Jump to content

Stereo Microscope


Recommended Posts

As gpraceman noted above, one of the differences appears to be hardware. Specifically, AmScope uses handles on all of the adjustment points, and one way costs are cut is to replace those with grub screws. That's easily remedied, as he also showed. Marketing budget is definitely another cost differentiator though. For my money knowing what I know now, I think I'd upgrade the hardware out of the McMaster catalog, and pocket the difference for 404s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, linux said:

Please keep us posted on the FOV experiment.  As you know I'm expecting delivery of the 
AmScope - SM-4NTP 7X-45X which looks to be equivalent to yours.  The camera I ordered from Amazon is the "14mp Tv Hdmi USB Industry Digital C-Mount Microscope Camera Tf Video Recoder DVR", Hayear 2307.  It looks like the one you got from aliexpress.

As I was taking advice from Alex Hamilton initially, I believe he recommended a 0.35 Barlow which I have.  Is that the one you've ordered?  Or is it the "AmScope SM03 0.3X Super Widefield Barlow Lens For SM Series Stereo Microscopes (48mm)"?

There's Barlow lenses, eyepieces and C mount camera adapters, so it can be confusing as to which people are referring to.  Alex appears to have a 0.5X Barlow lens paired with a 0.35X C mount camera adapter, based on his video.

I'll be getting the 0.3X Barlow lens (Parco Scientific brand) tomorrow, supposedly.  I have a 0.35X and 0.5X C mount camera adapter and 0.5X Barlow currently.

That does look to be the same camera that I have (and Alex as well).  I just ended up getting it via AliExpress.

5 hours ago, LittleWatchShop said:

I received my sm-4tp today. I did not order a camera yet. Waiting to see how this is sorted out.

I'll post an update when I get the 0.3X Barlow lens.

4 hours ago, RichardHarris123 said:

Can anyone tell me if this is suitable? VEVOR 3.5X-90X Simul-Focal Stereo Microscope 360°Swiveling Trinocular Stereo Microscope with Dual Arm Boom https://amzn.eu/d/9Bn2qXh

It does look just like the Amscope. As @Neverenoughwatches indicated, these might come out of the very same factory as Amscope, just without the branding.  I would not be surprised.  I have the Eakins version.  Looks just like the Amscope, save only having one chrome adjusting handle instead of three.

Edited by gpraceman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I received the 0.3X Barlow lens today and ran a test.

Pros: I was able to get a full movement into the FOV of the camera.  Width of field was increased to 46 mm

Cons: I wasn't able to zoom very high before I wasn't be able to focus.  That's too big a sacrifice.  I like zooming in tightly to inspect jewels and pivots.

So, it looks like 0.5X Barlow with the 0.35X C mount is the best combination that I can find for the image sensor size that my camera has.  The older style camera mounts may provide a better field of view.  It is possible that a camera with a larger sensor has less of an issue due to less magnification internal to the camera.  Maybe eventually, I will try a different camera.

2023_1208_175529_002.JPG

Edited by gpraceman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gpraceman said:

I received the 0.3X Barlow lens today and ran a test.

Pros: I was able to get a full movement into the FOV of the camera.  Width of field was increased to 46 mm

Cons: I wasn't able to zoom very high before I wasn't be able to focus.  That's too big a sacrifice.  I like zooming in tightly to inspect jewels and pivots.

So, it looks like 0.5X Barlow with the 0.35X C mount is the best combination that I can find for the image sensor size that my camera has.  The older style camera mounts may provide a better field of view.  It is possible that a camera with a larger sensor has less of an issue due to less magnification internal to the camera.  Maybe eventually, I will try a different camera.

2023_1208_175529_002.JPG

If its just pictures you are saving to a computer you can always zoom in on the photo viewer or editor that you are using.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, gpraceman said:

I received the 0.3X Barlow lens today and ran a test.

Pros: I was able to get a full movement into the FOV of the camera.  Width of field was increased to 46 mm

Cons: I wasn't able to zoom very high before I wasn't be able to focus.  That's too big a sacrifice.  I like zooming in tightly to inspect jewels and pivots.

