no response

[MicroInspector]

Ugh I guess I must be boring no is replying to my
posts .
Am I boring you members here?

[rnabholz]

Hi Micro,

Speaking only for myself, I am sorry that I had not responded to your QX3 thread, but I had no experience with it to share.

With regard to the Microbe photos you posted, I am afraid that I couldn't make out what you were seeing, and so was waiting for a conversation to develop.

No slight intended, please tell us more about the QX3 and what you did with it back then. I would not be surprised to find out that you might be unique in having that experience.

Please keep posting.

Rod

[MicroInspector]

In the thread this PC microscope is great for veawing thing you can see though
Like thin slices of plant and other stuff and the is above lamp which you can vesw details of old coins
And spiecal rocks and crystals.
I still have the Qx3 microscope just need widows 95 to run it
Can still get the software download online
It was my 2 and great microscope
It has 3 or ,4 objective camreasvin it
It goes to 1200x
It is very cool microscope very useful

[MicroInspector]

Why isn't anyone online here?
Using a microscope no matter why type it is , is the most interesting
thing to use to see the real truth of nature.
Science is a wonderful hobby.
You don't have be college or university student or doctor to have
a microscope.
We all here have same interest and we all love microscopes.
This forum needs to be active more.

[Dale]

Ahhh, just the phase of the moon. Your post was read 47 times. I, for one, just spent half an
hour on Google images of the QX3. Never expected so much interesting stuff from a 10
year old usb webcam. Too bad it's not compatible with newer operating systems.
I don't know how many forums you have been in, but you will never see the typical
disgusting sarcastic profane accusations here.
Dale

[MicroInspector]

True but what is wrong going back to windows 95. To use it
I am going back to windowsc95 to use my PC. Microscope

[MicroInspector]

I posted some photos of rock moss
And none of you never replied to it
Is my post boring you?
I share my finds with you and none of you tried back

[billbillt]

I posted some photos of rock moss
And none of you never replied to it
Is my post boring you?
I share my finds with you and none of you tried back

First you may need to post a clickable link to your pics.. There is no link or pictures here in this thread.. Next you might get used to not everyone making a reply to everything you post!.. Everyone's interest is different..

With Respect,
BillT

[mrsonchus]

If I may add without incurring your wrath - your pictures of 'rock moss' are unrecognizable as anything - let alone 'rock moss' - what response were you expecting beyond 'what is it?'
We also really don't need to be told how interesting microscopy is - have you had a good look through the threads and posts here?

Give folk something tangible to comment upon and they will - be careful what you wish for however with pictures such as your 'rock moss' efforts....

[MicroInspector]

I guess I need to make attachments than
I am doing the best I can do

[zzffnn]

Sorry, I have to agree with Bill T and John B.

Your "rock moss" image needs more and better light to be recognizable. People did not want to say that to discourage you. But since you asked......

I suggest:

1) use your scope's light from below the condenser and make a thinner sample preparation by imaging only a think layer of sample (like scrapping off a thin layer);

Or

2) use two LEDs of 3w minimal, pointing down from above sample, at angle, with two LEDs placed at about opposing sides. Your cell phone LED flash is not enough, not even close in terms of light output.

Also, please read some books about how to use microscopes properly. From the past images that you posted, you could use some improvement.

[billbillt]

You might try scraping some of it onto a slide and try that..

BillT

[mrsonchus]

I guess I need to make attachments than
I am doing the best I can do

Hey Micro' - don't get discouraged - we ALL started the same way. The folk here have spent hours and days and months getting to the stages that they are at - you're capable of doing the same, you just need a little advice and some time my friend. Everyone here will for certain be willing to give you some good advice, based upon their own similar struggles and horrors-produced - we all have them!

Take heed of what folk advise you, check some of their posts to get an idea of their expertise if need-be, but don't whatever you do feel unwanted or ignored - nobody in this fine forum ever is - truly.

Let them help you, you'll be amazed at how you will progress if you do.

[MicroInspector]

OK, I guess next next time I buy a omax microscope camera
Not easy trying to get videos or photos with a smartphone.
Thanks for the advice,
I think my Qx3 is good for non thin spiecmens.

