My New Olympus

[OlyGuy]

Just picked up this lovely second hand Olympus CX22LED.

A true beauty and the images it produces are incredible, nothing like my old Tasco from the 80's!

[75RR]

That is very nice. Thanks for posting.
As you say, a big step up from an old Tasco!

Just downloaded a brochure, it says:

Built-in transmitted illumination system, 0.5 W LED

Surprisingly low watts, do you happen to have any information on it?

[charlie]

Congratulations OlyGuy! Nice looking scope. I think Tasco products really turn people away from hobbies with their low quality lines.

[KurtM]

I have a huge soft spot in my heart for OLY microscopes -- CONGRATS OlyGuy!! Why, just sitting there it looks like it delivers wonderfully bright crisp views.

I think Tasco products really turn people away from hobbies with their low quality lines.

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).

[gekko]

Welcome, Colin, and congratulations on a very nice Olympus microscope.

[lorez]

it might be argued that a toy microscope or telescope is better than none at all,

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.

I believe it is the opportunity of the experience that is important here. After all, who really knows what the other person is seeing ? When I work with young students who are experiencing the microscope for the first time all the "holy laws of microscopy" are out the window. There is little regard for procedure and much enthusiasm for the experience. Did you know that a binocular microscope is designed for two kids to use at the same time ? I learned that from a couple of seven year-olds. 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.

Getting a microscope into the hands of an enthusiastic youngster opens the door. I agree with KurtM and offer myself as exhibit B.

lorez

P.S. I forgot to mention that the Olympus microscope is a very good place to start.

[zzffnn]

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.

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.

I know it sounds wrong. But where is the limit? We have to do optical calculations and real experiments. I and a few other microscopists have done both.

For me, I would push up to 10x NA 0.25 (again, with only 1mm thick pond water w/o vegetation). For higher NA or thicker water layer, I would use inverted objective corrected for 0.9-1.5 m cover, such as my Nikon DLL LWD 30x NA 0.55 inverted objective (yes, on an upright scope, within condenser's WD limit). Or use water immersion objective of <= NA 0.9 in dipping mode (higher NA water objectives corrected for 0.17 do not tolerate dipping very well). None of the above approach is the best thing to do, but they work well enough.

The best approach is to use specially-designed dipping objectives. But I only know about 4 of such models currently available at reasonable price, ranging from 40x to 63x. Beginners probably won't use those much though, as those are mostly used in confocal, tissue culture or electro-physiology research. Most pond protists also move too much to be observed under dipping objectives anyway (you are limited to diatoms and ameobas, mostly). One can use dipping cones too, if one has the skill or money to make some.

[lorez]

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

[zzffnn]

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

^ Understood .The point I was trying to make was that it is a good thing to keep our mind (whether 9-99 yo) open and have a bit of "exploratory free reign" sometimes. Blanket phrases, such as it is not OK to look at a petri dish with pond water with a compound microscope, should not be passed onto kids without scientific details or experimentation. In that regard, we are saying similar things, just in a different way

[gekko]

I enjoyed KurtM and lorez's posts. Especially the bit about the binocular scope having been designed for two kids to use at the same time

[JimT]

Fun thread and I have to add my thoughts.

First off congrats. Olyguy on the Olympus.

I had a Tasco 60mm refractor from 1958 (dating myself) and it was actually a pretty good scope. Naturally the 4mm EP was useless but it was an air separated double obj. and the 30mm and 9mm were pretty good.

Lorez, I agree with you, Let kids have fun and sometimes when they break boundaries they go on to amazing things in their adulthood.

JimT