So, it looks like 0.5X Barlow with the 0.35X C mount is the best combination that I can find for the image sensor size that my camera has.  The older style camera mounts may provide a better field of view.  It is possible that a camera with a larger sensor has less of an issue due to less magnification internal to the camera.  Maybe eventually, I will try a different camera.

2023_1208_175529_002.JPG

Is that max zoom with 0.3X Barlow? I guess plus camera, etc... My main concern re: Barlow is working distance. If I could get just a tiny bit more room, I'd have all I need to work without compromise. I feel like magnification-wise, I've got plenty of room to give. Plus, I've got 20X eyepieces, and if that's too much, 15X eyepieces exist. On the camera side, I might see if I can't find one with a bigger sensor maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, spectre6000 said:

Is that max zoom with 0.3X Barlow? I guess plus camera, etc... My main concern re: Barlow is working distance. If I could get just a tiny bit more room, I'd have all I need to work without compromise. I feel like magnification-wise, I've got plenty of room to give. Plus, I've got 20X eyepieces, and if that's too much, 15X eyepieces exist. On the camera side, I might see if I can't find one with a bigger sensor maybe?

The latest photo was on minimum zoom.  The 0.3X Barlow does give more working distance than the 0.5X Barlow lens.  So, that can be a plus.  The problem is that if you want to increase zoom at some point you will run out of travel on the focus rack and will physically have to move the head up (either the head or boom arm).  That's rather a bother.

When I stop by to check out your Amscope, I'll bring my camera and the different lenses so we can try them on your microscope and check out FOV.  Maybe I'll even bring my whole Eakins microscope head.  I am curious to see if the lenses internal to the Eakins are comparable to the Amscope.

My understanding is that cameras with larger image sensors do less internal magnification.  Those cameras look to be higher in price, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds like a great idea! Given the global nature of this forum, having two people (especially two active people) as close as we are seems like a relative rarity. A side by side comparison of the name brand-ish AmScope and the relative no name ostensibly from the same factory might be quite revealing and a rare opportunity. You're going to make me clean my office up enough to be able to take photos... Given the basement-splosion situation, that's going to be quite a challenge...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, spectre6000 said:

That sounds like a great idea! Given the global nature of this forum, having two people (especially two active people) as close as we are seems like a relative rarity. A side by side comparison of the name brand-ish AmScope and the relative no name ostensibly from the same factory might be quite revealing and a rare opportunity. You're going to make me clean my office up enough to be able to take photos... Given the basement-splosion situation, that's going to be quite a challenge...

No need to do the cleanup.  I know how it is with home issues, especially a basement flood.  We just need your desk and microscope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been looking for a way to connect one of my mirrorless cameras to my microscope since I got the scope. I've never been particularly happy with the camera that came with the scope, not just from an image quality perspective, but there are some functional issues that really bugged me as well. One of the biggest issues was that if the exposure was perfect when zoomed in, if you zoomed out it was way overexposed. So I would constantly have to adjust exposure by going into the camera menu, dig down to the exposure menu, and then adjust. Every time I zoomed in and out. Then there is the file naming issue where it will reuse the file name as soon as you delete the files from the card. So if you were working on more than one watch at a time and moving the files off of the card, you would get files with the same name when you came back to work on one of the watches. Then the camera just started to randomly stop recording for no reason so I would look up at the monitor and realize the camera had not been recording for who knows how long.

So, I went down the rabbit hole looking for adapters to connect my Sony a6300 to the microscope. Most adapters seem to be for Amscope microscopes which, I believe, has a different trinocular port than the Eakins. But the reviews for the Amscope adapters are hit and miss regardless. I don't think the optics in the adapter are particularly good. But I really couldn't find anything that was as simple as, "use this adapter for the Eakins microscope and a Sony aps-c camera".

I came across this video which looked very promising, although it was for a different microscope and camera. But the video does explain why adapters even use optics. Which it turns out, you really don't need. You can just project the image from the microscope directly onto the sensor and avoid subpar optics. I had a concern for the design he used as the length of the adapter needs to be perfect. If it is off even a fraction of a mm then the camera will be slightly out of focus when the image is in focus through the eyepieces. Seemed like it could entail a lot of trial and error getting the correct dimensions. I've come across M42 adapters in the past that have a helicoid focusing ability, often used in macro photography. Using one of these will move the camera (and sensor) closer to or further away from the microscope and will then let you dial in exactly where you want the sensor to be. 

