Thread: A bit more about optics

So I've spent a couple of months for this.

Belomo, Schneider, Peak, Carton, Carson, Kenko, Panasonic...

Sorry, but I have no time to make fully eng version.
Only part about Carton
myabrasive.ru ... Carton
I think google translate would be good enought

Pics from loupes and oth.:
microscopes review and gallery
loupes review and gallery

Table of contents

Just wanna break a bit my stagnation.
Hope it helps someone.

I will be waiting for someone to make sense of this. It's too much for me to decipher. But I'd love to hear the outcome of the experiment.

There is no short result.
I'll try try, but it'll take time.

Gold hammer
If you want to select the only one parameter that will give you absolete result - there is no such a thing.

You can buy a glass microscope that would be worse than acrylyc one :
glass optic Carton M887, M889 vs acrylic Kenko Do-Nature (the same post - see pic desc -- or Kenko review)

You can buy expensive one that wouldn't be a good one for it's price - see Panasonic FF-394 100x and photo-primers there: it's price is about 190 USD for a new one (actually I bought it for ~15USD inc shipping --used one of course), but image quality just a bit better than Kenko have and there is no way it could be comparable with Peak pen 2001-100 or 2008-100.

And also Carton produce not only garbage like M887: model M783 just a bit more expensive but it's rather nice for it's price - see pics here.

Actually -- microscopes photoprimers album could be more usefull to see the difference.

Next sad truth fact is: there is no the only one right opinion. I like Belomo loupe - one friend of mine doesn't
Of course some constructive points still works(that Belomo better than a no-name "30x" "triplet" in sharpness, contrast, etc)
but he likes Peak Steinheil and obviosly Belomo can't stand any comparison face to face with it..

And the last thing: 100x could give less information than 30x - it's depends on optics quality.
Just try to compare
(stone is - silicon carbide with F230 grain size)
Panasonic FF-394 100x


Or Kenko Do-Nature STV120M 120x


vs Peak 2051-60 60x


or even 30-40x
(there is a bit different sharpening stone with participle size F220)

Mikko 30x


Carton M783 40x

Magnification


The next thing is magnification.
Bigger magnification is not always better.
Why?
Because:
brightness, fiels of view, вepth of field - all these things become worse.
Also it's easy to use 30x microscope but when you use a 100x microscope it's quite uneasy: magnification is bigger, details is bigger and hands trembling too.
So, actually 30x is enought for general sharpening control purpose.
If you want more details and better results - 50x is good (Peak 2008-50, Peak 2034-60, Peak 2034-40).
Experiments, some researches - it's better to think about the devices that display the picture on the screen. Like DinoLite
(Dino-Lite Premier AM4113ZT4) https://sunrisedino.com/index.php?ma...roducts_id=141
primers is here

Next to..:
Loupe or microscope,
you can't trust photo,
lead params,
loupe short review,
microscope short review.

I'm surprised at the amount of colour fringing/chromatic aberration in the Kenko example image. I think optics with good lens coatings are an aid in viewing the very edge of the blade.

Bob

Kenko doesn't have coating. And it's not a glass optic - acrylyc lenses.
Actually, chinese CN Scope (review) has coated glass lenses but it's still dark a bit. Darker than Mikko 30x (glass, no coating, a bit less magnification - just a bit).
And still uncomparable with peak 2008-50.

But _good_ lens coating definitely helps And a good optic with no CA(or very low) makes easier to view the edge.

Originally Posted by Botanic

Kenko doesn't have coating. And it's not a glass optic - acrylyc lenses.
Actually, chinese CN Scope (review) has coated glass lenses but it's still dark a bit. Darker than Mikko 30x (glass, no coating, a bit less magnification - just a bit).
And still uncomparable with peak 2008-50.

But _good_ lens coating definitely helps And a good optic with no CA(or very low) makes easier to view the edge.

Yup, the Kenko not having lens coatings would explain that. Using the right type of plastic in lens making is not necessarily a drawback consider some of the successful hybrid aspheric lenses that have been made. The "right" lens coatings should not necessarily make the lens any darker than a none coated lens if the right type of glass is used in the lens.

All in all a low powered loupe with the right type of glass in well ground lens elements with good lens coatings is about all you need for most honing purposes. Unfortunately the best of those are not inexpensive. You also get to the point of rapidly diminishing return on the money spent too as in if you can't see the difference in performance there is none and the extra cost is a waste.

Bob

Originally Posted by BobH

Using the right type of plastic in lens making is not necessarily a drawback consider some of the successful hybrid aspheric lenses that have been made.

yes. But I haven't met any good variants with PMMA optic if we are talknig about microscopes.
Kenko, Carson - it's just acceptable level, not more.
Noname chinese and near that(Kingmax, Bresser, ..) - are not better. Still sometimes acceptable (and also if you are a lucky one) but only for extra low money ways.

Loupes - that is another field.
Actually for 1000-2000 jis grit sharpening even chinese "30x" "triplet" with mud and pieces of paper in lences - is enought.
But if you want to save health of your eyes - it's better to think about something better, like Belomo.
And Eschenbach PMMA mobilux economy (official site)
Is near the same level.
For small details(<20mkm.), if you hate haziness and if you want to enjoy the process - Peak Steinheil would be better.
Schneider is the best but it's too expensive and it's overkill.
But if your sharpening frequency is about twice in a year and optic control takes about a couple of moments - it's not so important.

I have heard of lots of acquisition disorders: razors (RAD), soaps (SAD), hones (HAD), etc. but this is the first time I have known of people with MAD: Magnifier Acquisition Disorder. That might become the next big thing in straight razor shaving. The posts are quite interesting and informative.