[billbillt]

I don't see it as a camera problem.. A lot of folks here take afocal pics that turn out well.. I see it as a lighting/focus problem... Also, just looking at a green rock is not very interesting... Maybe you can scrape off some of the algae and look at it under greater magnification.. That would provide more interesting detail..

The Best,
BillT

[mrsonchus]

Agree there, looks like a basic problem with technique for using the 'scope perhaps? Are you able to post a quick pic of your setup, namely your 'scope - It'll help a lot to try to get you up and running?

The basics that you need to start with are the 'scope, lit from below to shine light through the thin/transparent specimen that's on a slide in water perhaps, with a cover-slip over it - this will give you a chance at a start for gaining anything meaningful to look at.
I'd forget lighting from above with lights etc as this is much more difficult to get right when you first start-out. Peel off a thin piece of onion-skin, stain it with ink, Iodine, anything really that has colour, rinse excess colour away in water then place on a slide, in water, with coverslip over...

Your first job is to get any type of image and any type of picture of it - just your lowest-power objective, camera held steady and no more - this basic capability is essential, if you try to do more before being able to do this you will struggle..

I hope this helps a little.

It would help to see exactly what 'scope you have - it doesn't matter how good, of how basic it is - you need to learn how to get the best from it one step at a time.... I started with a toy 'scope that our Grandson now has (and of course never uses!)...

[billbillt]

Mrsonchus just gave you the best possible advice to get started with!..

BillT

[MicroInspector]

Which is better? Microscope camera orb a smartphone adopter?

[zzffnn]

Sample preparation and lighting is more important in your case.

But to answer your camera question:

1) smartphone camera / adapter will be cheaper and gives better image quality, dollar for dollar. If you already have a good smartphone camera, it will only cost you no more than $60 to buy an adapter. But it is more difficult to align and use.

2) microscope camera is more expensive but easier to use. Image quality is worse than smartphone, dollar for dollar.

[MicroInspector]

Than I get a smartphone adopter,
I still have my qx3 microscope
I just need to download windows 95 ,on my laptop

[mrsonchus]

I've tried to find a bit of info on your microscope - it seems to have it's own built-in camera with USB connection to laptop etc? Why do you need to use Windows 95 with this?

It looks a lot like this one (on UK e-bay but you'll of course have similar in the US) - you'd probably be better advised to buy a budget 'proper' 'scope that has glass objectives and no built-in camera to start you off.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Celestron-Amo ... 5731.m3795

Something like this, http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Microscope-Ph ... Sw2ENW7eVR

This is a 'drop-in eyepiece' camera that fits directly into the eyepiece-tube and can be controlled by an excellent free program called 'Toupview' - the camera is called 'Toupcam' and they are very good and a piece of cake to use, for the cost. I used the lowly 2mp version for all my pictures posted here in this forum - this with the nice starter-'scope would cost you as little as about £100-£150.... http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/5-MP-HD-USB-M ... SwqYBWnaEO

The 'scope you have is really a difficult type to get results from and basically impossible to progress with; if you can afford to, consider these basic models above. The link to the Toupcam is for a 5mp version, but I can tell you from experience (see my posts for examples) that the cheaper 2mp version is superb also.

[MicroInspector]

Because windows 7 and windows 10 is not compatible with qx3 microscope.
That the trouble with new O.S they take out the good stuff
And making the new is worthless to use.

[mrsonchus]

Because windows 7 and windows 10 is not compatible with qx3 microscope.
That the trouble with new O.S they take out the good stuff
And making the new is worthless to use.

Well, if you are determined to use Windows 95 and consider it superior to 7 or 10 you are in for disappointment I'm afraid to say.

[MicroInspector]

But they don't have it for windows 7
Every time they update this O.S. they ruien it.
Windows 7 and windows 10 you can't do much with it.
You can't run much on it .
The Qx3 microscope shows a lot indeoth details of spieceman
Coins rocks I sects it has a light top and bottom. Right the closest thing to my qx3 microscope
Is this app I use called microscope.
You find that in 1of my post.