What's New?
ShavingUniverse.com

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

A few interesting pictures

Did quite some experimentin with my kids microscope...and no matter what I did it didnt work.

1. It needs much light.
2. Its meant for translucent items.
3. DOF is extremely short.
4. It really is quite difficult to squeeze a razor underneath the lens ;-)

regards gents
 
maro said:
This specimen is dated 1907, claimed to be in perfect condition and can be purchased on this auction:
http://www.allegro.pl/item957272854.html
Seems to be an almost complete set (eyepiece is missing?). Nothing is written about magnification and I don't speak German so can't translate the piece of paper. It looks beautiful yet the price (1600PLN = ~400EUR) is quite high. :huh:
Click to expand...
It's a stunning piece. It looks as if it comes with 5 different objectives and 4 different oculars, which allows for 20 different magnification options, according to the label: from 26X to 1010X. If I didn't own a lovely vintage Nikon, I would be seriously tempted.

It's correct that you don't need such elaborate magnification for razor honing. Actually, if you know what to look for you can tell nearly as much from inspection with the naked eye and a good single light source (the way light reflects off an edge, tell a lot about its condition). Of course you can see particular damage better with magnification, but such damage can be felt with the TPT as well.

But a microscope that allows for more than translucent specimen remains a beautiful piece of equipment to own.

Best regards,
Bart.
 
Bart said:
But a microscope that allows for more than translucent specimen remains a beautiful piece of equipment to own.
Click to expand...
Is this the one that allows? How comes?
No, no, no... stop it please! :cry: My girlfriend will kill me if I buy it instead of a new full size fridge and a heating plate (I'm furnishing my first own flat).
 
Haha..I dare you to go for the microscope...but that is a really a terribly thing to say...Women are always smarter..so better listen to your girlfriend ;-)


But it really is a nice microscope ;)


Regards gents
 
maro said:
Bart said:
But a microscope that allows for more than translucent specimen remains a beautiful piece of equipment to own.
Click to expand...
Is this the one that allows? How comes?
No, no, no... stop it please! :cry: My girlfriend will kill me if I buy it instead of a new full size fridge and a heating plate (I'm furnishing my first own flat).
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with all the terms in English, but the kind of microscope we all know from school out of biology lessons, has almost no clearance between the objective lens and the specimen. It can only focus when it sits right on top of the sample. For that reason, it's difficult to get light where you need it. With translucent samples, light can come from below. With the right light source you can work around that problem, but it's still awkward, and manipulating an object under the scope is next to impossible.
With a "dissection" type of microscope, there's much more space between the objective lens and the sample. Plenty of room to get close with a light source, and objects to be inspected can be easily moved around.

I'm not sure about the focal distance of the 1907 scope. If I said I would be tempted, I would still spend a night, doing online research about the thing.

Best regards,
Bart.
 
But it might be relevant to ask Sir Ralfy what kind of gadget he uses? Believe his got some 60* magnification? and I believe that must be sufficent to take a closer look at the edge...

Regard gents
 
torbenbp said:
But it might be relevant to ask Sir Ralfy what kind of gadget he uses? Believe his got some 60* magnification? and I believe that must be sufficent to take a closer look at the edge...

Regard gents
Click to expand...

Third one down, cheap as chips, does the job nicely, dont know the true mag of it but even I can use it to see everything I need, I use mine A LOT!

[c]
100_1921.jpg
[/c]
 
Here's an edge of a Double Arrow, right after bevel correction on slurry. You can clearly see how the slurry deteriorates the tip of the bevel. (the "slurry-dulling" effect).

Slurry-dulling.jpg


Next, we have the same razor, more or less same spot, after the Dilucot phase. (still unfinished on water)
This razor pops hanging hairs.
I'll first test shave with it, before finishing on water, to find out if it makes any difference. When finished on water, I'll share a picture of that as well. This post-dilucot picture clearly shows a much better defined bevel tip, evidence of a much keener edge.

post-dilucot.jpg
 
Impressive pictures, Bart. Unfortunately, Zenit with extension tubes is not even close to your equipment. Actually, it's simply doesn't fit to this purpose. Magnification is too low and the details are blurred with the Fresnel biprism (or whatever the name of this stuff is).
Looks like I'll have/want to buy something.
Jules Verne stuff seems to be a pipe dream but I may have a chance to travel to the town and touch it. I'd see then if it's possible to fit the razor between the base and the lens, if it could be lighten from above and if they'd be willing to haggle.
If any of above doesn't happen, then I'll just have a chance to admire a craftsmanship for a while.

