Thinking of buying a microscope

Alphoid said:

I'm thinking of buying a trinocular stereo microscope. I'd like to look at interesting things and perhaps take a few photos with it.

Any advice on what to look for?

Click to expand...

I have had several zoom binocular microscopes and one Trinocular which is a Zeiss gem scope with a darkfield. It's quite good. I like the older Wild (Leica) better mainly because they come apart for transport in a backpack easily and because the optics are stunning. Accessories are readily available. You can usually find a nice one on eBay. I think the last one I had was a Wild M3 but if I was going to get another I would probably consider either an M3 or an M8.

Especially with older microscopes, the German optics would always be my choice.

This guy has a lot of Wild's: http://www.scopeshop.com/Itempage.asp?Stereo

Do you know how the German optics compare to something less expensive like AmScope? I've used AmScopes before, and they seemed very decent, but I haven't used the nicer Germans scopes.

16lbs on the M3 sounds nice. The AmScopes have a shipping weight of 65lbs (!!!).

There are a lot of different types of microscopes for different purposes. What do you want to look at, microorganisms, insects, rocks, etc.? If you think there's a lot to know about cameras, wait until you start looking into microscopes!

I have a binocular biological scope for examining protists. It uses Kohler illumination but I would sometimes prefer to have a dark field illuminator. I would avoid monocular scopes if you're going to spend much time looking at things with it. Monocular scopes can get tiring unless you wear an eye patch.

I also have a stereo surgical microscope for looking at larger things like insects, plants, etc. The magnification zooms from about 3X to 20X and the working distance is about 15" (long enough to let you get hands and surgical instruments under the scope. It's great for assembling electronics and removing splinters, as well as just for looking at things.

I have designed and 3D printed camera adapters for both scopes.

https://www.youmagine.com/designs/microscope-adapter-for-samsung-nx500-camera

https://www.youmagine.com/designs/microscope-adapter-for-droid-turbo-phone






I haven't used Amscope microscopes but I do have a pair of Amscope eyepieces that seem to perform much better than you'd expect based on their price (see third video, above).

There has been a fundamental change in scope design in the last 30 years. The objectives used to be designed for specific tube length between the objective and the eyepiece, 160 mm IRIC. That type design made it difficult to put things like filters, prisms, etc., between the eyepiece and the objective. More modern scopes use infinite plan optics- see http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/anatomy/infinityhome.html

Older scopes often lacked color correction in the objectives so they corrected CA errors in the eye pieces. If you get one of those scopes you will have to hunt for matching eye pieces. More modern scopes have color corrected objectives and will work with uncorrected eye pieces. Those older eyepieces will exhibit color fringing on modern scopes (see second and fourth videos, above).

Think about what you want to look at then do some studying before you buy anything. A lot of government auction sites have microscopes that are being sold by schools and universities for pennies on the dollar, often in excellent shape. Sometimes you can get a pallet load of them for a few hundred $.

Alphoid said:

Do you know how the German optics compare to something less expensive like AmScope? I've used AmScopes before, and they seemed very decent, but I haven't used the nicer Germans scopes.

16lbs on the M3 sounds nice. The AmScopes have a shipping weight of 65lbs (!!!).

Click to expand...

Yes, the size and weight is one of the advantages to Wild microscopes. I used to go back and forth to Thailand to buy gems and my Wild microscope broke down into three pieces in a couple of minutes allowing me to could carry it in a backpack which would be impossible with other microscopes of similar quality.

I'm not an expert on microscopes but in my limited experience the German optics have consistently been superior to other optics.

I think the Wild microscopes represent an excellent balance between physical size, optic quality, and used market accessory availability. The latter item may become very important as you needs evolve.

The AmScope actually have extremely good accessories (and pricing for them). I'm looking at:

http://www.amscope.com/3-5x-180x-boom-stand-trinocular-zoom-stereo-microscope-54-led-light.html

3.5x-180x magnification (10x/20x eyepiece, 0.5x/2x Barlow lens, 0.7x-4.5x zoom), trinocular, built-in light, 8" working distance. Nice boom stand. $480. Another hundred bucks gets you a camera mount.

I'm also looking at the Wild M3, which seems to be $1400-$2100 used on eBay, depending on options, and on those models without a dedicated camera mount.

The AmScope isn't well spec'ed (no number on resolution, aperture, etc.), while the German companies give very nice data sheets. On the other hand, buying used, it's not always possible to know what exactly you're getting.

I do wish there were some way to play with them somewhere.

Alphoid said:

Do you know how the German optics compare to something less expensive like AmScope? I've used AmScopes before, and they seemed very decent, but I haven't used the nicer Germans scopes.

Click to expand...