So the adapter drops into the trinocular port on one end (and is fixed with a grub screw) and on the other end it screws into the M42 adapter which you can then focus using the helicoid. The image is parafocal between the eyepieces and the camera. It works perfectly. I actually get a slightly wider FOV in the camera compared to the eyepieces. When zoomed fully out there is some vignetting and I get a FOV of 68mm, compared to 61mm through the eyepieces. When zoomed all the way the FOV is 10mm in the camera and 8mm through the eyepieces.

If anyone is interested I have freecad and stl files on Thingverse but it looks like there is a 24 hour hold until it is published so it should be available tomorrow.

3D.jpg.1288ed621db3e45b83d3f8cb72229b11.jpg

 

Adapter-with-M42-Helicoid.thumb.jpg.a65ce1d0dac0368101dd71003e4abae4.jpg

 

Camera-on-microscope.thumb.jpg.773c229fd49d36bcff5d9a0641cb2834.jpg

 

 

Edited by GuyMontag
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I found out was that I had my eyepiece diopters set all wrong.  When watching this video, they note that there is a silver line that you should first adjust the diopters to just above the line.  Then adjust one to get both eyes focused.  That actually increased my FOV through the eyepieces and now I only need to make minor adjustments to focus as I zoom in/out.  Looks like I may need to repeat my 0.5X Barlow vs 0.3X Barlow experiment to reflect the proper diopter settings for me.  Of course, the diopter settings have no bearing on the FOV for the camera.

6 hours ago, GuyMontag said:

Most adapters seem to be for Amscope microscopes which, I believe, has a different trinocular port than the Eakins.

They don't seem different.  I believe that both will take a 28mm screw in camera adapter and if you remove the threaded ring from the port, you can use that other style of adapter that uses a grub screw to hold it from spinning.

6 hours ago, GuyMontag said:

I came across this video which looked very promising, although it was for a different microscope and camera. But the video does explain why adapters even use optics. Which it turns out, you really don't need. You can just project the image from the microscope directly onto the sensor and avoid subpar optics.

I think it depends on the camera.  The sensor size and if the camera itself has optics.  I know when I tried a 0.35X C mount adapter with my camera, I got an increased FOV for the camera compared to using a 0.5X C mount adapter.  With zero reduction in magnification, then I would have a tiny FOV for the camera.  So, I definitely need some optics in there to decrease magnification in order to maximize FOV.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, gpraceman said:

 

They don't seem different.  I believe that both will take a 28mm screw in camera adapter and if you remove the threaded ring from the port, you can use that other style of adapter that uses a grub screw to hold it from spinning.

I think it depends on the camera.  The sensor size and if the camera itself has optics.  I know when I tried a 0.35X C mount adapter with my camera, I got an increased FOV for the camera compared to using a 0.5X C mount adapter.  With zero reduction in magnification, then I would have a tiny FOV for the camera.  So, I definitely need some optics in there to decrease magnification in order to maximize FOV.

I thought that I had seen some Amscope's with fixed photo tubes on the trinocular port but I may be thinking of other scopes.

Regarding not needing optics in the adapter I probably could have been more clear.  I was specifically talking about adapting full frame or APS-C cameras to a microscope. What I was saying, as he does in the video, is that optics are not necessary if you are able to position the sensor where the plane of focus is. Most of the small sensor 'usb' cameras have the sensor in the body and those will need optics to pickup the image at the plane of focus (in the tube) and project it onto the sensor (in the camera body). He shows one of those cameras, and then at 1:42 he shows another USB camera that actually has the sensor in the tube, not in the body, so that the image falls directly on the sensor and optics are not needed in that camera. With full frame, APS-C and likely micro 4/3 cameras, you should be able to position the camera with an adapter that doesn't have optics such that the image is projected directly on the sensor and those sensors are large enough that reduction optics shouldn't be necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got together with @spectre6000 today, at his house, and did a comparison of his Amscope SM-4T to my Eakins equivalent.  The conclusion was that the optics are identical between the two, giving the same FOV through the eyepieces.  Taking my Hayear 14MP camera and C mount adapter and putting it on his microscope also gave identical FOV to mine.