My gilrfriend had a look at the microscope pictures and accepted the possible expenditure (I still have to buy a fridge and a heating plate) if I no more say a word about her spending on cosmetics and perfumes (it's incredible how small they are and much they cost). :lol:
 
Maro,

Indeed, the magnification isn't that huge with the camera plus a set of extension tubes. But true macro is all about increasing the camera-lens distance. So another set of extension tubes will allow you to come even closer and get more mag! You can also try using a longer lens (I mean longer focal length).

Unless you really need an excuse to buy a scope... :lol:

regards,
Matt
 
Hmmm, longer focal lenght you say... I haven't tried my telephoto lens with extension tubes yet. :thumbup:
 
Telephoto lens checked. Doesn't do the job either.
Although Jules Verne stuff looks amazing (I haven't had a chance to touch it yet) I'm seriously considering one of Dino-Lite equipment that Bart recommends (I expect it to be much cheaper).
A question to Bart:
You have a (traditional) optical microscope by Nikon. What do you use to light up the scene?
 
Ive got the third one down as well and it works great for me. I even use it to read resistor color codes... Is it orange... or is it red? We may never know....:lol:
 
Tony's question and Bart's answers in the thread about a microsope reminded me that I didn't post the latest news on the topic.
I had a chance to touch the Jules Verne stuff finally. In real the specimen wasn't as stunning as on the picture. Lenses of two objectives were clogged so that nothing could be seen through them. One ocular was of a different manufacturer, one was of another number (another magnification ratio, not matching the table) and in the other two oculars, although from this set, lenses were falling out of the tubes. The seller was willing to haggle and lowered the price to 1,200 PLN (~300 EUR) but we didn't make a deal.
Instead I've finally bought this brand new microscope:
[img=500]http://optek.pl/img/p/59-215-large.jpg[/img]
The only issue I have with it is the depth of field. In cameras there is a diapragm build in objective for that purpose. But how to adjust it in a microscope objective?

Bart, how many MPix is the Dino camera you use?
 
maro said:
The only issue I have with it is the depth of field. In cameras there is a diapragm build in objective for that purpose. But how to adjust it in a microscope objective?

Bart, how many MPix is the Dino camera you use?
Click to expand...

Microscopes don't allow control over the depth of field. It's physically fixed to the magnification factor. The more magnification, the less depth of field. Nothing can be done about that (at least not with light microscopy. Nothing? Well, actually you could take multiple shots at different focal points and arrange them into one picture. The latest Photoshop version supports it, but I haven't found the time to fool around with that yet.

My digital ocular has 4 Mpixels.

Almost forgot: that's a nice piece of equipment you've got. It allows pictures at much higher magnification than my stereoscope. I do think it is a bit more hassle to get a focused image. Robert Williams has pictures on his website that are made with a setup that resembles yours.

Kind regards,
Bart.
 
That's the same what macro extension do, but our friend Maro wasn't satisfied with his results using macrophotography.

cheers,
Matt
 
Bart said:
Well, actually you could take multiple shots at different focal points and arrange them into one picture. The latest Photoshop version supports it, but I haven't found the time to fool around with that yet.
Click to expand...
I have neither the time nor Photoshop so it looks like I have to accept the limitations. ;)
Bart said:
My digital ocular has 4 Mpixels.
Click to expand...
4 MPix!?! :scared: How much was it? 3 MPix cameras of the seller I've bought the microscope from cost twice as much as the microscope. :blink:
Bart said:
Almost forgot: that's a nice piece of equipment you've got. It allows pictures at much higher magnification than my stereoscope. I do think it is a bit more hassle to get a focused image.
Click to expand...
It seems to be a rather entry level lab equipment. It has "student" in the name even. :D The magnification is up to 1024x but you have to be very careful while fitting the razor between the support and the lens with this value. Getting the image focused isn't that difficult but the depth of field is so small that I can't get both bevel edges sharp at the same time. :D Lighting the scene enough with such mag is another issue.
Matt said:
That's the same what macro extension do, but our friend Maro wasn't satisfied with his results using macrophotography.
Click to expand...
I'd rather say I was lacking the expertise needed to get satisfying results. :rolleyes: And the only SLR camera I have is an analog one (Zenith brand, picture attached earlier in this thread), so all the hassle with film developer, fixative, darkroom, enlarger, etc. just to get the picture scanned doesn't pay off. I could put more effort on perfecting my photo-skills, use colour films and give them to the lab to be developed but that would cost me quite some money too. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top