Nikon alphaphot or Olympus BHC

[Reza]

I would like to choose between

Nikon alphaphot: https://www.marktplaats.nl/a/audio-tv-e ... b9c5b7a618

and

Olympus BHC: https://www.marktplaats.nl/a/audio-tv-e ... b9c5b7a618

The Nikon is around 100 Euro cheaper.
My main concern is the ability to extend the microscope's features in the future. For example, the Nikon, while I like the the shape and look of it more, does not have phase contrast. Is it easy to find the phase contrast objectives with reasonable prices for this microscope? How about a filter wheel for phase contrast filters or adding a trinocular head later? I also feel the Nikon is smaller and more portable which is a positive feature. My search on ebay for find phase contrast objectives for Nikon was unsuccessful.

What would you choose? Is it possible to use the objective of other models of Nikon on alphaphot?

[PeteM]

Do you want to take pictures (digital, likely) at some point? If so, I'd want plan achromat lenses, a trinocular head, and the phase contrast objectives and phase condenser complete in a microscope for about that price. Adding those things later to the Nikon will be expensive.

I didn't look closely, but it appears the Nikon has regular achromat the Olympus the older short barrel achromat objectives. The Olympus, at least, has a trinocular head, a phase condenser, and (likely? hopefully?) a good set of the phase contrast lenses you want. It would be my choice if it's just between those two. It will cost you far more in time and money to add phase contrast and a trinocular head to the Nikon.

If you're actually spending 450 euros, I'd think there might be other and newer choices in that price range (Nikon Labophot, Olympus BH2, Zeiss Standard, Reichert MicroStar IV, etc.)?

If size is really an issue, we could discuss other options. However, a slightly heavier and larger microscope like the Olympus doesn't really take up much more space on a desk -- and the weight and stability is a plus for photography. It could be a bit harder from some people to lift, if that's the issue.

[Reza]

Do you want to take pictures (digital, likely) at some point? If so, I'd want plan achromat lenses, a trinocular head, and the phase contrast objectives and phase condenser complete in a microscope for about that price. Adding those things later to the Nikon will be expensive.

I didn't look closely, but it appears the Nikon has regular achromat the Olympus the older short barrel achromat objectives. The Olympus, at least, has a trinocular head, a phase condenser, and (likely? hopefully?) a good set of the phase contrast lenses you want. It would be my choice if it's just between those two. It will cost you far more in time and money to add phase contrast and a trinocular head to the Nikon.

If you're actually spending 450 euros, I'd think there might be other and newer choices in that price range (Nikon Labophot, Olympus BH2, Zeiss Standard, Reichert MicroStar IV, etc.)?

If size is really an issue, we could discuss other options. However, a slightly heavier and larger microscope like the Olympus doesn't really take up much more space on a desk -- and the weight and stability is a plus for photography. It could be a bit harder from some people to lift, if that's the issue.

I do want to take pictures, but at the moment I want to use my smartphone. Otherwise, it will cost more to buy a camera and the adapters. The size is not that of much of an issue.
I could not find Nikon Labophot on ebay (in Europe) with a price of ~450 Euro.

[PeteM]

Your smartphone, secured in a holder, should fit nicely on the Olympus BHC trinocular head. You may want to look for a photo eyepiece for it.

It's the better choice of the two if you want phase contrast. The Olympus "short barrel" objectives can be quite good despite their age and the microscope should be reliable and a pleasure to use if it has been well maintained.

A slightly more modern Olympus (BH2) will have long barrel objectives, a condenser with its own carrier, wider field optics, and (at least in the US) more options available for future upgrades. All that said, the BHC is a fine scope and you could even fit its trinocular head (though narrower field of view) if you ever upgrade to a BH2.

[Hobbyst46]

...How about a filter wheel for phase contrast filters or adding a trinocular head later?

