Microscopes
Anthony Barker
Hi All,
There's a high quality microscope on amazon (link) for $250 that normally would cost $1300. It has 2000x magnification, a usb camera, and a precisely adjustable mechanical stage. For an up-right microscope this looks ideal. It has every feature we would want--it's really powerful, it has a camera, and it's affordable. (This is definitely more powerful and higher quality than the microscopes at American Science and Surplus, for a similar price).
Gary expressed an interest in an inverted microscope. I would suggest this one. It's also sharply discounted from $4000 down to $185. It's not as powerful: 640x max, but would allow us to look at a different kind of sample than the upright would. It also has a camera and a precisely movable stage.
Please do some looking around and see if you can find something you like more, especially in the way of inverted microscopes. I'd like to see one we can afford that is a lot more powerful than 640x.
If we can agree on a microscope we like, I would like to take up a kickstarter collection to buy it. I would personally be willing to contribute $100 to either of these.
--Anthony Barker
P.S. There are also this one: its similar to the other upright scope but has a really nice trinocular optics system, $290. It seems to not include a camera though, so add $50 to that. I think this is my favorite.
Jim Lund
> would cost $1300. It has 2000x magnification, a usb camera, and a precisely
> adjustable mechanical stage. For an up-right microscope this looks ideal. It
> has every feature we would want--it's really powerful, it has a camera, and
> it's affordable. (This is definitely more powerful and higher quality than
> the microscopes at American Science and Surplus, for a similar price).
high quality optics. One thing that gets measured is resolving
power--how close can two spots be and still be made out as separate
spots. Cheap scopes have high mag but but give fuzzy images. So,
while the price is right and it looks good, can it give good images?
If not, can it be returned? Does anyone have a way to test the image
quality?
> Gary expressed an interest in an inverted microscope. I would suggest this
> one. It's also sharply discounted from $4000 down to $185. It's not as
> powerful: 640x max, but would allow us to look at a different kind of sample
> than the upright would. It also has a camera and a precisely movable stage.
priority feature. A high power objective can be added on later if
needed, the objectives screw on and have standard sizes. Same with
the eyepiece. Trinocular is nice--a camera can be hooked up and won't
be in the way. The cameras that mount to an eyepiece work but are a
pain to use.
A web cam (or high quality camera) can be set up with any scope
(easier if there is a camera port). The expensive part is the
mounting, but that's the sort of thing that can be DIY'ed.
Cheers,
Jim Lund
Molly Rossow
Some comments in-line.
> There's a high quality microscope on amazon (link) for $250 that normallyI'm not familiar with the brand, is anyone else? A good scope has
> would cost $1300. It has 2000x magnification, a usb camera, and a precisely
> adjustable mechanical stage. For an up-right microscope this looks ideal. It
> has every feature we would want--it's really powerful, it has a camera, and
> it's affordable. (This is definitely more powerful and higher quality than
> the microscopes at American Science and Surplus, for a similar price).
high quality optics. One thing that gets measured is resolving
power--how close can two spots be and still be made out as separate
spots. Cheap scopes have high mag but but give fuzzy images. So,
while the price is right and it looks good, can it give good images?
If not, can it be returned? Does anyone have a way to test the image
quality?
I also am not familiar with that brand but I work with microscopes a lot. Achromatic objectives are low-end objectives and will distort the image around the edges. I'd also like to know more about the camera. What software does it run and what image format can it use? I spend a lot of time dealing with inconvenient image formats from microscope software. If we do get one of these microscopes I can borrow a calibration slide to test it.
The link didn't work for me. I would suggest that max mag be a low
> Gary expressed an interest in an inverted microscope. I would suggest this
> one. It's also sharply discounted from $4000 down to $185. It's not as
> powerful: 640x max, but would allow us to look at a different kind of sample
> than the upright would. It also has a camera and a precisely movable stage.
priority feature. A high power objective can be added on later if
needed, the objectives screw on and have standard sizes. Same with
the eyepiece. Trinocular is nice--a camera can be hooked up and won't
be in the way. The cameras that mount to an eyepiece work but are a
pain to use.
Objective threading is not always interchangeable between brands. I wouldn't assume that a small company would have other options for us to buy.
That said, I'm not sure what a better option is in our price range. If we had a little more money I'd suggest something like a Nikon Eclipse TS100. It's a fairly simple microscope with high quality optics. I'll ask the Nikon rep I work with if he's seen any second hand ones for sale.
Molly
Anthony Barker
Thanks for bringing these up. These are really necessary questions to answer.
On Aug 28, 2012, at 7:00 PM, Jim Lund wrote:
>> There's a high quality microscope on amazon (link) for $250 that normally
>> would cost $1300. It has 2000x magnification, a usb camera, and a precisely
>> adjustable mechanical stage. For an up-right microscope this looks ideal. It
>> has every feature we would want--it's really powerful, it has a camera, and
>> it's affordable. (This is definitely more powerful and higher quality than
>> the microscopes at American Science and Surplus, for a similar price).
