New microscope person from Berkeley, CA, USA

[CaterpillarGuy]

Hello everyone, I joined hoping to get help in deciding what sort of digital scope to buy to take pics of parts of (living, mostly) caterpillars, butterflies, and their eggs. The main decision is whether to get a trinocular dissecting scope (and if so, what's good for home use) or one of those little Dino USB thingies, some of which can cost more than a dissecting scope!

I have a long history of messing with various scopes, but have not done much for a few decades. 1st was my dad's med-school compound scope which I was introduced to at age 6-7 at home, a so-so old Bausch & Lomb thing. I still have it, but the optical quality is really not very good and I can't easily shoot pics with it. Then bio major in college and taking pics through a compound scope w/ a polaroid camera of onion root tips (mitosis was the main attraction) and the like in a cytology course which got me sort of hooked on snapping pics of the micro world, then a class in transmission electron microscopy (TEM) which REALLY got me hooked and got me into grad school looking at phloem tissue in various plants, then an actual TEM tech job in an eye-pathology lab looking mainly at diseased corneal tissues. After 3 years of doing tedious tissue fixations with extremely nasty fixatives and spending hours and hours in the dark using the scope and making prints from plates, I quit the job and went off in another direction that didn't involve microscopes at all.

Now, 35 years later, I am wanting to take pics of parts of caterpillars, so any advice would be appreciated.

So far, I have been using the macro mode of my Canon Powershot SX 260 camera, but I can't get as much magnification as I need and focusing can be a serious hassle. I have also been using my MS Lifecam 5000 webcam, which, in manual-focus mode, is surprisingly good and allows both vids and snapshots to be very easily taken; but again, limited magnification.

So, what's best for 10-150x or so --- dissecting scope or a USB hand-held "digital microscope"? I do have a "Digital Blue" digital scope that I bought many years ago, but it is really a kiddie toy...junk quality.

Thanks.

[75RR]

Welcome.

So, what's best for 10-150x or so --- dissecting scope or a USB hand-held "digital microscope"?

There is a third way:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=8247

[CaterpillarGuy]

Wow!! That's some setup, but far beyond my need or capabilities or budget, I'm afraid.

[75RR]

Wow!! That's some setup, but far beyond my need or capabilities or budget, I'm afraid.

Pity. That arrangement is a particularly fancy one, I showed it because it has a parts labeled diagram which is useful.
Something to keep in mind if you ever come across a cheap DSLR. Main components are Camera, Bellows, RMS adapter, Objective and a Focusing Stage.

If I may again add to your either or question for the moment, a regular compound microscope with either 4x, 5x 6x or 8x oculars and a 2.5x and 4x objective will give you some pretty useful low total magnifications. I feel a trinocular is a must for photography. You can put any camera on it. There are some excellent "old" brands such as AO (American Optical) that are very reasonably priced and for which there are many "upgrades" available.

To go back to your either or question, I would go with a dissecting scope/Stereo Microscope.

Having said that, with your background, all this is old news.

[gekko]

Welcome to the forum! I would agree with a trinocular dissecting/stereo microscope (trinocular makes taking pictures much more practical, I think); from what I understand, Amscope appear to have a good reputation.

[apochronaut]

Welcome aboard. You should have a lot of fun doing what you are planning. Part of the fun is just figuring things out.