We found some minor differences on the heads.  The grub screw for the camera port was larger on the Amscope.  The housing on the Amscope had a hole on the left side.  On the non-simul-focal model that hole is for the pull rod to enable the camera port and disable the left eyepiece.  @spectre6000 said that his microscope came with a sticker over that hole, which he had removed.  My Eakins doesn't have that hole at all.  The zoom knob was slightly different in appearance.  The camera adapters between the two are a different style.

There's the previously noted difference in the stand being that the Amscope has the 3 chrome tightening handles, while the Eakins only has one chrome handle, a plastic knob, and a simple Allen screw.

So, if you are in the market for a watchmaking microscope, Amscope and Eakins really seem to be made to pretty much the same specs, with some minor differences in hardware.  I do think it likely that they are made in the same factory but maybe tailored slightly for each brand.  Cost difference is the other consideration.  Eakins is cheaper and you get more lenses with it.  My Eakins came with 0.5X and 2.0X Barlow lenses and 10X and 20X eyepieces.  With Amscope you have to order the 3.5X-180X variant, at extra cost, to get the same set of lenses.  The Eakins has a metal ring light adapter while the Amscope has a plastic one.

Edited by gpraceman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been adding some 3D printed accessories to my microscope.  Found the STL files online and tweaked them to my liking.  Though, I might do a bit more tweaking of the cable guides.  I like the extra storage that the tray provides to make some of my commonly used tools handy instead of having to dig them out of a drawer.

I happened to have a length of cable sleeve tube handy to also help tame the cords.  I traded out the old thick and stiff HDMI cable for a new slim and flexible one.

20231220_232825.jpg

20231220_232909.jpg

20231219_183901.jpg

Edited by gpraceman
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following up on @gpraceman's take, go for the Eakins. There's probably a good year between production of our two scopes, which I imagine accounts for the minute hardware differences (the Eakins grub screw was 2mm, AmScope is probably 3mm). The hole in the Amscope is kinda dumb, and I'm not sure how to attribute that. For the cost though, the Eakins wins hands down. I think the difference between the two is something like 50% ($400-something vs. $600-something for like setups) I have a feeling, having paid attention to this topic for a while now, that the top of the heap will change over time given the nature of Chinese white labeling, but for now, it's not really a contest.

The 3D printed accessories are super cool. One of these days, I'll get my printer operational again, or I'll sell it and get another. Actually... I think I'll take advantage of the holiday season and get it on FBMP this afternoon... What am I waiting for?

I initially got a Canon mount for mine because I had an old but decent DSLR. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to use it, and photography is its own domain. I'm full up on domains right now with some of yesterday's other activities @gpraceman weighed in on. Messing around a little with his camera was somewhat inspirational. It was super easy to use, and plugged right into an old computer monitor I happened to have sitting nearby. I don't know that it'd be preferable to work on it like that, but my nearly 4yo daughter and son (found out yesterday right after @gpraceman left) in progress will be able to watch over my shoulder. Watchmaking of course, but also soldering electronics, fixing toys, micrometeorite hunting, and whatever else comes along. The 0.3X Barlow gave me more than enough working room to tackle some clunky stuff (thinking toy repair), and normalizing the microscope and working in such a manner will be great for both of them in the future.

TLDR; Don't pay for the AmScope branding, go for the Eakins. Also, get the dedicated camera unless you're a photography buff.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just what I need, another gadget to spend time and money on, but you better give me the model number of the 3D printer.  It does look pretty cool, sigh...

So I finally got my Amscope after @gpraceman reminded me about the simul-focal feature and ordered the SM-4NTP 7X-45X (I actually sent one back to get that feature).  I have a 0.5x barlow on the objective lens and a 0.35x on the camera per Alex Hamilton.  As others have commented, the FOV on the camera is much smaller.  I wonder if anybody has tried a 0.25x or 0.20x barlow to increase the FOV more in line with the eyepieces.  I'm tempted to order one from Amazon and return it if doesn't improve it.

Also, how do you record videos and take snapshots with the hayear camera?  I downloaded software from their site but one you unzip it, it's a .bin file rather than an .exe file and I cannot figure out how to load that in windows.