Strictly speaking, the phase contrast condenser is not based on "filters" and does not contain filters. The optical elements within the phase condenser are phase annuli and an iris diaphragm. A phase contrast condenser can often be added to the microscope, and is installed in place of the simple Abbe condenser.
A filter wheel is a separate accessory, that does contain filters and can be installed next to the illumination lamp (if the stand includes this option). By rotating the wheel you choose a filter to isolate a wavelength of light (say green or blue light) from the illumination beam, or to attenuate the intensity of the light beam.
Phase contrast microscopy is often performed under green light, obtained with a single green filter next to the lamp, but a filter wheel is not essential for this purpose, and as far as I am aware, a green filter is not installed inside the phase contrast condenser but on top of the field diaphragm, or in the filter carrier beneath the condenser.

[Reza]

Your smartphone, secured in a holder, should fit nicely on the Olympus BHC trinocular head. You may want to look for a photo eyepiece for it.

It's the better choice of the two if you want phase contrast. The Olympus "short barrel" objectives can be quite good despite their age and the microscope should be reliable and a pleasure to use if it has been well maintained.

A slightly more modern Olympus (BH2) will have long barrel objectives, a condenser with its own carrier, wider field optics, and (at least in the US) more options available for future upgrades. All that said, the BHC is a fine scope and you could even fit its trinocular head (though narrower field of view) if you ever upgrade to a BH2.

Could you please explain what the differences between BHC, BH2, or CH2 models are? Other than the objective, what is different among them?
Can we use the objective of one model in another? For example, can we take out the short barrel of BHC and put a long barrel objective?

[PeteM]

[quote="PeteM" . . . Could you please explain what the differences between BHC, BH2, or CH2 models are? Other than the objective, what is different among them? Can we use the objective of one model in another? For example, can we take out the short barrel of BHC and put a long barrel objective?

The CH and CH2 were models meant for student use. The BH and BH2 models were models meant for professional use. A student use microscope will typically have achromat rather than plan achromat objectives and not quite so many features. While CH and CH2 microscopes are pretty nice, on the used market you can often find a better BH or BH2 for not much more money. The mechanical build quality is very good and Olympus microscopes from this era tend to have fewer mechanical problems (broken plastic focus and condeser gears) than Nikon.

BH and CH models are older. They use "short barrel" objectives, dimmer lamps, and have narrower fields of view through the objectives, heads, and correction eyepieces. The images should be good, just not quite as good as the BH2 and CH2.

Cost-wise if the BHC is what you feel comfortable spending and is fairly priced for your location, it will be a fine microscope. At around $525 dollar equivalent, it would be a bit over-priced here in the US; though your example looks complete and in good condition. That said, a US dealer in used microscopes (rather than the best eBay deal) would easily charge $500-600 for that microscope.

I believe there is enough stage movement to add long barrel objectives (and the corresponding correction eyepieces) later. At least on US eBay the cost of that could easily be half what you'd pay for a complete microscope and then you'd have the older lenses to sell.

If you spent the money to upgrade to DIN standard "long barrel" Olympus objectives, you'd get the slighter better image but not the wider field of view the Olympus SPlan lenses are capable of -- that's limited by the older trinocular head. Regular DPlan objectives will be OK with the BHC head. There also tend to be more objective options available in the "long barrel" objectives -- ones with irises for darkfield, plus fluorite and apo objectives for the ultimate in resolution. Most at a stiff price when you're buying one or two lenses at a time. The BH2 is likely the best selling professional microscope of all time, so there's lots of specialty equipment still available.

Compared to a BH2, your BHC lamp will be a 15 watt tungsten bulb rather than a 20 watt quart-halogen bulb that's almost 3 times brighter. The extra light comes in handy with some techniques and higher magnifications.

You won't be able to swap condensers so easily (darkfield? high numerical aperture?) and it will be harder to eventually play around with something like home brew DIC. This is because the BHC condenser is attached to the stage rather than having its own condenser carrier. That model (BHC as well as some BH2 models) also doesn't have removable nosepieces in case you want to easily try or use different objectives. So, if there's something like an Olympus BH2 series equipped as you wish it might be worth spending a little more now?

The BHC is a fine microscope and your example looks well equipped. If that's what's available at an affordable price, it could be a great way to begin -- and even for a lifetime of use.

It may be that eventually want to move up a step. At that point your best bet is probably to just buy a different microscope and sell the one you've been using rather than attempt the somewhat limited upgrades available (mainly objectives and the corresponding eyepieces required for them).