>
> I'm not familiar with the brand, is anyone else? A good scope has
> high quality optics. One thing that gets measured is resolving
> power--how close can two spots be and still be made out as separate
> spots. Cheap scopes have high mag but but give fuzzy images. So,
> while the price is right and it looks good, can it give good images?
> If not, can it be returned? Does anyone have a way to test the image
> quality?
>> Gary expressed an interest in an inverted microscope. I would suggest this
>> one. It's also sharply discounted from $4000 down to $185. It's not as
>> powerful: 640x max, but would allow us to look at a different kind of sample
>> than the upright would. It also has a camera and a precisely movable stage.
>
> The link didn't work for me.
> I would suggest that max mag be a lowpriority feature.
> needed, the objectives screw on and have standard sizes. Same with
> the eyepiece. Trinocular is nice--a camera can be hooked up and won't
> be in the way. The cameras that mount to an eyepiece work but are a
> pain to use.
> (easier if there is a camera port). The expensive part is the
> mounting, but that's the sort of thing that can be DIY'ed.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jim Lund
Steven Finkelman
Gerry
For the benefit of those who did not attend the September meeting, here are a few microscopy notes. We discussed microscopes some more, but came to no firm conclusions. Anthony asked me to recommend a purchase, but I am not sure I can because we don't have a consensus on what we want to do with it. As Steve noted above, we need to have a clear idea of what we want to do with a microscope before deciding what kind to buy. I have purchased several 'scopes over the years, but they were mostly geared towards cell culture, and I don't think we will be doing any of that in the near future. So I although I was initially inclined towards an inverted 'scope, I now think that an upright of some sort might be best.
Ideally, we should buy from one of the bigger name microscope companies, because they have wide selections of objectives and accessories that we can add on over time. Leica, Nikon, Zeiss, and maybe Olympus are big. Here are a few additional considerations:
Microscope body: Everyone seems to agree a trinoc would be best (pix or it didn't happen!). Should have a mechanical stage. Ability to upgrade for epifluorescence would be nice.
Light source and condenser: We should have the ability to put filters in the condenser (polarizer, etc). Phase contrast or Hoffman modulation would be needed in an inverted 'scope used for live cell viewing, but not a high priority for an upright in a non-cell-biology oriented environment. Looks like modern 'scopes use white light LEDs, which I think is great (wish I had it back in the day). If we end up with a halogen light source, we should get some neutral density filters or a bluing filter, if possible.
Objectives: Anthony has expressed an interest in very high power objectives (oil immersion?), while others have expressed interest in looking at protozoa which might not require anything higher than ~20x objectives. Since we may be buying a used 'scope, we will end up with whatever objectives the seller has installed, and then we can buy additional objectives if needed (hence the desirability of going with a big name brand).
- - - - - - -
Conclusions: Molly's suggestion of the Nikon Eclipse TS100-F is an excellent one if we are OK with an inverted scope. But it is likely to cost more than $3000 used (based on a quick glance at LabX.com, where a used TS100 is listed for $2900 without any objectives).
The OMAX microscope that Anthony pointed out elicited a negative reaction from me at first because I figured anything that calls itself a microscope but costs ~$280 must be a toy. But it does seem to have a lot of selling points. It has a mechanical stage, LED light (apparently, though not described in detail), and what looks like a green filter but unclear what other filters might be available. The selection of objectives is good when you take into account that you get two sets of eyepieces (10x & 20x), and it includes an oil immersion lens. Molly pointed out that the objectives are achromats, but apochromats, while more desirable, are pretty pricey. For $280 getting four achromats is not bad. Also, if you are willing to use monochromatic light (via the green filter), some of the disadvantage of the achromats goes away. There was a question about interchangeability of objectives. This 'scope uses DIN objectives, which should be interchangeable with other DIN manufacturers, though I have no experience with DINs.
The OMAX 'scope has a 14 day 100% money-back guarantee and a 5 year warranty. Not much information on the imaging software or formats (Molly was interested in this), and some of the buyers' comments suggest people had trouble getting the camera to work. But we have a lot of tech savvy people here who should be able to get this stuff to work. It apparently cannot be upgraded for epifluorescence.
I still think that for $280 this thing must be a toy or have crappy optics (the last microscope I bought cost $35,000 with all the bells and whistles), but maybe I'm wrong. We could try it for 14 days, and if it turns out to be a mistake in the long run, the $280 won't break us.
[btw: the AmScope 'scope that Anthony linked to in the original post is nearly identical to the OMAX, but with a halogen lamp and no camera.]
- - - - - - -
I wanted to toss out one more idea. We might also consider a dissecting microscope (or stereomicroscope, as it is often called). I bought one of these for surgery on mice and loved it. I imagine people assembling or taking apart small items would find it useful, as well as people inspecting items for damage, or looking at minerals or fossils. At the high end, there is a Nikon SMZ1000 Trinocular Zoom Stereomicroscope available on Ebay for $2245. Includes a plan apo objective and a JVC Video Camera is already installed. There are much cheaper ones if you go with minor brands like Celestron, AmScope, or OMAX.