notice that Amscope offers a 0.3X Barlow.  Though, having a stand that allows the head to tilt could lessen that issue.

As for the camera, I am hoping that a 0.35X camera adapter will get the field of view through the camera to be closer to that I see through the eyepieces.  My microscope came with a 0.5X adapter and the field of view is much smaller for the camera.  I have a 0.35X camera adapter on order, but it is taking its sweet time getting here.

So usual magnification for basic work  for these microscopes  is x5 or x3 with a 0.3 barlow lens. How much field of view do you get with 0.5 ? 

[gpraceman]

3 minutes ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

So usual magnification for basic work  for these microscopes  is x5 or x3 with a 0.3 barlow lens. How much field of view do you get with 0.5 ? 

Actually, what I have seen people use most is a 0.5X Barlow lens with the 10X eyepieces.  With that setup, I can see an entire pocket watch movement on the lowest zoom.  My field of view issue is with the camera.

Edited December 5, 2023 by gpraceman

[DBROWN]

Hey,

This doesn't help your focus issue but your mount is upside down.  Take the scope head off and flip the focusing rack upside down.  That fixed ring you have mounted above the horizontal bar goes below the bar, that way you can loosen up the mounting screw for the horizontal bar and swing it out of the way without your scope head crashing to the bench.  You need to put your scope head in the middle of the focusing rack range, place a work piece under the scope and then find the correct rough working height of the scope so you have room to focus up and down, then lock the cross bar height.  Then trouble shoot from there.  There's no point in trying to figure anything out with the way you have the boom stand set up right now.

Good luck,

Darren

 

[gpraceman]

1 hour ago, DBROWN said:

Hey,

This doesn't help your focus issue but your mount is upside down.  Take the scope head off and flip the focusing rack upside down.  That fixed ring you have mounted above the horizontal bar goes below the bar, that way you can loosen up the mounting screw for the horizontal bar and swing it out of the way without your scope head crashing to the bench.  You need to put your scope head in the middle of the focusing rack range, place a work piece under the scope and then find the correct rough working height of the scope so you have room to focus up and down, then lock the cross bar height.  Then trouble shoot from there.  There's no point in trying to figure anything out with the way you have the boom stand set up right now.

Good luck,

Darren

 

Ah, good catch.  That stop collar on the post won't be useful above the boom arm.

After seeing your post I checked my microscope (double boom stand) and noticed that my focusing rack was upside down when compared to the manufacturer's photos.  Though, I'm not sure that the orientation of the focusing rack makes much a difference, other than the height that the boom will need to be adjusted in order to get the microscope to focus.

[DBROWN]

I have used a scope for my medical day job for years and if you are not close to the point of focus it can be hard to find.  Just keep fiddling with the height of your boom, you'll get it!  If you put the boom perpendicular to the head you can tilt the head to be more comfortable for you. It only took me a year to figure that one out. I have a 0.5 barlow and the working height is about 7 inches.  At the lowest magnification the field of view is about a 2 inch radius.  I use the scope for everything except were i need a straight on side view such as when I use my hand installation press.

Darren

[ManSkirtBrew]

I have an Amscope SM-3NTPX, and of course you all got me wondering about working distance and FOV and such, so I did a little testing.

The objective is 0.7x-4.5x zoom, with 10x/20 eyepieces from the factory, and an 0.5x Barlow, giving an effective magnification of 3.5x-22.5x at the eyepieces.

I added an Amscope 16MP USB 3.0 Color CMOS C-Mount Microscope Camera with an 0.5x reduction lens to the trinocular port.

Here's the setup:

Working distance is about 16.5mm between the subject and Barlow.

With the factory 10x eyepieces at the lowest 3.5x zoom, field of view through the eyepieces is 60mm.

The camera's FOV is about 35mm:

With the factory 10x eyepieces at 22.5x zoom, field of view through the eyepieces is 9mm.

