Extension rings for macro

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
Outing Trolls is Unending! wrote:

relentless, and overwhelmingly blatant displays of ignorance and
stupidity,
again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again
and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again
and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again and again and again and again and again and again and again and
again
[...]
BOOM!

Heh ... another troll busted. Thar it blows! Call in a hazmat
cleanup team, the stuff is full of stupitrons and bogosity.

It's not "another troll," it's the same one. He's apparently changing his
name about every hour now.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:34:43 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote:


All of which is to say that microscope objectives can
indeed be used as a camera lens (for DSLR's, but P&S
cameras are simply not optimal for this use due to the
non-removable lens), but it is not just a case of
picking up whatever one can find and trying it.
Selection for the intended use is necessary.

So speaks a troll who's never done this. Regurgitating other troll's
nonsense.

Your existence is a waste of everyone's time.

.... wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:34:43 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote:

All of which is to say that microscope objectives can
indeed be used as a camera lens (for DSLR's, but P&S
cameras are simply not optimal for this use due to the
non-removable lens), but it is not just a case of
picking up whatever one can find and trying it.
Selection for the intended use is necessary.

So speaks a troll who's never done this.

I just explained that I did it yesterday and it worked. If you'd read my
links, they explained the corrective eyepiece approach. I still think I
was correct that the only reason to have that is because microscope
eyepiece threads are too small but the image projected can be much
larger. As you increase magnification, the image circle grows & grows,
right? Sure it's convenient to be able to look through the eyepiece like
a normal microscope the put on the camera to document but not optimal.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:28:39 -0700, Paul Furman
wrote:

I still think I
was correct that the only reason to have that is because microscope
eyepiece threads are too small but the image projected can be much
larger.

"eyepiece threads"??!!??

NO microscope that I have ever used in my life has ever had a threaded
barrel on the eyepieces. (Unless you are counting the internal
aperture-stop positioning rings where measuring reticles are placed.) Not
even toy microscopes that I had when only a small child. Now I know you're
just making this all up as you go along.

Really, go take some Optics 101 courses or something. You're only making a
hopelessly pathetic fool of yourself. (As most of you do.)

Too bad you trolls haven't recognized your positions in life. I could have
shared and taught you SO much. Your major loss.

This is why I only accept apprentices in real life today. Rare is someone
who qualifies, indeed. Nobody on these newsgroups has appeared to be
deserving of what I know. And most certainly, nothing like you is deserving
of that knowledge and experience for free.

E.g. Dismantling and cleaning a 100x phase-contrast apochromatic
oil-immersion objective is a simple evening project. You'd be surprised how
many lenses, spacers, aperture stops, with required annular-stop are
contained in that tiny barrel. There's good reason that a decent objective
can cost $500 and more, small though it be.

Just to give you an example of the depths of my experience and know-how.

This is precisely why I know you are nothing but a DSLR-Troll and fool,
when you can so easily dismiss the superior photomicrography that can be
done with a P&S camera matched to the exit-pupil of a quality microscope.

You, sir, are a ****ING IDIOT.

small typo correction apochromatic = plan-apochromatic

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:28:39 -0700, Paul Furman
wrote:

I still think I
was correct that the only reason to have that is because microscope
eyepiece threads are too small but the image projected can be much
larger.

"eyepiece threads"??!!??

NO microscope that I have ever used in my life has ever had a threaded
barrel on the eyepieces. (Unless you are counting the internal
aperture-stop positioning rings where measuring reticles are placed.) Not
even toy microscopes that I had when only a small child. Now I know you're
just making this all up as you go along.

Really, go take some Optics 101 courses or something. You're only making a
hopelessly pathetic fool of yourself. (As most of you do.)

Too bad you trolls haven't recognized your positions in life. I could have
shared and taught you SO much. Your major loss.

This is why I only accept apprentices in real life today. Rare is someone
who qualifies, indeed. Nobody on these newsgroups has appeared to be
deserving of what I know. And most certainly, nothing like you is deserving
of that knowledge and experience for free.

E.g. Dismantling and cleaning a 100x phase-contrast plan-apochromatic
oil-immersion objective is a simple evening project. You'd be surprised how
many lenses, spacers, aperture stops, with required annular-stop are
contained in that tiny barrel. There's good reason that a decent objective
can cost $500 and more, small though it be.

Just to give you an example of the depths of my experience and know-how.

This is precisely why I know you are nothing but a DSLR-Troll and fool,
when you can so easily dismiss the superior photomicrography that can be
done with a P&S camera matched to the exit-pupil of a quality microscope.

You, sir, are a ****ING IDIOT.

.... wrote:
small typo correction apochromatic = plan-apochromatic

Paul Furman wrote:

I still think I
was correct that the only reason to have that is because microscope
eyepiece threads are too small but the image projected can be much
larger.

"eyepiece threads"??!!??

The opening when the eyepiece is removed, seems too small to project
onto a 35mm frame. Maybe not with more extension... that's what it looks
like in the first link I offered. I already said I haven't worked with a
microscope. I'm just getting into low power stuff though, so I'm
interested and learning about it.


NO microscope that I have ever used in my life has ever had a threaded
barrel on the eyepieces. (Unless you are counting the internal
aperture-stop positioning rings where measuring reticles are placed.) Not
even toy microscopes that I had when only a small child. Now I know you're
just making this all up as you go along.

snip

when you can so easily dismiss the superior photomicrography that can be
done with a P&S camera matched to the exit-pupil of a quality microscope.

Like I said, that's easy but not optimal or superior. It's never going
to be optimal to use a zoom lens designed for general photography in a
micro setup, that doesn't require any special knowledge to understand.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam