New here and please help me choose an appropriate compound microscope

[Leoric]

Greetings !

Would appreciate it if someone could help me choose a compound microscope appropriate for my usage

When I was at Uni the microscope used was a top end Nikon kitted with ccd camera, software measurements, phase selection, Koehler illumination and etc
Now that I'm buying one for my own personal usage and cant afford to buy a top end fully kitted Nikon, any help in choosing one would be greatly appreciated

I would be using the microscope for the following actives,

-observing and cell count of algae i.e. nannochloropsis oculata on a hemocytometer
-observing and counting of rotifers
-observing life in pond water

Did a bit of research over the weeks and manage to narrow down to 3 models but with differing prices

The Amscope T490 trinocular with a 5 megapixel camera option at about USD400
http://www.amscope.com/40x-1000x-lab-cl ... scope.html

The Novel BM2000 Trinocular version without a camera at about USD560 (will add a camera later on)
According to this website https://microscopetalk.wordpress.com/mi ... -in-china/ its the same manufacturer that manufactures the low end Nikon models like E100
Specs
http://www.jnoec.com/en/show-product.asp?nid=93

The Nikon E100 Binocular with Halogen lightingl at about USD750
http://nikon.com/products/instruments/l ... /index.htm

What I really like about the Amscope is its budget friendly all in solution however it is without infinity achromatic plan objectives while the Novel and Nikon has
What I really like about the Novel is its suppose to be built in the same factory as Nikon, has infinity achromatic plan objectives and its a trinocular version
What I really like about the Nikon, big four brand, could have better spare parts but very expensive, slightly out of my budget, and a binocular version without an option to add camera or do any photography

Thus my question is will the Novel and Nikon be overkill for what Im doing and I should just buy the Amscope and used the money saved to kit it out with things like darkfield condenser and etc?
Or should I take the middle ground and be happy with a Novel with all its bells and whistle and still be much cheaper than a Nikon
Or should I bite the bullet, break the bank and go with the seemingly lesser spec Nikon (no trinocular)

Please chime in your thoughts and experience
Thanks in advance

[zzffnn]

Why do you prefer infinity scopes? All your activities can be done equally well with 160 mm scopes. Parts/objectives are easier to get with 160 mm scopes.

You seem to be a biology major and know about microscopes. If that if the case, I suggest buying a used American Optical (Spencer) used scope (which offered both 160 and infinity designs).

A used Nikon model S scope can be bought for under $500 too.

I picked up a used (reasonably equipped dual head) Nikon Labophot 2 locally for under $550. Got another easily fixable (just added LED headlight and objectives) AO series 4 scope for under $60.

Trinocular is more convenient, but you can use didgiscoping adapter/visual eyepiece/regular DSLR/mirrorless camera/60 mm film eqivalent lens and afocal imaging (through visual eyepiece) as well.

[Leoric]

Hi zzffnn,

Thanks for replying.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Ive read about infinity while researching for microscope and read that infinity focused scopes allows for attachments like filters directly without changing the focus point of the image thus would help increase the versatility of the scopes should or when if I need attachments in the future

I did weighed in on buying used however currently I'm residing in Asia and the cost of shipping would negates the cost benefit.
Furthermore I'm not sure if I could source spare parts/technicians to fix/service a used microscope here, thus the decision to buy a new one that could be sourced around Asia.
I'll try look around here if I could source for a used AO or Nikon model S here

[gekko]

infinity focused scopes allows for attachments like filters directly without changing the focus point of the image

True, if you are talking about placing filters between objective (actually tube lens) and eyepiece. But the bormal location of filters is under the condenser where the infinity design has no advantage. You can also place filters (e.g. a ploarizing filter) above the objective in 160-mm microscopes as long as they are thin without deleterious effects. Infinity objectives cost more and you are limited to those by the microscope maker. I think the 160-mm tube length microscope will actually give you more flexibility in terms of objective choice, and has few limitations in terms of practical use. In contrast to zzffnn, in my opinion for what it is worth, if you are not a "tinkerer" or a "do-it-yourself" person, I think you will be much better off buying a new microscope with a warranty. And from the excellent images posted on this forum from people who use Amscope and other modern Chinese-made microscopes, I would say some are excellent optically (even if they might not last for 100 years mechanically).

