Page 2 of 2
Re: Wild M8
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:52 pm
In my comparisons, I found them similar to the Olympus SZH although smaller FOV. The Olympus SZH had an na of about 0.084 so with the Wild scopes placing between 0.07 and 1.0 depending on how how you evaluate them my observations make more sense, although I had no NA data for the Wilds until now. For me the Wild stereoscopes are kind of like the old muscle cars from the 60's. Despite the fact their performance has been eclipsed by more modern scopes people seem to reluctant to accept that. Wild stereoscopes were and still are incredible scopes, but the market pricing often puts them above scopes that are superior in terms of optical performance.
Re: Wild M8
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2019 5:47 pm
einman wrote:... Wild stereoscopes were and still are incredible scopes, but the market pricing often puts them above scopes that are superior in terms of optical performance.
I would agree with that assessment and add that it was arguably true even in Wild's heyday. My father was quite impressed by the Wild M5 he used as a graduate student. In the mid-1980s, he needed a versatile, high-end, "routine" stereo microscope for his investigative, materials science consultancy, a microscope that was also good for photomacrography, both still and video. He sent a detailed request to each of the big four microscope makers, had them come by with their wares, and gave their microscopes a thorough workout. (One of the salesmen recognized my father had been a geologist, remarking, that among his customers, the geologists were the only ones who really understood microscopes!)
My father found Zeiss had, easily, the best optics but was also, easily, the most expensive. Nikon had the next best, then Wild and finally Olympus. I believe he tested a Wild M3Z, but I will ask him if still remembers. He bought a well equipped, Nikon SMZ-2T which he used a lot and which served him well for the next 25 years. I will probably end up with it some day.