In specifying a 10-150x magnification range, you kind of have your foot in both camps; stereoscopic and compound. Generally speaking, stereo microscopes that are within the budget of most average people, have a magnification limit of about 60X. Above that, illumination and collimation become increasingly important and most microscopes that can rise above 60 x with a quality image are either older excellent ones( Wild M 5, Bausch & Lomb stereozoom 7, or AO Stereostar 580), or much more expensive new ones. The Bausch & Lomb stereozoom 7 on an R( research) stand with a 2X auxilliary lens can reach 140X but you need very high illumination . Typically optic fibre illuminators were used. Nevertheless, instruments of this calibre can be found for surprisingly little. B & L also had collimating eyepieces for those. Everyone's eyes are a little different , so at high magnifications a little tweaking with those oculars and each user could adjust them perfectly. The Wild M 5 scopes ,which still sit at a higher price than B & L and AO, don't have the zoom feature and are more limited in magnification but the resolution is considered to be superior.
It does sound like you are mostly interested in thick specimens, so transmitted light microscopy does not sound like it is for you. Additional to the above stereoscopes( all of which can have a trinocular head), there are a number of older epi illuminated microscopes out there on the used market, that have magnification capability between 25 and 1000X, sometimes lower.These are all excellent microscopes and you would have to pay a lot( well over 2,000.00) to get their equal in a new scope. They usually have objectives in the 1X to 50X range, sometimes higher. A couple of models you see around at good prices are the Bausch & Lomb Balplan, which did have objectives up to an 80X .90 fluorite for epi ( illuminated down through the objective), the AO 2560 Epistar, which had a 100X .90 planachro and the B & L Microzoom Industrial microscope. The Microzoom has the capability to be positioned horizontally or vertically and had a specialized set of industrial planachromats from 1 to 50X. Most of all of the above I have seen have trinocular heads and they usually go in the under 500.00 range, used. There is no where near the interest in incident high magnification microscopes that there is in diascopic( transmitted light) microscopes, so when a company moves to a newer model( most of these are used in electronics), for a 1 % increase in performance, they go very cheaply on the second hand market.

Adding a camera to these , of course changes the overall magnification factor but with stereo microscopes, you are usually working with objective magnifications of about .7 to 7 or thereabouts and with epi or industrial microscopes the range is 1 to 150X, although few instruments have the entire range of capability built in.

good luck.

[CaterpillarGuy]

Apochronaut, lots to chew on there--thanks very much for your detailed comment; it's much appreciated. I do only have an interest in thick specimens for now, and ease of taking digital pics/vids is central. So other than the "USB scope" (e.g., http://www.amscope.com/stereo-microscop ... copes.html which provide 100x or more), the choice pretty much seems to be a trinocular stereo scope. Magnification up to 45-60x is probably going to be adequate most of the time.

75RR, please don't assume I know much. My background has been very specialized and most of it not in light microscopy. I am leaning toward a trinocular dissecting scope, but I also like the idea of 'bringing the scope to the specimen', which is allowed by the USB scopes. What I don't know is how much hype there is in the descriptions of the USB scopes. And is the high magnification (>100x) really useful, or are there frustrating illumination and motion/vibration limitations?

Gekko, I have been looking at this one http://www.amscope.com/3-5x-90x-stereo- ... amera.html as the sale price seems low for the features and even includes what I hope would be a passable digital camera. These have to be made in China, no?

And are the present-day Steindorff scopes http://microscopeinternational.com/stei ... microscope made in China?

[apochronaut]

By thick specimens, I meant things like caterpillars , insects etc. To use a transmitted light microscope, the specimen needs to be very thin , and usually between a slide and coverslip, otherwise the light cannot pass through it.

The Amscope you linked to , looks to be a good microscope, especially for the asking price of under 500.00 and they are made in China. Any microscope sold brand new, in todays market for less than 2000.00 , will be Chinese or Indian or from Singapore or assembled from mostly components made in one of those countries. Steindorff ceased production sometime around the late 80's I believe, and the name was sold.

The usefull magnification range of the Amscope will be somewhat less than the claim, depending on your standards. Typically, accurate collimation and contrast become difficult above 60X and for about 60 years now , oriental entry level microscopes and telescopes have been exaggerating magnification claims.The magnification is there alright but only about half , is useful. Although, Chinese optics are fairly good; they are no better than the optics that were available from the major companies 30 years ago. One element of them that often suffers , is mechanical precision. I have a brand new 60X .80 planachro infinity corrected objective from China, sitting right beside me right now. In all ways it is adequate, except that when I bring it around on the nosepiece, the detail it is supposed to be pointing at is outside the field.. The parcentering is terrible.
That said, the Amscope looks promising. I would see if you can give one a test drive?