The camera's FOV is about 5.5mm:

I recently bought a set of 20x/12.5 eyepieces, which increase magnification to 7x-45x at the expense of some field of view, but doesn't seem to affect the working distance. I like them a lot, especially for things like jewel inspection. They're also super quick to swap out.

The camera sees the same thing as above of course, but when looking through the eyepieces:

Field of view at 7x: 36mm

Field of view at 45x: 5.5mm

Any other questions or measurements folks are curious about, let me know! I love science.

Edited December 6, 2023 by ManSkirtBrew
Fix the magnification levels to include the Barlow lens

[gpraceman]

2 minutes ago, ManSkirtBrew said:

I have an Amscope SM-3NTPX, and of course you all got me wondering about working distance and FOV and such, so I did a little testing.

The objective is 0.7x-4.5x zoom, with 10x/20 eyepieces from the factory, giving an effective magnification of 7x-45x. I have an 0.5x Barlow installed. I added an Amscope 16MP USB 3.0 Color CMOS C-Mount Microscope Camera with an 0.5x reduction lens to the trinocular port.

Here's the setup:

Working distance is about 16.5mm between the subject and Barlow.

With the factory 10x eyepieces at 7x zoom, field of view through the eyepieces is 60mm.

The camera's FOV is about 35mm:

With the factory 10x eyepieces at 45x zoom, field of view through the eyepieces is 9mm.

The camera's FOV is about 5.5mm:

I recently bought a set of 20x/12.5 eyepieces, which increase magnification to 14x-90x at the expense of some field of view, but doesn't seem to affect the working distance. I like them a lot, especially for things like jewel inspection. They're also super quick to swap out.

The camera sees the same thing as above of course, but when looking through the eyepieces:

Field of view at 14x: 36mm

Field of view at 90x: 5.5mm

Any other questions or measurements folks are curious about, let me know! I love science.

I guess that I have been expecting to have comparable FOVs on the eyepieces and the camera.  Well, that isn't quite possible, as the camera sensor is a rectangle and the eyepiece view is circular.  The size of the camera sensor also comes into play.  https://www.microscopeworld.com/p-3341-microscope-c-mount-field-of-view.aspx

I'd be happy if I could at least get the whole movement in the camera FOV.

[spectre6000]

@gpraceman So are you not happy with the camera you got (I was thinking about getting the same one, but may hold off).

Edited December 6, 2023 by spectre6000

[gpraceman]

1 hour ago, spectre6000 said:

@gpraceman So are you not happy with the camera you got (I was thinking about getting the same one, but may hold off).

I don't want to hijack this thread more than I have done already, so I'll respond in the Stereo Microscope thread.

[ManSkirtBrew]

16 hours ago, gpraceman said:

I'd be happy if I could at least get the whole movement in the camera FOV.

This is what fully zoomed out with my camera setup looks like, so you have an idea. Just about a full medium size wristwatch movement.

[gpraceman]

14 minutes ago, ManSkirtBrew said:

This is what fully zoomed out with my camera setup looks like, so you have an idea. Just about a full medium size wristwatch movement.

What's your configuration?

0.5X Barlow lens?

Which C mount camera adapter (0.35X, 0.5X, or something else)?

Camera image sensor size?  Mine is 1/2.3 inch.

These all affect the FOV of the camera.

I posted over in the Stereo Microscope thread as to what FOV I am seeing. 

[ManSkirtBrew]

The whole setup is in the post above.

Yes, 0.5x Barlow, 0.5x C-mount. Camera is the Amscope 16mp C-mount camera, which has a sensor size of 6.18x4.66mm, so the same as yours.

[gpraceman]

23 minutes ago, ManSkirtBrew said:

The whole setup is in the post above.

Yes, 0.5x Barlow, 0.5x C-mount. Camera is the Amscope 16mp C-mount camera, which has a sensor size of 6.18x4.66mm, so the same as yours.

Strange on why yours seems to have a bigger FOV (35 mm for you and 21 mm for me), when we seem to have comparable setups.  My C mount adapter is much shorter, but I wouldn't think that it that the length would make a difference.