The other thing that's a bit frustrating is that I can't really get close enough to the eyepieces with glasses on, even if I take off the rubber eye-guards.  I think that parameter is called eye relief or exit pupil or something like that.  I have a pair of really good binoculars and they have the ability to actually pull the eyepiece outward (IE, make it longer) that increases this value and makes it possible to wear glasses.  I'm not an optics expert but I'm wondering what people with glasses do.  Taking them off works of course but it's a hassle.

My last concern is I just noticed that viewing the carera image on my monitor I see a darker region on the right side.  I don't see that through the eyepieces.  Has anybody else seen that?

 

All in all this is a great product and I'm glad I invested in it.  I'm already doing some watch work under it rather than with a loupe on.

 

 

 

bench with scope.jpg

Edited by linux
edits
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, linux said:

So I finally got my Amscope after @gpraceman reminded me about the simul-focal feature and ordered the SM-4NTP 7X-45X (I actually sent one back to get that feature).  I have a 0.5x barlow on the objective lens and a 0.35x on the camera per Alex Hamilton.  As others have commented, the FOV on the camera is much smaller.  I wonder if anybody has tried a 0.25x or 0.20x barlow to increase the FOV more in line with the eyepieces.  I'm tempted to order one from Amazon and return it if doesn't improve it.

A Barlow lens will affect FOV for both the eye pieces and the camera.  As when trying the 0.3X Barlow on my microscope, it does increase the FOV for both, but you have to lift the boom up to nearly its limit to get it to focus and you lose the ability to use the full zoom range (I only got up to about 2.5 zoom).  I like the upper zoom range for doing jewel inspection.  The 0.3X Barlow can be handy for taking photos/video of a wider area, like a full movement.  Though, I am a bit lazy and don't want to change out lenses to do that.  My solution, until I try a camera with a larger image sensor, is to use my phone to take a photo through the eyepiece.  I 3D printed a mount for my phone to do that.  I get a circular image, but I can get an image of what I see through the eye pieces. 

I have only seen 0.35X and 0.5X C mount camera adapters.  If there was such a beast as a 0.2X or 0.25X camera adapter, then I think for my camera's image sensor size that I would see vignetting in the corners and maybe a bit out of focus near the edges.  As camera image sensors are rectangular, there's only so large of a rectangle that you can fit within a circle, before you get clipping in the corners.

2 hours ago, linux said:

Also, how do you record videos and take snapshots with the hayear camera?  I downloaded software from their site but one you unzip it, it's a .bin file rather than an .exe file and I cannot figure out how to load that in windows.

The camera comes with a remote that has a button to take a snapshot and another button to take video.  That is assuming that you have a micro SD card inserted into the camera.  Can't say that I like the remote, as the buttons can get stuck in the pressed state if you don't perfectly press the button straight down.  Though, there are snapshot and video buttons directly on the camera, so you don't have to use the remote.

The other option to recording/snapshots is using the USB connection.  You can use capture software like Microsoft's Camera app, which comes with Windows, to take snapshots and video.  You only get 30 fps through the USB connection with that particular camera, whereas with the SD card you can get up to 60 fps, if that matters any to you.

2 hours ago, linux said:

The other thing that's a bit frustrating is that I can't really get close enough to the eyepieces with glasses on, even if I take off the rubber eye-guards.  I think that parameter is called eye relief or exit pupil or something like that.  I have a pair of really good binoculars and they have the ability to actually pull the eyepiece outward (IE, make it longer) that increases this value and makes it possible to wear glasses.  I'm not an optics expert but I'm wondering what people with glasses do.  Taking them off works of course but it's a hassle.

Do you have your diopters for the eye pieces set right?  Turn them both to the silver line on the side.  Focus the microscope using the focus knob.  Then adjust the diopter on the eyepiece for your non-dominat eye until the image is in focus.  Then you should be able to zoom in and out without having to mess with the focus but maybe a smidge.

2 hours ago, linux said:

My last concern is I just noticed that viewing the carera image on my monitor I see a darker region on the right side.  I don't see that through the eyepieces.  Has anybody else seen that?