[JimT]

Amscope scopes are manufactured in China. Don't know about the subject Steindorff scope but I would guess also China.

[Charles]

To expound on what APO said, the actual magnification on both the Amscope and Steindorff is 0.7-45X and the magnification is being increased by either a 20X eye piece (Steindorff) or by a 2X Barlow lens (Amscope). So you may be getting double the magnification but not necessarily increased resolution.

Compound microscopes shouldn't be dismissed because you can get them with epi/incidental lighting (top lighting) or both epi and transmitted with objectives from 1X - 100X, giving you both low magnification (with 1 - 10X objectives with 10x eyepieces) giving you 10x-100X and higher magnifications up to 1000X with 16X - 100X objectives and 10X eyepieces.

But, IMO, ideally, you would have a nice Stereo scope for large item viewing and a nice Compound scope for finer detail viewing.

[CaterpillarGuy]

Do Chinese-made scopes have the same wide variation in quality that Chinese tools have (which vary from garbage to rather good)? Some of the scopes on ebay are astoundingly cheap: http://www.ebay.com/itm/2000X-LED-Lab-T ... 0757711482

Apo, good info on pricing and on useful magnification on these scopes--thanks.

>The parcentering is terrible.

Did you consider sending it back for a replacement? It'd be interesting to have 10 of them and see what sort of variation there is. Perhaps you have an outlier and bad luck, or maybe they're all over the map.

Re Amway scopes, a test-drive would be preferable but this is a disadvantage of the on-line world. And if I could find an actual store and do a test-drive, they'd prob. charge an extra $150 and I'd have to deal with guilt in running back home to buy the scope on-line. Life is tough.

[CaterpillarGuy]

Charles, what I like about stereo scopes (vs. compound) is the large distance between specimen and lens giving plenty of room to examine relatively large objects. Can an epi scope be used in the same way--either draw the stage far down or swing it out of the way, and do the low-power objectives then work more or less like a dissecting scope's? I would like to have both, but I am more inclined, if two scopes can be included in the budget, to also get a USB scope which is very flexible in how it can be used.

[Charles]

You are right. You will get a greater working distance with the stereo scope and it is the best for dissection. But as your magnification increases so will your working distance, even on a stereo scope.

[apochronaut]

Do Chinese-made scopes have the same wide variation in quality that Chinese tools have (which vary from garbage to rather good)? Some of the scopes on ebay are astoundingly cheap: http://www.ebay.com/itm/2000X-LED-Lab-T ... 0757711482

Apo, good info on pricing and on useful magnification on these scopes--thanks.

>The parcentering is terrible.

Did you consider sending it back for a replacement? It'd be interesting to have 10 of them and see what sort of variation there is. Perhaps you have an outlier and bad luck, or maybe they're all over the map.

Re Amway scopes, a test-drive would be preferable but this is a disadvantage of the on-line world. And if I could find an actual store and do a test-drive, they'd prob. charge an extra $150 and I'd have to deal with guilt in running back home to buy the scope on-line. Life is tough.

The objective , of course , can be returned. This is a new microscope objective ,and it is an example of a higher end version of what they make. This objective is here as a commercial sample for evaluation but the very fact that it arrived out of alignment and the sender clearly was completely oblivious to that fact, speaks volumes about the way things work over there. The two partners in the production of these instruments and in fact many Chinese products : design and manufacture are possibly not even in the same building. It's cookie cutter production.

The design, which in the case of this objective ,appears to likely have been purchased in a Leica selloff of obsolete designs, is placed into a production implementation. The location of the production is determined by it's efficiency within the planned economy. The product is produced and assembled in as efficient a way as possible and based on the precision of the manufacturing will work properly or not properly. This is where the system breaks down because the quality control is being left up to the dealer. This type of objective contains parcentering screws, which should be set at the factory and then checked for accuracy. Clearly, they are being set at the factory with a normalized or average setting but not being checked subsequently.The original maker of this design would have then sent the objective for adjustment and then it would further have to pass Q.C. These steps have been eliminated to cut production costs down in China and such work is being passed on to the cut rate dealer, who has figured out that the percentage of failures is low enough, the cost of the product is low enough, the chance of a returned product is low enough and more to the point ; that the original chance of a subsequent sale and therefore the chance of offending a potential loyal customer is low enough, that quality variances of this type are perfectly tolerable within their D.T.D. ( delivery to dumpster) business model.
If they can send out a seriously decentered objective, then what else in such complicated instruments will be out of whack or not last very long?

