Re: Question re Olympus Universal Condenser
- From: rene <renevanwezel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 18 Apr 2007 14:30:07 -0700
Dearest Herr Rohringer,
AADD?
I shouldn't really be answering, but as it seems you put a lot of
effort in replying, so let me be a good citizen and talk back. I gave
you two clear reasons of how an oil immersion objective behaves, or
indeed any immersion lens, when used without oil. From the condenser
point of view, imho the glare is more of a problem then the introduced
sferical abberation. Nevertheless, the effect in the whole is minimal,
but sure if you go to very critical side-by-side viewing you might see
this effect. I have tried to put this in perspective: slight
variations between coverglass/mounting medium thickness have far
greater effect on image quality, but very few people bother to take
that into account.
You showed us before an Ap image of yours made WITH immersed condenser
on your BX. So why can't you do this comparison yourself?
So if I have to answer again a question like this:
"Does this mean that for best results one should always oil the top
oil lens on
the Olympus universal condenser? "
I can only think of one straightforward answer: Obviously. But if you
would ask: Is it worth the trouble of oiling the condenser for nA<1? I
would say no, not for me, never seen the difference. In brightfield,
that is. But you might have to anyway, if the DIC system needs the top
lens oiled, even for nA<1.
R.v.W.
.
- References:
- Question re Olympus Universal Condenser
- From: NoSpam
- Re: Question re Olympus Universal Condenser
- From: rene
- Re: Question re Olympus Universal Condenser
- From: NoSpam
- Question re Olympus Universal Condenser
- Prev by Date: Re: Question re Olympus Universal Condenser
- Next by Date: Re: New microscope for DIC brightfield and darkfield imaging
- Previous by thread: Re: Question re Olympus Universal Condenser
- Next by thread: New stereo microscope
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|