Nikon SMZ vs Chinese Copy in a battle of the titans

Everything relating to microscopy hardware: Objectives, eyepieces, lamps and more.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Scarodactyl
Posts: 2789
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm

Nikon SMZ vs Chinese Copy in a battle of the titans

#1 Post by Scarodactyl » Mon Mar 01, 2021 4:18 am

I've been wanting to do this comparison for a while, but I kept getting distracted and/or having things sell at inconvenient times. But I have finally been able to run a comparison of a Nikon SMZ series scope against one of the increasingly popular Chinese-made clones.

These clones are sold by almost anyone who sells any Chinese microscopes, everyone from Amscope to Meiji (by way of Euromex), along with Scienscope, Unitron, Bolioptics, Bestscope and Omax, plus pretty much any direct-from-China wholesaler. They're not the most expensive stereo systems out of China but they are close, starting around 1kusd for the cheapest 6:1 zoom ratio version with a fixed head.

These clones usually have a 6:1, 8:1 or 10:1 zoom ratio, though one with a 15:1 zoom ratio is sometimes offered (though I have only ever seen it sold by Amscope, and only sometimes). They are a close copy of the SMZ800 series, though if you put one side by side with an SMZ800 there are obvious differences in proportions (though that was an older SMZ800, and that may not apply to the newer SMZ800N which is currently made in China). Inside their construction is very similar--I have not had both of them open side by side, but I could use the SMZ800 repair manual to work on one of the clones I had.

The objectives, heads and trinocular ports are interchangeable with SMZ800 series scopes, at least to some extent. I had no problem putting the fixed 30 degree tilt head onto an SMZ10a, though I recall putting the tilting head onto my (now long sold) SMZ1500 and getting vignetting on the outside edges at lower magnifications, though maybe the eyepieces I was using just had too wide a field number for that combination.

Anyway, that gives a basic introduction to them, but that leads to the essential question: how good are they? If you get a good copy the view to the eye is quite pleasing with good planarity across the zoom range (I've gotten a few misaligned copies as well, though to be fair I got those used and extremely cheap, any any used and extremely cheap stereo is suspect). But the eye is very forgiving so photos are needed to give a real idea of what we're dealing with.

Today's contestants are an 8:1 zoom ratio clone body against a genuine Nikon SMZ-10a.
Image
Let's start out with the obvious: this is not the best matchup for two reasons: one, the SMZ-10a has a 6:1 zoom ratio, not 8:1, so the minimum and maximum magnifications are different (the SMZ-10a is rated at .75-4.9x while the clone is .8-6.4x) and two the SMZ-10A is one generation earlier than the series this is copied off of. To that I say: fair, but this is what I have on hand, and more importantly this isn't really meant to test which is better so much as it is to tell if the Chinese one is any good.
To make things more interesting I tested the SMZ-10A with both objectives I have for it, a 1x ED plan and a 1X ED Plan Apo. In addition used both the Plan 1X which came with the clone as well as a genuine Nikon Plan Apo 1x. The SMZ-10A and SMZ800 series have different threads on their objectives so I could not directly interchange them to compare, though I'll note hand holding one of the newer objectives onto the older Nikon body yielded a perfectly fine image. In theory I could 3d print an adapter for a more direct comparison but that's more work than I'd like to do at the moment.
Image
I used the same camera attachment for both, a modified version of the adapter that came with the clone. These adapters are quite inexpensive, and designed in such a way that attaching a camera for direct projection is fairly straightforward. I modified it because the metal block which holds the 45 degree mirror below the camera has a relatively small inner diameter which is also shiny metal--in some lighting conditions it produces an annoying amount of flare. I will make a separate thread about that since otherwise these are a very handy and affordable trinocular addition to any SMZ series scope that doesn't have one. Suffice to say the modified one has a wider inner diameter which I also flocked.
I took all of these pictures with direct projection onto APS-C with my Canon EOS T6. This is pushing both microscopes outside of their nominal specs, since at most they are meant for a ~24mm field number for viewing and less for photography, but it was the handiest approach for me and also probably the best anyway. I do have a Nikon PLI 2x photo eyepiece which I may test them with later.
Anyway, enough pontificating, let's get to the good stuff: Pictures of wafers. These were taken with an LED ring light for illumination, fixed wherever each objective had a groove for it. As such the height from the wafer varies.
The clone provides a significantly dimmer image to the camera than the SMZ-10A did--I shot the 10A at 1/30s while the clone was shot at 1/15s. On a few of the closeups I have adjusted the brightness on the apos to get a better visual comparison, as well as moving around and resizing the images as needed. That's sloppy but probably not enough to ruin the test results.
Minimum magnification
Image
Chinese clone with Plan 1x objective. ^