Regarding your question about working distance. Working distance is based on the N.A. of the objective. Stereo microscopes ,usually do not have the N.A. on the objectives, because for average lower power models it isn't a factor . The objective N.A. of stereos is quite low, so there is usually lots of room to handle large samples and as Charles has pointed out , once the magnification creeps up the working distance diminishes, irregardless of the type of microscope . However, long working distance objectives of all magnifications have been made by the better companies, and for almost any model instrument. They show up from time to time and usually sell at modest prices. This is one of the benefits of seeking out quality used equipment ; an array of modifications are available , which can tailor make your instrument and dovetail it to your needs and for pennies on the dollar. You would have to escalate your price expectations considerably, to buy into a new Chinese instrument that would have that capability and I actually doubt, if any do.

[JimT]

CaterpillarGuy, only additional input I can offer is Amscope's return policy is very good. If it is defective let them know right away and tell them to send you a free return shipping label - worked for me. If you can buy through Amazon, even better.
I agree, some Chinese tools are excellent and some "Not so much". Good luck and keep us posted.

[CaterpillarGuy]

Apo, that's a pretty discouraging summary of the Chinese business model (sending a somewhat defective sample for evaluation boggles the mind a bit); and thanks for explaining the working distance/N.A. connection---good stuff. I feel like I am taking a short course in microscopy here! I do like the idea of finding a better-quality used scope, but the Chinese package of stereo scope and camera is hard to resist, especially when it has a decent return policy (thanks JimT!). I am going to look around for an actual store so I can see/try before I buy.

Re the misadjusted parcentering screws of the Chinese objective, is the adjustment something you (as a mechanically-inclined user) can do at home without a fancy jig of some sort?

[apochronaut]

Sure; centering the objective isn't all that hard. There are jigs available but it is easily done on a microscope. However, the response from the factory is a problem. Apparently , as of two weeks ago a " tech" has to be consulted regarding the problem. This is not the type of response that is required. The sale of an item needs to be packaged with a prompt and qualified customer service response. The sale of product at cut rate prices ,is currently China's forte. Customer service to rectify problems is not. The fact that Amscope has a good return policy, is admirable but how deep is it and who foots the bill for shipping and what are the turn around times? I also question their qualifications as microscope knowledgable people.
I have taken a few minutes to analyze the ad that was posted here for the Amscope stereo and so much of it is just plain B.S.
Here is what I see stated falsely,unknowledgably or without attention to accuracy when I look at the
Features:
1) 640 x 480 camera......... this is mediocre resolution
2) 3.5X-90X extremely large zoom range continuous magnification.... I can't see how this is the case. A reduction and barlow lens have to be attached to effect those magnifications. The actual zoom range is 3.5-22.5X, 7-45X and 14-90X, in 3 separate modes.
3)26: 1 extremely large zoom range.....not true, the zoom range is 6.43:1
4)8" working distance.....this would be at the lowest magnification only. the working distance at high mags. is undisclosed.
5)high quality SUPER wide field of view.......not true. it is 20mm, which is an average f.o.v.
7)45 degree .....with SUPER wide field eypieces......not true
10)30mm SUPER widefield high-eyepoint eyepieces included......whoopee, the microscope has eyepieces included! the 30mm refers to the diameter of the bore, not the field( they are using double talk) and if it needs repeating for the 3rd time, a 20mm field as stated further down in the literature , is not super wide field. most stereo microscopes made in the past 75 years had fields as great or greater.
12) Sharp stereo erect images over a SUPER widefield of view .....thank you, thank you ; I get it, a SUPER widefield of view that doesn't exist.
13) Crystal clear original true colour images. If the picture of the flower( seen on the stage) is an example, this is not true.
16) Accurate alignment???? why does this need to be mentioned?
17) Full optical glass elements. Thank you , I feel much better ,now that you clarified that.
18) Precise ground glass lens.....instills even more confidence, especially in their lower priced products , that presumably don't have precise lenses.
25) Excellent Five(5) Year Factory Warranty......unless the tech is busy, precisely grinding glass lenses.