[Leoric]

infinity focused scopes allows for attachments like filters directly without changing the focus point of the image

True, if you are talking about placing filters between objective (actually tube lens) and eyepiece. But the bormal location of filters is under the condenser where the infinity design has no advantage. You can also place filters (e.g. a ploarizing filter) above the objective in 160-mm microscopes as long as they are thin without deleterious effects. Infinity objectives cost more and you are limited to those by the microscope maker. I think the 160-mm tube length microscope will actually give you more flexibility in terms of objective choice, and has few limitations in terms of practical use. In contrast to zzffnn, in my opinion for what it is worth, if you are not a "tinkerer" or a "do-it-yourself" person, I think you will be much better off buying a new microscope with a warranty. And from the excellent images posted on this forum from people who use Amscope and other modern Chinese-made microscopes, I would say some are excellent optically (even if they might not last for 100 years mechanically).

Hi gekko,

Thanks for replying and clearing that up on the infinity design.

That what I was thinking, with my limited knowledge I guess I'd best stick with brand new with warranty.
For the price the Chinese made scopes are asking, I wont be expecting 100 years
Wont be complaining if they last only 10 years

What do you think of plan achromatic objectives?
Are they really that much better and in your opinion would it help with what I'll be using the scope for?
I've seen videos of Amscopes posted on youtube while researching and the image quality are quite excellent as you mentioned thus Im really tempted to save some bucks by going with the Amscope.

[JimT]

Leoric, I have an Amscope and have been quite pleased with it. I upgraded the 4, 10, and 40x obj.s to Plan achromatics. I also added a 20x obj. for when 100x is not enough and 400x is too much and a 60x obj. so I wouldn't have to mess with oil except in rare occasions.

For the price I think you will not be disappointed.

[Leoric]

Leoric, I have an Amscope and have been quite pleased with it. I upgraded the 4, 10, and 40x obj.s to Plan achromatics. I also added a 20x obj. for when 100x is not enough and 400x is too much and a 60x obj. so I wouldn't have to mess with oil except in rare occasions.

For the price I think you will not be disappointed.

Hi JimT,

Thanks for replying

Is the upgrade from the stock objectives to the Plan Achromatics significant and worthwhile ?
Thus I included the Novel into consideration, considering the Novel comes pre upgraded with plan achromatics

[einman]

While Amscope provides a relatively good image for the money they are notorious for poor customer service. So don't think just because it is new and has a warranty you are covered. I currently own Amscopes as well as scopes from the Big 5. My preference is American Optical and Leitz. However I understand your issues with shipping costs.

That said, I prefer the plan achromats. Given your experience with the Nikon you may find yourself more critical than a "newbie" in regards to what is an acceptable image. Requesting planachromats now will save you some money should you decide to research the difference at a later time or determine the image is not acceptable immediately.

In regards to 160 TL vs infinity. I have both types of scopes, and quite frankly, I find you have a much greater choice, at a much more reasonable price using 160 TL. So in that respects I am with Gekko.

I cant think of any issues either. You can purchase and add phase-contrast, fluorescence, darkfield etc with no difficulty what so ever using 160 TL.

The move to infinity by the various manufacturers restricts you to their accessories, eyepieces and objectives when upgrading. Something they did on purpose. 160 TL scopes are more forgiving when mixing objectives. I have a good friend that owns a local Microscope servicing business. He is an authorized service tech for those brands that allow it. Even so, the various manufacturers make it difficult to obtain parts as he constantly reminds me.

[apochronaut]

Achromats are supposed to have about 30 % of the center in focus and plan are supposed to be in focus right to the edge. For sections and very flat smears this matters but it is barely noticeable with thicker specimens , because something is in focus across the field, especially with aquatic samples .
In practice, these "rules", vary according to the maker and the period of time in which the optics were made. Some maker's achromats are as good as another maker's planachromats. Generally , modern optics are a little more uniform, so the differences in flatness of field will be something along the supposed lines. The corrections for chromatic aberration and spherical aberration, should be the same.
In theory, due to the much greater use of glass in plan objectives, they should have lower light transmission and possibly a different colour balance but if that exists , it is probably minimal.
Reichert( Austria) released a semi-plan 100X objective for their research microscopes around 1980 .They already had planachro and planapo options, maybe even planfluorite. There was a sales brochure associated with it that had a graph, showing how much brighter it was than a plan and how much cheaper it was, relative to the plan . The upshot was that dollar for dollar, it was a much better buy , especially because it had a brighter image. Cost differential is always a factor.

[JimT]

Apochronaut is correct about thicker acquitic specimens which is why so many of the images you will see posted here are focus stacks. I find the Plans are good for the 4x and 10x obj's, but wasn't necessary for the 40x. I did not get Plan for the 20x and 60x I added.

I have had no experience with Amscope customer service so can't comment about that part. I bought the scope thru Amazon so would use them to resolve any problem if one arose.

Lots of opinions so lots of things for you to chew on

[Leoric]

While Amscope provides a relatively good image for the money they are notorious for poor customer service. So don't think just because it is new and has a warranty you are covered. I currently own Amscopes as well as scopes from the Big 5. My preference is American Optical and Leitz. However I understand your issues with shipping costs.

