Sorry, it is too early in the morning for my brain.....I'll delete my stupid message. This is an interesting feature. Something like it can be used on USB cameras via the very popular astrophotography camera-controlling program Sharpcap (which offers a free version). It's called Live Stacking and it works wonderfully for diatoms using astro cameras. This won't work with stand-alone cameras though. Statistics: Posted by Lou Jost — Fri May 10, 2024 12:19 pm ..read more

Which macro lens is this? If it is the 90mm, it may not have the resolution to show an improvement in HR mode? Edit: Stupid comment, ignore it. Statistics: Posted by Lou Jost — Fri May 10, 2024 12:06 pm ..read more

Hi, Few months ago I bought a EM1 mkIII and a OM system macro, nice combo for live subjects. I wanted to try the 80mpx HR mode but I came across a few posts describing how the Live ND feature indcreases DR reducing shadow noise and had to test it, I think it performs better than HR mode (no moving parts, it is faster and RAW files are smaller and easier to work with) I would say at ISO 200 and ND8 (8 averaged frames put together into one) it already matches my Sony A7 and ND16 and ND32 perform even better...I even may let the a7 go Of course this is just an early test, I still have to run a ..read more

right, my use of "match" was wrong here Statistics: Posted by Stephen_De_Lisle — Fri May 10, 2024 11:22 am ..read more

Hello, as I mentioned in another post, I have been using the Fujifilm GF 4.5-5.6/35-70mm inverted and coupled to the GF 2/110mm (as a tube lens). The results are very interesting, for my specific work (I use the wide apertures available and a lot of blur). I would like to go a little further and I also miss the aperture ring that the GF 35-70mm doesn't have. What are your predictions about using the GF 4/23mm instead of the GF 35-70mm in this use? Will I have a vignette? Thanks. Statistics: Posted by Cunha — Fri May 10, 2024 10:27 am ..read more

Cracking work! Statistics: Posted by FrancisCC — Fri May 10, 2024 10:04 am ..read more

Adding photography to the microscope changes things quite a bit. That was the last microscope system that AO/Spencer made that still used the old school photo system, which did not include a trinocular head. The way it was done was to opt for the interchangeable optical tube model, the model 15. The difference between the 35 and 15 is that with the 35 ( your scope , if it is the one pictured), the optical tube is integrated with the focusing rack. On the 15 , the optical tube slips off of the rack section by unscrewing a cm. diameter thumbscrew located just behind the bottom of the focusing tr ..read more

I wonder do you ever use, or have tried the dental impression polysiloxane impression stuff? We used to use it quite a bit for taking all sorts of casts, then making the positives (with Spurrs) for SEM stuff. I suppose it a long winded way instead of the tape. Statistics: Posted by FrancisCC — Fri May 10, 2024 9:15 am ..read more

others can chime in but you might be better off just adding a teleconverter to your current setup (1.7x is a perfect match for the 26.5mm image circle if you have UIS2 objectives). The old photo eyepieces aren't necessarily a great match for the BX optics, at least based on this: viewtopic.php?p=286553#p286553 Nah, PEs were made for BX, though UIS. Evident does warn users when UIS-era items such as the U-CA magnification changer is used on UIS2 objectives, claiming potential contrast problems. The projection eyepieces, to put it simply and bluntly in one concise word, "sucks". Or two, by add ..read more

Nice SEMs, what Kv were you using? Sorry if you already mentioned it. Nice spec prep too, very little shrinkage. Statistics: Posted by FrancisCC — Fri May 10, 2024 8:49 am ..read more