Specifications:
15 watts is no where near enough to light magnifications over 45X, the ocular f.o.v. is clearly stated as 20mm, not super widefield which would be 22mm and up. A 4" stage plate is fairly puny. The camera system seems fairly mediocre.

[Dale]

You are right. You will get a greater working distance with the stereo scope and it is the best for dissection. But as your magnification increases so will your working distance, even on a stereo scope.

?
Did you mean as magnification increases the working distance decreases?

[Dale]

You got a real valuable boat load of information, as did I when I restarted my microscope adventures. I was very lucky to get both an AO compound and stereoscope from a professional. I did not think I would need
a stereoscope, but like many I use it all the time.
Never hesitate to ask a question at this forum, the members all behave like gentlemen and scholars, which
is lot more than I can say about many of the forums I utilize.
Many thanks to those who have helped me. You know who you are!
Dale

[Charles]

You are right. You will get a greater working distance with the stereo scope and it is the best for dissection. But as your magnification increases so will your working distance, even on a stereo scope.

?
Did you mean as magnification increases the working distance decreases?

Yes, Dale. That is what I meant. Thanks!

[JimT]

I do agree with apochronaut. Those specs remind me of "Department store telescopes".

I am happy with my Amscope compound scope for the price - after some upgrades but I would stay away from any scope with a zoom lens.

Useless for astronomy and I suspect useless for microscopy.

My two cents.

JimT

[CaterpillarGuy]

Heh...yep, the specs do read like cheap marketing hype, and the ~0.3MP camera is pretty lousy. It is upgradable to 3MP for another $100 or to 5MP for $200.

Silly hype aside, the question is what you get for the money, and whether it meets your needs.

Amscope offers OK terms: 7-day inspection with shipping at buyer's expense, both ways, and shipping (according to the guy I texted at Amscope) would be about $20 each way, so $40 to try out a scope that you end up sending back. I'd rather try out a scope at a store, but Amscope is on-line only (I asked).

There's a 5-yr warranty with both-way shipping at buyer's expense, although the Amscope guy with whom I texted implied that they may pay for some of it ("case-by-case").

Re zoom lens: they are more or less standard for dissecting scopes, as far as I know. I have used a few (long ago) in school and they all had a zoom. I prob. wouldn't buy one without a zoom unless it were a fab. bargain.

Apo, the scope does come with 2 Barlow lenses (0.5 and 2x), so the "range" isn't quite as simple as stated; it requires some fiddling with parts.

[JimT]

Unless you are having Amscope customize the scope consider buying from Amazon. Shipping free above a certain amount and excellent return policy with free shipping on the return.

[CaterpillarGuy]

Thanks, Jim. Amscope does sell the same line of scopes thru Amazon.

I'm also looking at used scopes and found an AO that looks just like the ones I used in bio classes in 1969. http://micro-optics-precision-instrumen ... microscope

[Charles]

I have that model and it's very nice. I even have the 2X for it. The base can be lit from below. Here is one on ebay with a top lamp also. You may be able to get it for even a lower price since he has a make a best offer option.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Stereo-Star-AO- ... 3cfe441896

If you try to buy it, make sure he tests it out for you and make sure it zooms properly and is still in alignment.

[CaterpillarGuy]

Charles, I want to be able to take digital pics through whatever scope I buy. I mentioned the AO because it was fun to see an old familiar one for sale, but I am actually looking for a trinocular scope.

On the other hand, if the USB digital cameras that are used for the scopes such as those linked to above could be used in place of an eyepiece on an old AO, that might work out well.

