First microscope advice

[Aenima]

Hi again,

I recently posted in the introduction thread (newbie to it all) and received some great advice as well as warm welcome which was awesome


If it's ok I would like to try and expand on the post and get a little more insight?
Any feedback or assistance greatly appreciated.

Now I'm hoping to start my search (research also) buying my first microscope.

As I mentioned before the purpose will be slightly biased towards photography but by no means exclusively.

I'm still totally unfamiliar with a lot of the parts and methods involved in the hardware itself - for example which type of microscope would best suit a beginner and why.
They all seem to have different light sources and bi/tri noculars, different objectives and eyepieces. And some parts that I wouldn't know how to describe however I think that a lot of the details I'll happily take on face value - and the more in depth knowledge will no doubt build over time.
For now I just want to set my sights on a rough idea - maybe a few makes or models.

It was mentioned that often a second microscope was used fo prepare subjects and it might be very likely that I would end up needing two - which made me think that the low power stereo scope might actually be the better option for a first scope, also possibly working for photography as well. (I have been interested in macro for a while and thought this would be a logical step forward?)

As for make and model to aim for it was suggested I look at a Olympus BH2 (I think) - with a budget of under $500 I found one or two used on EBay, looked pretty good, although I wasn't sure which parts were important and which might have been not needed. Which were easy to use / replace / upgrade and which might be vital to have right from the start...

I was hoping to get advice or even post a link to a likely eBay listing to hear any comments regarding why it might be a good or bad choice. ?

Again any input greatly appreciated.

Jay

[Aenima]

Here was a olympus bh2 or very close, and was both affordable and in working order, as well as being in the UK.

I noticed it had no objectives, but they are the screw-in fitting and the guy said he might have the other parts in a separate listing, so its probably not a big deal to have no objectives with this model?

There is a more complete BH2 for a little more money, however ii think would be wise to check more closely that the additional parts were needed, and worth the extra in price - before buying


Thanks for looking

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Olympus-Micro ... 1#viTabs_0

[zzffnn]

Jay,

The scope you linked to reads CHK, which is not as good as a BH2. I don't know the exact difference or part compatibility, but I would go with the universally liked BH2 (which is said to be better than my Nikon Labophot/Optiphot).

The same seller has a BHTU, which is probably the best BH2 model (please double check on this, as I am not positive). But note that particular one has US plug.

No objective is fine, as 160TL optics can be exchanged easily. But better to buy as a whole package, as a higher total purchase amount may give you more room for bargaining.

I generally like to buy a complete scope, with trinocular head included, when photography is important. Shipping heavy scope parts, such as trino head, frame or stage, can cost a bit. Also a good trino is usually not cheap. Not to mention selling off your extra bino head will be a hassle. So buying major parts all at once should save you money/time in long run.

A low power stereo scope is not a good option for photography. Its aperture is too low for good images and angled eye tubes cannot do focus stacking well. Most use stereo scopes only for sample preparation, utilizing their long working distance.

I think you may like darkfield microscopy, since you like astrophotography. BH2 has a dovetail mount that can be DIY adapted to accept other brands of dedicated darkfield condenser. For darkfield, you also need at least one iris objective for NA of over 1.0. Keep that in mind, but no need to jump into it yet. As darkfield may cost at least $100 more (more likely $150 or more), in addition to hou brightfield set-up.

Phase contrast does not look photographically attractive to my eyes, but your eyes are what matters.

[Aenima]

Yes that's a good point I'm not sure what happened to my original link - I think it may be the one you mentioned if it was from the same seller. I've seen a few on EBay that I thought might be worth a second look and probably confused the two. ☺

So yeah good advice regarding the postage and having to sell off the parts.
The proper BH2 that the guy is selling, will having a US plug be a problem or do I just use a transformer and or Adapter?

Thanks for the reply btw

[Aenima]

One thing I am wondering is whether these Olympus BH2 have equivalents or similar scopes that will also be worth looking Into?
They seemed a bit scarce and I am curious if other makes or models would do similar things but be easier to find?

