Which is best?
Which is best?
I’m a pathologist looking for a consultant grade microscope. Stuck between Nikon Ci L and Olympus BX43.Can I get some reviews and suggestions regarding the two? Thanks in advance.
Re: Which is best?
Both are outstanding scopes, so personal preference, price, and local support might dictate the choice. One assumes you're buying new?
A long time and microscope expert member here had a career in pathology and ended up an Olympus fan - and may add his experience. Only Olympus differentiation I'm aware of is that you can buy Olympus objectives with neutral density filters built in, so there is less need to adjust brightness as you're moving to different magnifications. Good for pathologists. Not as desirable an option for those wanting maximum light for photos. Wonderful scopes.
Nikon uses a different format objective design (15mm longer and larger 25mm vs. RMS threads). This give a bit more working distance under the objective. Ever so slightly (as in hard to tell the difference, beyond working distance) better optics IMO comparing plan achromat to plan achromat, plan fluor to plan fluor, plan apo to plan apo. The downside is Nikon customers are pretty much locked in to their system and prices are likely a bit higher; though this seems a case where the scope you have on day one may be the scope you're still using ten years later. Also wonderful scopes. I've never bought anything from either brand at new prices, so can't advise on prices. I'd suspect Nikon will be higher. If you do pick Nikon, buy the 20x Plan Apo used - there are spectacular deals on them (near $100) because a number were used in a now-surplus gene sequencer.
You'll likely want to step up to at least plan fluor objectives when comparing prices. Used versions of these scopes are sometimes available and could save you a ton of money - maybe get better objectives.
You'll want to personally check the ergonomics (ergo head wanted / needed)? And automation possibilities exist with both brands.
Another option to consider is a wide field head (around 26mm vs 22mm). I'd think that useful for quickly scanning slides? I don't have that option in my BX (it's available) but do have it in Nikon and Leica infinity scopes. After initially and briefly finding it too wide, I've come to prefer the spectacular wide field images. Combined with a 2x objective (and a condenser design that covers that and all the way up to 100x), you can see most of a specimen to begin.
A long time and microscope expert member here had a career in pathology and ended up an Olympus fan - and may add his experience. Only Olympus differentiation I'm aware of is that you can buy Olympus objectives with neutral density filters built in, so there is less need to adjust brightness as you're moving to different magnifications. Good for pathologists. Not as desirable an option for those wanting maximum light for photos. Wonderful scopes.
Nikon uses a different format objective design (15mm longer and larger 25mm vs. RMS threads). This give a bit more working distance under the objective. Ever so slightly (as in hard to tell the difference, beyond working distance) better optics IMO comparing plan achromat to plan achromat, plan fluor to plan fluor, plan apo to plan apo. The downside is Nikon customers are pretty much locked in to their system and prices are likely a bit higher; though this seems a case where the scope you have on day one may be the scope you're still using ten years later. Also wonderful scopes. I've never bought anything from either brand at new prices, so can't advise on prices. I'd suspect Nikon will be higher. If you do pick Nikon, buy the 20x Plan Apo used - there are spectacular deals on them (near $100) because a number were used in a now-surplus gene sequencer.
You'll likely want to step up to at least plan fluor objectives when comparing prices. Used versions of these scopes are sometimes available and could save you a ton of money - maybe get better objectives.
You'll want to personally check the ergonomics (ergo head wanted / needed)? And automation possibilities exist with both brands.
Another option to consider is a wide field head (around 26mm vs 22mm). I'd think that useful for quickly scanning slides? I don't have that option in my BX (it's available) but do have it in Nikon and Leica infinity scopes. After initially and briefly finding it too wide, I've come to prefer the spectacular wide field images. Combined with a 2x objective (and a condenser design that covers that and all the way up to 100x), you can see most of a specimen to begin.
-
apochronaut
- Posts: 6327
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am
Re: Which is best?
I'm guessing you are a student or recently graduated?
The optical qualities that the major microscope manufacturers offer are always pretty competetive, so if the priceing is more or less equal, I would give a nod to the Nikon in terms of the economics of your optical package, simply due to the current availability of those surplus 20X planapos that Pete mentioned. One of those could be added to your purchased scope, and save you possibly more than 2000.00. It would be a miracle if you were to find an equivalent Olympus objective to fit a BX 43 for that kind of money.
The optical qualities that the major microscope manufacturers offer are always pretty competetive, so if the priceing is more or less equal, I would give a nod to the Nikon in terms of the economics of your optical package, simply due to the current availability of those surplus 20X planapos that Pete mentioned. One of those could be added to your purchased scope, and save you possibly more than 2000.00. It would be a miracle if you were to find an equivalent Olympus objective to fit a BX 43 for that kind of money.
Re: Which is best?
Thanks for the inputs. That was really helpful. Yes, I’m a recently graduated pathologist. And planning to buy a new scope.