Edit: I just checked, and the cameras + software are available alone (http://www.amscope.com/3mp-usb2-0-micro ... tware.html).

This camera will fit in a 23mm, 30mm, or 30.5mm eyepiece tube. Are these standard sizes?

Here's a comment about ID of an eyepiece tube on an AO page (http://user.xmission.com/~psneeley/Pers ... ndends.htm): "ID at open end is 23.2mm on average. I find this annoying, because there is enough play to let my camera tilt considerably off-axis. There is a real danger of getting an eyepiece stuck, but I would experiment with a slightly smaller opening."

[apochronaut]

Both AO stereostars and B&L stereozooms had optional trinocular heads. A brief search for a time on ebay will usually come up with either a complete unit or the optional part.
As with any full scale microscope company, AO and Bausch & Lomb had various models and these were not just variances in magnification possibilities.
At a certain point in the range, the optics became what were called high resolution. These , were not apo but probably somewhere in between achro and apo; perhaps there were fluorite components. The Stereostars and Microzooms all look similar, so it is easy to have had experience with an AO 569 in school for instance and when looking at a 580X, not realize that one is a basic 3X zoom stereo and the other is a research grade high resolution stereo with 6X zoom, a trinocular head and epi illuminator . One was almost 3 times the price of the other, when they were new.
You can't compare the two. The AO stereostar 580 and the B&L stereozoom 7 are excellent professional research instruments; especially on the research stands. Most of the Chinese and Indian instruments are copies of the standard achromat zoom optics from 20 or so years ago. B&L invented and pioneered zoom optics, so most of what is out there , even today, is modeled on the B & L parameters.
The other thing the 580 and stereozoom 7 had was an option for epi illumination. This is worth keeping an eye out for on ebay. An epi illuminated stereozoom 7 on an R stand was up on ebay recently for less than 300.00. That microscope was well over 2000.00 , 30 years ago.

With respect to barlow lenses. This is not a great way to increase magnification, unless it is made well enough that it doesn't seriously impact the resolution, planarity or brightness of the microscope. This implies that they necessarily need be very expensive. It's not just a case of sticking a 2X lens in front and magnifying more. B & L and other companies for instance made very sophisticated barlows, some apochromatic in order to boost the magnification of the basic zoom microscope. These lenses in their day( 30 years ago) cost more than this entire Amscope system. Offering barlows of inferior quality is an old trick of the oriental optical industries. They know that we westerners are impressed by how many power a microscope or telescope has, so if they stick on a barlow , and advertise unrealistic empty magnifications as realistic, then some coin might come their way. If you have ever seen the Three Stooges , in " An ache in every stake" pumping in more slices of birthday cake from the gas valve( prior to the candles being lit); that's pretty much what cheap barlow lenses do.

[CaterpillarGuy]

Apo, thanks for the info about low- and higher-end AO and B&L scopes. Good to know. If I can get a low-end AO stereo scope on the cheap and add a camera to it, I'll probably be content. How much does achromat vs. apochromat matter in a stereo zoom scope operating at the usual fairly low magnifications?

On the Amscope scopes, the Barlow lens screws on beneath the objective lens. Is that the normal way they attach on stereo scopes?

[apochronaut]

You can usually find an AO 569 or 570 ( 3X stereo with 20-22mm field , depending on the eyepieces) for 150.00 or so on a stand, sometimes more if it is in mint or close to mint condition. A lot of the time people try to sell the pods without the stand for the same or more.
I will keep a look out for you. I have dealt with these for a while and know what questions to ask, so if you see one , feel free to run it by me by p.m..

Barlows screw in below, yes. This why the zoom range on that Amscope isn't continuous. They don't actually use that term but they are hiding the fact that to get the 26 : 1 zoom range they are claiming, you have to screw in the .5 reducing lens for the bottom end and the 2X barlow for the top end. Otherwise it is 6.43:1 , which isn't bad in itself but probably a lot of the extra mag. over 45X is not that usable. A really effective barlow lens is very expensive to make.

[CaterpillarGuy]

Thanks for both info and offer.

I noticed several sans-stands scopes also.