[Aenima]

i doubt just having a trinocular for a camera will automatically make it a good choice


I could be looking at terrible scopes and not know it, so this is a shot in the dark link, feel free to thumbs down,

Being abroad i'm not sure i'd want to buy from these - however, knowing if its a good scope or not, might help with future searches


thnx





http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/600x-Trinocul ... 2597335713

[Aenima]

This place looks good - mostly because its got ex-lab equipment, and is based (at least partly) in the UK.


The nikon look and sound good, but i only go by looks alone at the moment, until i can learn a bit more however I noticed the above mentioned Labophot - if that's said to be similar or at least roughly comparable it might worth looking at.

http://www.usedmicroscopes.co.uk/nikon.html

[mrsonchus]

This place looks good - mostly because its got ex-lab equipment, and is based (at least partly) in the UK.


The nikon look and sound good, but i only go by looks alone at the moment, until i can learn a bit more however I noticed the above mentioned Labophot - if that's said to be similar or at least roughly comparable it might worth looking at.

http://www.usedmicroscopes.co.uk/nikon.html

Hi, the link to the seller (in the UK) of used 'scopes is a good one. This company, 'Brunel Microscopes' supplied me with my very first 'proper' 'scope and subsequently my current Leitz Orthoplan, bought used from them for a very good price indeed.

This company is very good, very honest and reasonably priced. I buy many supplies from them regularly. I think you may give them a ring and try to speak to Alan, the owner, who is a very genuine and helpful fellow indeed.

If you see a used 'scope on their web-site that you like, give them a ring and discuss it a little with them. Technical queries are usually dealt with by Helen, but Alan is the best to speak to as he's the owner, a little hard to get hold of though - but worth it. If you have any problems with a 'scope from them they will definitely put things right for you.

Good luck.

My advice - buy a 'complete' trinocular 'scope - hunting for parts etc will just sap your enthusiasm when what you really want to do is 'get using the 'scope' and begin your adventures.

p.s. when you get your 'scope let me know and I'll send you a few of my Botanical slides to get you started - as a gift of course, from a fellow UK member!

[apochronaut]

John B's advice is good advice for your location and your situation, as you describe it. Have a look at some web pages that describe the parts of a compound microscope and the parts of a stereo microscope. The second is harder to find because many sites come up , selling parts( spares)
Here are a couple but there are others. You should have a look at a few to help fill in the gaps . You can check images for that too.
http://www.optimaxonline.com/newsdetails.php
http://www.microscopemaster.com/parts-o ... scope.html

As far as microscope models. There are many out there that will suffice and within any given price range, one is about as good as another. Each has weak points ; something you might discuss with the people at Brunel. good luck and be sure to let us know what you decide.

[75RR]

The nikon look and sound good, but i only go by looks alone at the moment, until i can learn a bit more :) however I noticed the above mentioned Labophot - if that's said to be similar or at least roughly comparable it might worth looking at.

I think the advice was don't go for a Labophot go for an Optiphot instead! ;) See quote below

There is specific features for each brand/model and I am only familiar with Nikon. From Nikon, I recommend Optiphot. Labophot has less expendability, so I won't recommend it.

Do remember to take shipping costs into account. Shipping from the USA for example can be expensive.

There are a couple of Zeiss Standards in the Brunel second hand microscope section that are worth a look.
Let me know if you want a rundown on them.

[zzffnn]

Jay,

Nikon Labophot is not as upgradable/expandable as Optiphot or BH2.

Optiphot uses the same nylon gear that tends to break, if abused, as Labophot. BH2 likely uses more durable parts.

However, I am happy with my Optiphot - I sold my Labophot off. Optiphot has removable nosepiece and allows you to quickly change objective sets, within seconds (that allows one scope to function as multiple ones - I have 5 dry/water objectives, 4 oil objectives and 5 phase contrast objectives on 3 different nosepieces and change between them quickly). Also changeable stage height for different length objectives or different illumination methods. Easy to take apart/DIY. Light source opening is big and can be easily changed to LED. Kholer field iris. Condenser mount has centering mechanism built it. All good points.