I use an AmScope SM-2TZ with a Nikon V1 and 1x relay lens. Quite honestly, the optics are "meh," but certainly good enough for my own amateur use.


Stamen Cluster of a Camilla

It's a bit challenging to use the setup, because everything moves. At least on the model I own, you have to switch between using the left "eye" tube and the "camera" tube. The focus you see in the right tube changes from that the camera sees, so I use the screen image on the V1 to focus. But when you zoom or focus, I find myself having to correct the focus with some regularity.

Given that a Nikon SMZ745T starts at over $2600 and a Zeiss scope can easily cost double that, it shouldn't come as a real shock that the Amscope isn't in the same league optically.

--
Such commentary has become ubiquitous on the Internet and is widely perceived to carry no indicium of reliability and little weight. (Digital Media News v. Escape Media Group, May 2014).

Interesting. Is that a crop or a resize? That is pretty mediocre resolution if a resize. Probably adequate, but enough to give me pause. That's pretty good for a crop, and more than good enough for what I would want.

Do keep in mind I wouldn't be looking at a modern Nikon or Zeiss but a used eBay model from likely a few decades back, so it's not quite apples-to-apples comparison either price-wise or optics-wise to a modern unit. I can get a used Nikon scope for around $300. Used Zeiss is around $1400-$2100. The Nikon or Zeiss also wouldn't be trinocular, and you lose quite a bit adapting to an eyepiece, both optically and in terms of convenience.

Alphoid said:

Interesting. Is that a crop or a resize? That is pretty mediocre resolution if a resize. Probably adequate, but enough to give me pause. That's pretty good for a crop, and more than good enough for what I would want.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's a resize. This one is slightly better and also a resize:



--

Such commentary has become ubiquitous on the Internet and is widely perceived to carry no indicium of reliability and little weight. (Digital Media News v. Escape Media Group, May 2014).

That's pretty lousy. I'm reading reports, and with the compound microscopes, a lot of them blame it on the mount adapter: http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22597&highlight=



I've now seen quite a few very nice photos with standard camera lens+normal eyepiece.

Given the Nikon/Zeiss scopes I was looking at don't have a camera port at all, this seems like a good option. I have a 100mm macro lens, which seems like the right thing, and it'd just need an appropriate adapter.

Alphoid said:

That's pretty lousy. I'm reading reports, and with the compound microscopes, a lot of them blame it on the mount adapter:

Click to expand...

Could very well be. I'm using a generic 1x Relay lens purchased on eBay. The problem, of course, is that some of the better adapters cost as much as the microscope!

I'll give my 105mm VR a go through the eyepiece this weekend.

Would you mind posting photos here once you take them? I'm in no particular rush.

I've used the Wild M3 professionally and in my opinion it's an excellent microscope. I've recently replaced it with a Nikon SMZ1500 (not for any reason that had anything to do with the M3's performance), but the latter is much larger, much heavier, and much more expensive.

Alphoid said:

Would you mind posting photos here once you take them? I'm in no particular rush.

Click to expand...

Well, that was a lot of unpleasant work for not much of a result.

The first issue one faces is ensuring that the camera is at the correct angle and square to the eyepiece. I did that first. I then prefocused the microscope using the right eyepiece. The next step was to stage the camera above the microscope and slowly lower it into position by using the center post of my tripod. I know center tripod posts are evil, but since everything moves focus this microscope, good luck trying this any other way. Unfortunately, I forgot to take into account that the 105mm VR would give a different field of view than I'd see with my eye. So zoom out, lather, rinse and repeat.



After all that, the best I could do is below (again, scaled to 50%):



That's not horrible for small prints, but in my opinion it's not a significant improvement over the V1. I doubt I'll go to the extra effort again.

--
Such commentary has become ubiquitous on the Internet and is widely perceived to carry no indicium of reliability and little weight. (Digital Media News v. Escape Media Group, May 2014).

Well, one additional result is my gratitude. Thank you very much for taking the effort. That will help guide my purchasing decision.

But I agree; it didn't seem like an improvement. Although part of the issue seems to be tilt and alignment. But the V1 seems better overall.

I'm still leaning towards the AmScope, just on price. Used nicer scope would be better, but they're about double the price. I am concerned about this comment: "but since everything moves focus this microscope." Is it really that finicky? I hate finicky tools. We had one at a previous job, and it seemed pretty robust, actually.

Alphoid said:

I'm still leaning towards the AmScope, just on price. Used nicer scope would be better, but they're about double the price. I am concerned about this comment: "but since everything moves [when you] focus this microscope." Is it really that finicky? I hate finicky tools. We had one at a previous job, and it seemed pretty robust, actually.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the bad grammar. I'm so bad at proof reading my own stuff I married an editor. With my scope, you adjust the focus by moving the head up and down while the target stays where it is. Since the ring light is attached to the head, it also moves. Physically, it's reasonably robust, but optically, it's a case of you get what you pay for.