That said, I prefer the plan achromats. Given your experience with the Nikon you may find yourself more critical than a "newbie" in regards to what is an acceptable image. Requesting planachromats now will save you some money should you decide to research the difference at a later time or determine the image is not acceptable immediately.

In regards to 160 TL vs infinity. I have both types of scopes, and quite frankly, I find you have a much greater choice, at a much more reasonable price using 160 TL. So in that respects I am with Gekko.

I cant think of any issues either. You can purchase and add phase-contrast, fluorescence, darkfield etc with no difficulty what so ever using 160 TL.

The move to infinity by the various manufacturers restricts you to their accessories, eyepieces and objectives when upgrading. Something they did on purpose. 160 TL scopes are more forgiving when mixing objectives. I have a good friend that owns a local Microscope servicing business. He is an authorized service tech for those brands that allow it. Even so, the various manufacturers make it difficult to obtain parts as he constantly reminds me.

Hi einman,

Thanks for replying

Most brand new models that Ive looked at that includes plan achromat objectives are infinity corrected.
I may have to re alter my list to include lower ends + plan achromat objectives upgrades, thus restricting the microscope to 160.

Achromats are supposed to have about 30 % of the center in focus and plan are supposed to be in focus right to the edge. For sections and very flat smears this matters but it is barely noticeable with thicker specimens , because something is in focus across the field, especially with aquatic samples .
In practice, these "rules", vary according to the maker and the period of time in which the optics were made. Some maker's achromats are as good as another maker's planachromats. Generally , modern optics are a little more uniform, so the differences in flatness of field will be something along the supposed lines. The corrections for chromatic aberration and spherical aberration, should be the same.
In theory, due to the much greater use of glass in plan objectives, they should have lower light transmission and possibly a different colour balance but if that exists , it is probably minimal.
Reichert( Austria) released a semi-plan 100X objective for their research microscopes around 1980 .They already had planachro and planapo options, maybe even planfluorite. There was a sales brochure associated with it that had a graph, showing how much brighter it was than a plan and how much cheaper it was, relative to the plan . The upshot was that dollar for dollar, it was a much better buy , especially because it had a brighter image. Cost differential is always a factor.

Hi apochronaut,

Thanks for the insight shared, I think 30% of the center in focus might not be good enough for what I'll be doing
Perhaps an LED fitted model would then be able to offset the lower light transmission disadvantages of plan objectives?

Apochronaut is correct about thicker acquitic specimens which is why so many of the images you will see posted here are focus stacks. I find the Plans are good for the 4x and 10x obj's, but wasn't necessary for the 40x. I did not get Plan for the 20x and 60x I added.

I have had no experience with Amscope customer service so can't comment about that part. I bought the scope thru Amazon so would use them to resolve any problem if one arose.

Lots of opinions so lots of things for you to chew on

Hi JimT,

Thanks for clearing it up, before this I was under the impression that plans were needed for higher magnification and not exactly necesary on the lower X objectives

Yeah, the more I know the more confuse I am, wish I had unlimited budget and just get the top of the line model from any of the big 4

p/s Thanks again everyone for the insight/tips and knowledge

[gekko]

Accidentally posted duplicate post removed.

[gekko]

Perhaps an LED fitted model would then be able to offset the lower light transmission disadvantages of plan objectives?

While I'm sure that what apochronaut said about plan objectives transmitting less light is true (he knows what he is talking about), I doubt very much that this should steer you away from plan objectives, which I think for your use are more appropriate. I believe the difference in light transmission may (or may not) be noticeable when comparing directly, side-by-side plan and non-plan objectives but any difference is likely to be quite negligible in the scheme of things, particularly that modern objectives have the lens elements anti-reflection coated, so light loss would be significantly less than old uncoated objectives (I hope apochronaut will correct me if I am wrong on this point).
If image brightness is of concern for some reason, then I would consider getting a brighter light source (whether tungsten-halogen or LED), which can make a large difference in illumination. I don't think LED necessarily gives more light than tungsten-halogen-- it all depends on the output rating.

I hope JimT will tell us what model Amscope he uses.

[The QCC]

To apochronaut .
I believe your focus area for basic achromatic objectives is a bit off.
Most achromatic objective have a flat field of 60-65% of the field of view.
This is a quote from Microscopenet.ca
"The difference between these three lenses is the focusing area which can be seen from the eyepieces when using high power objective lenses such as 40x, 60x and 100x. The difference from low power lenses are not obvious, which means that can be ignored.