Image
Chinese clone with NIkon Planapo 1x objective ^

Image
SMZ-10A with ED Plan 1x ^

Image
SMZ-10A with PlanApo 1x ^

There is at least a little corner shading on all of these, though the 10A does better. I wasn't able to perfectly center the image relative to the eyepieces with the trinocular port (before or after my modifications) so it's possible with more tinkering that could be removed entirely.
They all produce a very reasonable image at 1x, with good planarity and no obvious distortion outside of the extreme corners. Let's have a closer look at the centers:
Image Image

Image Image
Nothing too perturbing at the center of the image as you would expect, though the generic plan 1x shows some blue ghosting.
Now for the corners:
Image Image

Image Image
In a weird twist the generic plan 1x has the best corner performance, with the clone equipped with the Nikon apo a close second. The SMZ-10a with apo objective actually does the worst on color correction, though realisticalyl speaking they all hold up pretty well.
Because the minimum magnification on the clone is lower than on the SMZ-10a (in a way that seems to deviate a bit from rated mags, for reasons I don't understand) the corners above are actually a little ways in from their true corners. That said the true corner still holds up well on color correction, though at hte extreme edge it totally fails.
Image
Image

So let's have a look at maximum magnifications:
Image
Chinese clone with Plan 1x objective. ^

Image
Chinese clone with planapo 1x objective ^

Image
SMZ-10A with ED plan 1x objective ^

Image
SMZ-10A with Planapo 1x objective ^

Again, really nothing super objectionable in any of these, though you can see the blue ghosting is really creeping in with the generic plan 1x objective. Let's have a closer look at center crops.
Image Image

Image Image
Here we have our first real standout differences. The generic Plan 1x has its blue in the wrong spot, it's almost silly, especially after how good the color correction was at 1x. I wonder if it could be fixed in post, it's kind of way out there. But with the planapo it's not bad. The ED plan is much better than the generic plan, and the apo on the smz-10a gives better color correction than the newer nikon apo on the clone. Perhaps most worryingly the clone doesn't seem to deliver as well on details. This combined with its lower brightness (and noticeable drop in brightness as you zoom in) suggests to me that the clone body is not able to deliver the full NA of the nikon objective.

Now the corners:
Image Image

Image Image
As at minimum mag the generic plan 1x does about as well in the corner as it does in the center. At least it's consistent. The SMZ-10a and clone have very similar performance here with their apo objectives, while the ED plan is a little less good but still good.


Overall, I'd say the clone is quite good, probably not quite as good as the original but amazingly close, provided you equip it with a Nikon objective. That might sound like a big 'if', but nikon stereo objectives are the most available on the second hand market, and at much better prices than Olympus or Leica ones. Sometimes they can be found ala carte for very reasonable prices. In turn these Chinese SMZ clones are often priced pretty high, but occasionally come up very cheap because they are either unbranded or under an unfavorable brand.

For future work there are a few more things I'd like to do. One, get an SMZ800 to run head to head with it, and/or run another set of tests against the SMZ-10a with a 6:1 zoom ratio body (which I...actually do have but didn't use in this test because it's up on a shelf in my closet). These are also sold with a 0.5x objective marked 'plan apo' which I need to take some test shots with. I also have an objective changer for an SMZ-800 which allows the objective to be centered under one light path which would make for some interesting comparisons.

PeteM
Posts: 3013
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: Nikon SMZ vs Chinese Copy in a battle of the titans

#2 Post by PeteM » Mon Mar 01, 2021 7:06 am

Thank you for that excellent review.

Hobbyst46
Posts: 4287
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:02 pm

Re: Nikon SMZ vs Chinese Copy in a battle of the titans

#3 Post by Hobbyst46 » Mon Mar 01, 2021 7:34 am

Useful and important info. Thanks !
Would be also interesting to know about the mechanics of the clone - how well it functions.

apochronaut
Posts: 6327
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Nikon SMZ vs Chinese Copy in a battle of the titans

#4 Post by apochronaut » Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:44 pm

That's a very valuable and convincing test. Scopes in that category are just nudging into the tier 2 category of Chinese made microscopes. In China and probably other parts of the world where Chinese products dominate even the higher end marketplace, it would be easy to imagine the Chinese research gear much more in demand than the big 4.
At a lab in any major North American city for instance, a prospective purchase would more than likely be hashed out between the big 4. Not very likely in Burkina Faso or Laos, where a fully planapo 5 K clone of an SMZ18 would look pretty good against the what, 20k original? Those SMZ18 clones don't seem to be much of a presence in the halls of the moneyed.