Check the optics on the camera mount adapter.  You may have something on the lens.  I noticed on the 0.5X adapter that I got with the microscope, it looked like there was a bit of silicone grease on the lens.  I haven't tried to clean it, since I am using a 0.35X adapter to maximize the FOV with my camera (it had clean optics).  If you turn the adapter and you see the dark region move, then it is an issue with the camera adapter optics; otherwise, it could be something on the prism for the camera within the microscope's head.

2 hours ago, linux said:

Just what I need, another gadget to spend time and money on, but you better give me the model number of the 3D printer.  It does look pretty cool, sigh...

Mine is a modded Ender 3 Pro.  If I was looking for a beginning printer today, I'd look at an Ender 3 NEO or Ender 3 V3 SE.  The NEO is essentially what I have modded my printer to be, but I like the PEI bed over a glass bed.  There is quite a learning curve to these things.  But once you get familiar with using one, they are oh so useful.  You can find many free designs to print online.  I use https://yeggi.com (essentially a search engine for 3D designs).  I'll find designs and tweak them if necessary, using Tinkercad (free).

3 hours ago, spectre6000 said:

Following up on @gpraceman's take, go for the Eakins. There's probably a good year between production of our two scopes, which I imagine accounts for the minute hardware differences (the Eakins grub screw was 2mm, AmScope is probably 3mm). The hole in the Amscope is kinda dumb, and I'm not sure how to attribute that. For the cost though, the Eakins wins hands down. I think the difference between the two is something like 50% ($400-something vs. $600-something for like setups) I have a feeling, having paid attention to this topic for a while now, that the top of the heap will change over time given the nature of Chinese white labeling, but for now, it's not really a contest.

The 3D printed accessories are super cool. One of these days, I'll get my printer operational again, or I'll sell it and get another. Actually... I think I'll take advantage of the holiday season and get it on FBMP this afternoon... What am I waiting for?

I initially got a Canon mount for mine because I had an old but decent DSLR. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to use it, and photography is its own domain. I'm full up on domains right now with some of yesterday's other activities @gpraceman weighed in on. Messing around a little with his camera was somewhat inspirational. It was super easy to use, and plugged right into an old computer monitor I happened to have sitting nearby. I don't know that it'd be preferable to work on it like that, but my nearly 4yo daughter and son (found out yesterday right after @gpraceman left) in progress will be able to watch over my shoulder. Watchmaking of course, but also soldering electronics, fixing toys, micrometeorite hunting, and whatever else comes along. The 0.3X Barlow gave me more than enough working room to tackle some clunky stuff (thinking toy repair), and normalizing the microscope and working in such a manner will be great for both of them in the future.

TLDR; Don't pay for the AmScope branding, go for the Eakins. Also, get the dedicated camera unless you're a photography buff.

The hole issue on your Amscope might simply be an issue that they ran out of the housings without the hole and grabbed ones from the non-simul-focal model or just got their parts mixed up.  After working in manufacturing for 10 years, I can see either easily happening.

I find the camera very useful for photos and video during disassembly.  If I have a question during reassembly, the photos and video come in handy to refer back to.  Photos are also handy if needing to post a question on this forum about an issue.  Sometimes just viewing via the monitor is nice, without looking through the eyepieces.

BTW, congrats on expecting a boy!  A little brother for your daughter.

Edited by gpraceman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use USB and the Hayear app in Windows. I just wish it had an option to record audio too. I have a Canon M50 mk2. Does anyone know of an affordable solution to hook up Canon EF (or EF-M) to trinocular port? Might have been mentioned already but it's a  really confusing subject. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, linux said:

The other thing that's a bit frustrating is that I can't really get close enough to the eyepieces with glasses on, even if I take off the rubber eye-guards.  I think that parameter is called eye relief or exit pupil or something like that.  I have a pair of really good binoculars and they have the ability to actually pull the eyepiece outward (IE, make it longer) that increases this value and makes it possible to wear glasses.  I'm not an optics expert but I'm wondering what people with glasses do.  Taking them off works of course but it's a hassle.

It may be a matter of prescription, but I find I can adjust the eyepieces to be in focus with or without my glasses on. @gpraceman mentions the silver line, but there are two types of heads/eyepieces: one has the adjuster built into the head, the other has it built into the eyepieces. This was discussed some number of pages back, and the result to my mind was to get the head with the adjuster built in (what gpraceman and I both have) for cheaper eyepieces. AmScope seems to push the adjustable eyepiece variety subtly through which scopes come up in results, etc. The silver line situation may be different in the other setup.