One Christmas, said editor decided to buy me a microscope for Christmas, but it was a high-powered model. I swapped it for the low-power model I'm using now. It's certainly good enough to grade coins, detect varieties, and to determine if a coin has been cleaned or "doctored," which is what I primarily use it for.

Should you decide to buy one, and get better results than I do, please post them here and let me in on the secret!

--
Such commentary has become ubiquitous on the Internet and is widely perceived to carry no indicium of reliability and little weight. (Digital Media News v. Escape Media Group, May 2014).

I ordered an AmScope. The Wild looked nice, but:

• Even used was significantly more expensive.
• I looked at photos taken with a Wild, and they looked substantially worse than the AmScope, actually. The Wild was very good at the center, and less so away from the center. That's not a showstopper using it visually, but it is limiting for photography
• The AmScope was more spec'ed. Used Wilds generally were not. With most of the eBay listings, I don't know what I'm getting in terms of configuration.
• The AmScope has a (mediocre) trinocular port
• The AmScope goes all the way to 180x. That's not essential, but it is kind of neat.
• With a normal stand, the AmScope is about 20lbs. That's a little more than the Wild, but not a lot more
• The AmScope has more working distance
• The AmScope has tons of accessories. On Amazon. On my doorstep the next day from when I need one.

In favor of a Wild:

• Definitely better build quality. The Wild will last a lifetime.
• Possibly better optics. But that also depends on the model and condition. For example, Wilds have APO and non-APO versions, etc. Getting ones with known-good optics is difficult; most listing aren't very complete, but the good ones are supposed to be very good.
• If you can find a fully spec'ed listing, you have dull specs from the manufacturer. There are beautiful docs telling you everything you might want to know about every configuration. AmScope doesn't even tell you aperture (by any measure). But again, that presumes listing have that kind of information; most don't even mention what eyepiece you're getting (or if you're getting one at all; a few were visibly incomplete scopes)
• 14lbs instead of 20lbs

If they were the same price, I'd probably get a Wild. But they're not.

I ordered one on a normal stand. The massive weight was from the type of stand I wanted, as it turned out. It has an arm, and a massive weight. I like the arm, but I'd rather not have the massive weight.

I'll see how it turns out. If it's okay, I'll keep it. If not, who knows? I'll need to decide whether to drop a few grand on a nice new scope, but a used Wild, or something else.

Michael Benveniste said:

Alphoid said:

Do you know how the German optics compare to something less expensive like AmScope? I've used AmScopes before, and they seemed very decent, but I haven't used the nicer Germans scopes.

Click to expand...

I use an AmScope SM-2TZ with a Nikon V1 and 1x relay lens. Quite honestly, the optics are "meh," but certainly good enough for my own amateur use.


Stamen Cluster of a Camilla

It's a bit challenging to use the setup, because everything moves. At least on the model I own, you have to switch between using the left "eye" tube and the "camera" tube. The focus you see in the right tube changes from that the camera sees, so I use the screen image on the V1 to focus. But when you zoom or focus, I find myself having to correct the focus with some regularity.

Given that a Nikon SMZ745T starts at over $2600 and a Zeiss scope can easily cost double that, it shouldn't come as a real shock that the Amscope isn't in the same league optically.

--
Such commentary has become ubiquitous on the Internet and is widely perceived to carry no indicium of reliability and little weight. (Digital Media News v. Escape Media Group, May 2014).

Click to expand...

I tried to improved you image using Piccure+ but the image I could download wasn't quite as good as working with the original. There is some amount of movement going on which I can see near the top. I allowed Piccure+ to try to correct the motion, but its motion correction is designed to work with camera jiggling, not parts of the image moving and it couldn't help that much. But I can see some improvement of the sharpness near the top.

I am thinking this image is not doing the microscope justice. It looks soft, but some of the softness is coming from movement. It would be interesting to see the results using a faster shutter speed, or a more stable object. I have been wondering how good the AmScopes are. I see them on eBay and Amazon.

I also think that many objects could benefit from focus stacking and to combine with SW such as Helicon. But that would work for something moving.

Which model AmScope are you using? They have so many.

Just as a matter of interest, which model Amscope did you order ?

http://www.amscope.com/led-trinocular-zoom-stereo-microscope-3-5x-180x.html

... And looking at the link, it turns out I overpaid for it. The 3.5x-90x + 20x eyepiece cost less. And I could buy a better eyepiece that way. Oh well.