Not every Chinese microscope factory can do that for Nikon and in as such as that, the balance of power when it comes to the production of an SMZ18 might be in the hands of the factory making it. Nikon needs them, in order to stay competetive and keep their profit margin. They might be willing to cut the makers considerable slack in terms of design çopy and patent violations as long as they steered their efforts into markets where few expensive Nikon microscopes are likely to be sold anyway.
Such convenient arrangements are not unprecedented.

Scarodactyl
Posts: 2789
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm

Re: Nikon SMZ vs Chinese Copy in a battle of the titans

#5 Post by Scarodactyl » Tue Mar 02, 2021 10:40 pm

Thanks Apo. Yeah, these are not bad, and if the higher tier ones can hold up on resolution but with better color correction they are probably quite nice.
I know my local unitron dealer sells a decent number of their Z series, at least to hear him tell it.
I do wonder how much the SMZ18 is--the only public facing price I see is GTvision but I wonder if it could be correct at 6700ish pounds https://www.gtvision.co.uk/epages/es141 ... cale=en_GB
Still out of reach for me but seemed lower than my expectation.

As to the mechanics it's be hard to say. They look just like a Nikon on the inside, but who knows about the quality of the metal etc.

apochronaut
Posts: 6327
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Nikon SMZ vs Chinese Copy in a battle of the titans

#6 Post by apochronaut » Wed Mar 03, 2021 1:35 pm

x 1.4, so $10,000 U.S. without the transmitted base. Actually, I think I saw the Unitron 12.5 : 1 zoom , so a Chinese , Nikon clone too, priced higher than that.

Scarodactyl
Posts: 2789
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm

Re: Nikon SMZ vs Chinese Copy in a battle of the titans

#7 Post by Scarodactyl » Wed Mar 03, 2021 2:22 pm

Yeah, Unitron's pricing on it is nuts. I did just see Brunel has a demonstration unit up for 2650 pounds which is certainly the cheapest I've seen it http://www.brunelmicroscopessecure.co.u ... copes.html
No illuminated base and no objective changer though.

newtonsapple
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:04 pm

Re: Nikon SMZ vs Chinese Copy in a battle of the titans

#8 Post by newtonsapple » Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:56 pm

Thanks for this review.

I have an SMZ800 and a Scienscope branded clone. Unfortunately they both have misaligned heads and after having them sit on the bench for months without becoming brave enough or having time to tackle alignment I called around and found a local shop to align them for an acceptable price. I think the ergo heads are likely pretty fragile. I'll get them back in a few weeks and can hopefully contribute.

I've got a clone trinocular head and plan to direct project onto a mirrorless APS-C camera. I just need to sort out an adapter or 3d print one. I am looking forward to the detail on your camera setup and modifications.

newtonsapple
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:04 pm

Re: Nikon SMZ vs Chinese Copy in a battle of the titans

#9 Post by newtonsapple » Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:01 pm

Scarodactyl, when you get a chance, could you also post some photos of the objective changer and how it mounts? I might be able create one. Thanks!

Scarodactyl
Posts: 2789
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm

Re: Nikon SMZ vs Chinese Copy in a battle of the titans

#10 Post by Scarodactyl » Sat Aug 07, 2021 8:47 pm

In this thread I mentioned not being able to use the third party camera mount as-is and needing to modify it because of flare. I wanted to note I have been unable to replicate this and the unmodified one I have seems to work just as well as the modified one. I am not sure where the flare was coming from in that one test--whatever it was was bad enough that it made me go through all the trouble of modifying one so I know it was real. There are obvious reflections in the original mount which felt like confirmation that it was the source of the issue, but apparently they don't actually matter much given the outcome of later tests. It will direct project fine onto aps-c but with a hint of vignetting.
The tube lens in the trinoc port seems to be perhaps a bit longer in focal length than the pair in the head since the image is a bit enlarged vs the eyepieces, so the issue with vignetting must be mechanical. I have found my partial replacement to be unsurprisingly hard to precisely align. If I were to have another go at this I'd probably replace the tube lens as well to improve overall coverage, but honestly for a stereo microscope it's probably not worth it. Point is, the trinoc ports are fine as is.

I also realized why the third party head seemed to be incompatible with my smz-1500. The 1500 has a shorter effective focal length at 1x than the smz 800 or 1000 (exactly like the difference between the leica mz16 and the mz6 as it happens), so if you use a normal 1x plan apo objective instead of the officially called for HR plan apo the 1x acts like a 0.8x and can't cover 24mm fn eyepieces at low mag settings. So I can say the heads are indeed compatible across the entire range, and for the price I like them a lot.

Anyway, just wanted to put the record straight on those points for future explorers.

Post Reply