I think Olympus, Zeiss and Leitz all offer models that can compete with Nikon Optiphot head-to-head. All of them have models with quick change objective turret. I don't know if all offer adjustable stage height though.

Nikon Alphaphot is not as good as Labophot. Nikon Eclipse series are infinity scopes and won't work well with 160mm tube length optics.

[zzffnn]

i doubt just having a trinocular for a camera will automatically make it a good choice

I could be looking at terrible scopes and not know it, so this is a shot in the dark link, feel free to thumbs down,

Being abroad i'm not sure i'd want to buy from these - however, knowing if its a good scope or not, might help with future searches

thnx

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/600x-Trinocul ... 2597335713

That scope is mostly used for opaque subjects. But it lacks transmitted light and does not work very well for many biological subjects. Nikon Optiphot, for example, can offer most of those features/functions, only maybe lacking stage height slightly.

[Aenima]

Cool. Thanks guys great info.

I think it's worth waiting around for the right model to turn up in good condition from somewhere reputable like Brunel. I'm realising similar looking scopes might come up short when doing specific tasks.
So yeah will avoid trying to widen the search too much and look more at the Olympus and try and learn more about what makes it good.

Thanks for the advice and links above.

Much appreciated

[75RR]

So yeah will avoid trying to widen the search too much and look more at the Olympus and try and learn more about what makes it good

There is a lot to be said in favor of Olympus, particularly of the the BH2.
One of the most compelling arguments are the results Charles Krebs has achieved with one.
I think all microscopists who take photographs through the microscope aspire to produce something that is close to his amazing images.

This is his setup: http://www.krebsmicro.com/microsetup2/index.html

His site with links to galleries and some very useful articles: http://www.krebsmicro.com/

Links to Olympus manuals: http://www.alanwood.net/photography/oly ... loads.html

[zzffnn]

Links to Olympus manuals: http://www.alanwood.net/photography/oly ... loads.html

Alan Wood's web site with Olympus manuals and the kind Alan himself is another compelling reason to get a BH2. I did not find such a good resource for my Nikons. Not my LOMO either.

There is a guy or two who sell(s) microscope manuals on eBay. His collection seems to be good, though he charges accordingly :-p

I think Charles Krebs uses Nikon CF apo and achromat objectives, in addition to some Olympus ones and a few Zeiss, on his BH2. He also have a modern infinity DIC scope with compatible lenses.

[Aenima]

Thank you for the replies and links


Wow, that guys site has some great images!


I may be speaking prematurely here, but his setup looks - and sounds - complicated. Even after absorbing some of the terms and equipment basics, i'm thinking... 'i'm gonna struggle..." lol

I am worried you guys are overestimating my capabilities a little - i mean that lightheartedly of course, but still... ouch.

I know it's likely that my astrophotography setup might seem complicated to first time users, so i'm holding off on the panic for the moment and hoping a bit more reading might ease the confusion a little bit.

Having said that though my initial reaction is to ask 'is there a simpler way?' to begin with i kinda just want to attach an eyepiece or camera to the thing and not have to worry too much about the equipment and mechanics

I know after a while the science and tech will get easier, and stepping up the skill-level is going to be less scary, its just the first steps i'm worried about.

I'm guessing the eventual image quality - both in photos and visually - will decrease as the equipment gets simpler (and likely cheaper), its just the fear that i'd get the BH2 home and not be able to figure it out


PS. big apology for the questions and lack of familiarity hoping to get a better grip on the subject

[75RR]

You do not have to add any of the fancy and fun things to it at the beginning.
You don't even have to add a camera at first - just look thought it and learn to use it.
A camera only captures what you have managed to 'see' with the microscope.
Learning to use a microscope (any microscope) is a skill that takes time and practice.
Perhaps you should reread the article I linked to in your Introduce yourself post.

[Aenima]

You do not have to add any of the fancy and fun things to it at the beginning.
You don't even have to add a camera at first - just look thought it and learn to use it.
A camera only captures what you have managed to 'see' with the microscope.
Learning to use a microscope (any microscope) is a skill that takes time and practice.
Perhaps you should reread the article I linked to in your Introduce yourself post.

