A true beauty and the images it produces are incredible, nothing like my old Tasco from the 80's!
![Image](http://s27.postimg.org/ue51hy8yr/New_Toy.jpg)
A real concern, alright, and one long shared in amateur astronomy as well. On the other hand, however, it might be argued that a toy microscope or telescope is better than none at all, that if a kid's interest is strong enough he or she will be sufficiently piqued and intrigued to work through it. I offer myself as Exhibit A in the case, having suffered both Tasco microscope and telescopes. Well, here I am today, and somehow I even have fond memories of them (still own 'em in fact).charlie wrote:I think Tasco products really turn people away from hobbies with their low quality lines.
This is splitting the thread, but is worth some discussion and probably its own thread, but since it's here, I'll offer my penny's worth of opinion.it might be argued that a toy microscope or telescope is better than none at all,
Actually, it is not an absolute no-no until you get to over NA 0.25, if that pond water layer is only around 1mm deep (vegetation should also be removed to allow light to go through without distortion). Some may even stretch to NA 0.4, if subject is really flat itself, laying flat and of high contrast naturally.lorez wrote: Did you know that it is OK to look at a petri dish full of pond water with a compound microscope ? I did not, and when I was about to suggest that it may not be the best thing to do, I thought, "why not ?" It actually works very well with the 4X objective.
^ Understoodlorez wrote:The point I was trying to make was that it is OK to let kids have a bit of "exploratory free reign" as they are being introduced to the microscope.
lorez