I imagine if you look through the eyepieces with your glasses on, and your prescription is good, you should have no trouble getting things in focus. Assuming no user error, and getting a little more distance in the lenses is the answer, I wonder if you couldn't unscrew the Barlow a few threads or put an o-ring or some sort of spacer under the eye pieces. 

11 hours ago, gpraceman said:

Mine came with the angled rubber boots, which don't want to roll back.  For me, that is fine, as I only wear glasses for seeing far.

I have both types of rubber boots, and ultimately I actually run without either. It took some getting used to, but I am now good at hovering the right distance away. I switch back and forth between 10X and 20X eyepieces somewhat regularly (not watchmaking related), and not having to switch boots doesn't hurt.

Here's a question for the camera crowd (whom I will be soon joining): For non-watchmaking purposes, I switch back and forth between 10X/20X eyepieces a lot. I saw the camera setup work beautifully in concert with 10X eyepieces, but if I'm working under 20x, the camera won't really do a good job at capturing what I'm up to. How does one compensate for this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, spectre6000 said:

Here's a question for the camera crowd (whom I will be soon joining): For non-watchmaking purposes, I switch back and forth between 10X/20X eyepieces a lot. I saw the camera setup work beautifully in concert with 10X eyepieces, but if I'm working under 20x, the camera won't really do a good job at capturing what I'm up to. How does one compensate for this?

The C mount camera adapters commonly come in 0.35X, 0.5X and 1.0X varieties.  With a higher magnification eyepiece, you can switch to a camera adapter with less demagnification.  So, go up to the 0.5X or 1.0X, if you are running a 0.35X with the 10X eyepieces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that.  I guess to be clear, with my glasses on or off the image is pretty much still in focus but I cannot get a full sized image with my glasses on, IE cannot get close enough to the eyepiece.  But I'm finding that I like the monitor a lot and even though the FOV is smaller I find myself looking that way more and more.  Well, I do have to crane my neck as it's off to the side but I'm thinking of mounding my monitor directly behind the bench.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • These are the places where I oiled with HP 1300...  These are the places where I oiled with HP 1300...  I can see that the cannon pinion is moving as it should once I installed the pallet fork. I created a small video but was not able to upload it. It is a mov file type. I need now to source a GR4014X mainspring, a stop ever #9433 and both calendar disc as the days/dates are peeling out... This is the mido watch which holds the ETA Movement.... I just want to thanks all of you guys for your help, specially @eccentric59 who nailed it! So, I would consider this case as closed unless of course any question from any of you... Best regards Fernando     I could not download the file... I will tray to located. Many thanks. 
    • Thanks a lot everyone!  I'll update you as soon as a final decision has been made by my friend (and depending on her decision, what I may find inside). 
    • Thanks Marc, clearly I have a lot to learn about metallurgy. I’d expect the cutting of tool or spring steel to be a lot harder to cut into a precise shape- I expect I’d have to anneal it first? 
    • Unfortunately if you have used mild steel you will have little hope of hardening and tempering it, it simply doesn't contain enough carbon. You need to use a steel with a higher carbon content like tool steel or spring steel. One good source for this is engineers feeler gauges which can be picked up relatively inexpensively and provide a range of thicknesses of material. this will then harden and temper in pretty much the way you have described.
    • Thanks for this excellent tutorial and very fine illustrations @Jon! Really first class! 👍 I noticed that your image was a bit too small to read with ease, so here's a larger copy of it. I summarized @nickelsilver's method for adjusting beat errors to the following, but you can find all the info in the thread I linked to: “For everyday work, from the smallest ladies’ movements to marine chronometer, I set the balance with the cock on a bench block so the roller table is in a hole, balance on the block. Lift up the cock and move it over- not flipping it, just moving laterally, until I can see the slot in the hairspring collet, get in there and adjust (for tiny watches this is usually with an oiler, larger, a small screwdriver). Go back in the watch and check on the machine. I hold a balance arm of the rim with tweezers while moving the collet.”    
×
×
  • Create New...