Good plan will do

Its a bigger subject than i realised at first - just trying to juggle the info and practical side - hopefully things will fall into place

[zzffnn]

Jay,

Stay with us for two years and it won't look complicated anymore.

At objective equal or more power than 20x NA 0.4, you have to have a way to reduce vibration. That requires a camera that introduces minimal vibration/very stable scope/table, using camera flash or both. That is why Charles uses camera flash tube there, in the bottom of his rig. Sometimes you can get around with long exposure, if your subject does not move.

With the top of his rig, it is mostly about reduction of vibration/stability, optical relay and preserving optical correction.

Not that my rig is anyway close to Charles' rig. But my rig is no less complicated optically (I use a prism cube to combine LED and camera flash, which waste about half of light). Mechanically, mine is easier to assemble as an amateur, but it takes up more space, is more fiddly and less efficient/elegant.

[Aenima]

thanks zzffnn -

I'm thinking despite not knowing the exact ins and outs i will still head toward getting the olympus, and worry about the fine details later

Regarding vibration i think some of that can be reduced at the camera end, avoiding mirror slap with DSLRs maybe by using a CCD with electronic shutter? I use a small sensor colour CCD that would otherwise be used on planets, or a large sensor CCD thats monochrome (filterwheel for colour) and is usually for faint deep sky stuff, this has a peltier cooling to help with noise.

I can imagine these to have a use somewhere in microscopy, but those can wait for later, i think initially a good ol' DSLR (maybe with mirror lock up, and live view being used) will be my best bet for starting.

Either way i appreciate the foresight from you guys about the kind of thing that would be suitable, and have faith in the olympus recommendation - and will lurk on ebay and the brunel site, and watch for one.

[zzffnn]

Jay,

I don't have experience with astronomy large sensor CCD. Very few microscopists use those - not sure why. Can you get multiple colors at the same time, using filters? If not, it may not be convenient to use for microscopy.

With a DSLR, vibration can also come from shutter vibration, in addition to mirror slap. I think member Rod settle down with Cannon 70D (or was it 700D)? You may want to search at photomacrography.net for silent (electronic) shutter DSLRs. On the micro four thirds side, I heard Panasonic GH4 or Olympus Pen F has electronic shutter.

[Aenima]

Yeah, i don't think there's a way to get immediate colour from the mono cams - usually ppl spend ages gathering the luminance, hi quality detail, then a short burst of filtered shots to blend into colour that will be layered in processing later.


I have a 1000D and a nikon d3100 at the moment (oh and an old 350D) so will probably start there.


I'm gonna have to work out a budget that will be realistic for me. I see a lot of expensive objectives and scopes and its a concern as to whether i can get something that won't end up too costly to expand or upgrade, as well as being affordable in itself.

It is probably a common question but i've not come across quite what i'm looking for. - ie. Which microscope is good quality but affordable? i might find that the ones i'm looking at are over my budget, or will be difficult to buy parts for for the same reason.

Whats a reasonable price for a used Olympus BH2 ? and what might be suitable second plan choice if this is too much?

Unfortunately while i want a good microscope, i need to bear in mind i'm on a budget :/

[zzffnn]

Jay,

Sometimes "good" or "reasonable" can be a very subjective term. For example, I personally value central resolution over contrast, sensor coverage or field flatness. As a result, with a tight budget, I would prefer vintage apochromatic objectives over modern achromatic objectives. But some people would prefer the other way around. So only you can decide.

If you are in USA, I would recommend American Optical (AO Spencer) microscopes, after BH2. Model 10, 20, 110 or 120, for exmaple, can sometimes be had for around $150 per complete scope. Those are mostly infinity scopes that take some knowledge to upgrade (sometimes more difficult than 160TL, but not always). Not sure about UK though - ask JB?

Prices on eBay are all over the place. I bought my first real scope, a complete Nikon Labophot 2 locally for $550. Not a bad deal. Then I bought a bare/partial but working Optiphot locally for $99, which I think is a better deal. Check your local university/hospital auctions, or contact your local eBay seller for in-person pick-up, sometimes good deals can be had that way.

Willingness to buy partial / broken microscope, then repair /upgrade them may save you some money, but only when parts are easily and cheaply available.

[75RR]

There are several forum members who own Olympus BH2 microscopes that will be able to give you a better idea of the cost. In the meantime, using the advanced search on ebay and ticking sold items gives you actual sale prices. The exception is when the seller accepts an offer - the only information then is the original asking price. (price has a line running through it)

https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw= ... Complete=1

As to camera vibration, there is no need to go out and buy a camera even if your camera vibrates a lot.
Mine, an Olympus E-p2 kicks like a mule - the solution is to isolate it from the microscope. That is one of the functions of the darkroom enlarger copyboard that Charles Krebs has his microscope sitting on in the article. I use a tripod, which is not as pretty, but also works well.

Do note that there are several models of Olympus BH2. I think the BHS is the most suitable one (better illumination) but you would do well to confirm that.

You might also place a Wanted ad in the Buying and Selling section of the forum - members sometimes have microscopes for sale.

[Aenima]

Awesome - more great info - thanks muchly

I actually saw some really nice images that were in black and white on the Krebsmicro page so it might be a possible use for my mono CCD.


I was considering the eBay listing of the BH2 that had the American plug (the transformers seem inexpensive) for 200 GBP this would need separate purchase of objectives - - I also found (I think it was the Quekett site, followed a link to a UK supplier site) an Olympus CH2 - although it sounds like it might be related to the CHK mentioned already as not as good. It's just these seem easier to get hold of with two I found in good condition for around 350 GBP in as many days. One is listed as unused with objectives and power supply.

Not sure the difference between the two, but I'm happy to bide more time if the differences are important.
There is another BH2 on eBay that has an auction style listing with a 385 GBP start - if it doesn't sell I might msg the guy with an offer. It has a more complete setup as well so could be a good option.

Once again many thanks for the input and advice - I feel a little less intimidated by the tech stuff knowing that I have these comments and advice to refer to.

[75RR]

The Olympus CH2 is less capable, more of a student scope.
Student scopes are less upgradable by design.
Remember that you have a link to all the Olympus manuals.

The key to getting a good price/deal on ebay is patience and knowledge.

Note: Unless one has some experience with microscopes, it is probably best to purchase your first one from an established dealer or a forum member.

Your first microscope does not have to be your last - there is a lot to be said for working up to your ideal microscope.

Place a Wanted ad in the forum - see what you are offered.

[billbillt]

"I actually saw some really nice images that were in black and white on the Krebsmicro page so it might be a possible use for my mono CCD."

Mono chrome photos are easily converted from color by most free photo editing programs...

BillT

[Aenima]

"I actually saw some really nice images that were in black and white on the Krebsmicro page so it might be a possible use for my mono CCD."

Mono chrome photos are easily converted from color by most free photo editing programs...

BillT

Thanks.
The mono idea was more for a camera with a mono sensor - they have much more sensitive chips and give full resolution images instead of the normal RGB that comes from a Bayer matrix that covers colour chips. Ie if you take a colour image and convert it to mono it won't be as sharp and you'll not get the same benefit as a true mono camera.
Also mono captures 3x more light due to using every pixel. It's just a hassle adding three extra shots through colour filters if you want a colour image. luckily i have either option, but the suggestion to convert colour images will be good to get an idea what things look like in B/W.

I was hoping to try the mono camera out with a microscope see how it performs.

[billbillt]

"I was hoping to try the mono camera out with a microscope see how it performs."

I enjoy mono photos myself.. I am sure your camera will do a wonderful job.. Looking forward to viewing them..

BillT

[Aenima]

Ahh cool. Sorry, I realised afterward, I hadn't been very clear with a lot of the posts in the thread and wasn't sure if we were on the same page.

As a noob I'll likely be sticking to the quick and simple approach to most things, including using a Colour camera. But I appreciate the suggestion of using software to convert - the photoshop tool that does this is pretty good - it lets you adjust each colours brightness afterwards to give a high level of control rather than just de-saturating it.