At high power, an achromatic lens has about 65% of focused area across the center. A semi-plan one has about 85% whereas the plan one has 95%.
"

[apochronaut]

That is possibly true for the optics of better manufacturers, made in today's marketplace but it is a little overly optimistic for most of the hundreds of thousands of objectives in use , especially some older ones at the low price end, or cheaper ones offered on budget microscopes. What I indicated as 30%, equals about 53% across the field , so in a field that is 1000 microns across, a little more than 1/2 of the width of the field would have the same focal plane. If you check most average achromats, you will start to get little focus drift around there, increasing dramatically as you near the edge. That's about where it begins, sometimes a little more, sometimes even less. Most samples, are thick enough that it isn't all that noticeable but if you are using a really flat smear of only a few microns thickness, it is very noticeable.
Oddly, microscopenet.ca underestimates the flatness of a plan field. While some objectives labelled "plan" do not give a completely flat field; (one, I can think of in particular being the AO # 1019 planachro 10X( later upgraded to the # 1021, which was much better), most optics with a plan designation give 100% of a plan field, as long as they are used with the correct eyepieces. This has improved over the years, to the point that U.W.F. eyepieces can often be employed with no loss of planarity.

[einman]

I find that discussions like these are quite academic in nature and highly dependent on the particular brand and model. Manufacturers like Nikon, Olympus, Zess etc make several lines of objectives claiming to be achro and planachro. Leitz was known for having several designations of planarity ie NPL PL EF. For example PL objectives offered a wider field of view in regards to planarity vs NPL assuming you had the correct eyepiece. Both were planachros. The PL having a field of view of at least 20mm and as such the GF Periplan eyepieces were recommended and developed specifically for these objectives. The Plan Fluotars had a flat field of view up to 25 mm. You could stretch the potential depending on tube lens and eyepiece.

Apochromat and I have had many discussions regarding Ao's achromats and planachromats in regards to planarity. Then of course you have the differences introduced as a function of "time". Newer objectives, even the cheaper ones, incorporate coatings that result in improved imagery.

So comparing across generations as well as brand adds another variable. My experience with the Chinese (read omax, amscope) objectives is that they tend to be quite good for the money.

I made a comparison of a Chinese planachromat 60X/0.85/160/0.17 bought on e-bay for less tan $50 vs a Leitz plan 63X/0.85 vs B&L plan 60X/0.85 vs Reichert 63X/0.85 objective.

I found the Chinese objective to be of much poorer construction and significantly poorer contrast. Though resolution was not that bad. Keep in mind the objective cost $50. When I first discussed my finding on a yahoo forum it was quickly pointed out i may not have purchased one of the "better" objectives. I just wanted to see what $50 could buy.



Now there are obviously better made Chinese objectives. In fact I believe the only brand not made in China last I checked was Hund. ( jump in anyone with newer information).

For example Accuscope's higher end models actually have optics nearly identical to Olympus and when servicing Olympus/Accuscope my friend indicated there is overlap in part numbers. Some of the cheaper model Nikons, olympus and Zeiss can be found under other labels for far less.

In short--determine your use. Your budget and buy the most you can afford. Accuscope, National, Motic or higher end Amscopes. Drop a line in the forum when you have identified a potential purchase and let everyone check it out. We will give our opinion.

I don't think we have any experts here well versed in the world of Chinese scopes. Most of us are diehard fans of older stands, myself included.

You can find on YouTube some individuals that start out using an Amscope but then later revert to an older stand due to quality of construction.

My friend is called in to service Amscope microscopes at local schools. He refers to them as "disposable" compared to older model American optical, nikon etc. ...but then i digress from optics to construction. I quite like my Amscope Stereoscope.not up to par with my Nikon but then I bought it used with a boom stand for less than $200.

[zzffnn]

Apochronaut is correct about thicker acquitic specimens which is why so many of the images you will see posted here are focus stacks. I find the Plans are good for the 4x and 10x obj's, but wasn't necessary for the 40x. ..............

^ I second the above.

[JimT]

In response to Gekko, my Amscope is the B120C-E3;

http://www.amscope.com/40x-2500x-led-di ... amera.html

The 25X eyepieces are useless (not even heavy enough to be a paper weight)

I wanted to be sure I would stay with this great hobby Vs. a short term fancy before spending big bucks. I subscribe to the 80/20 rule. Whereas it may only be 80% as good as the "Big 4" it cost only 20% as much. It definitely satisfies my needs.

If I were to do it over again I would go for the trinocular but didn't think I would be taking so many photos with my Canon but I have a "work around" that does pretty good.

JimT

[Crater Eddie]

I think you got a lot of "bang for your buck" there JimT, you post some very nice photos.
CE

[gekko]

Thank you, JimT.

I subscribe to the 80/20 rule.

I too subscribe to the 80/20 rule: 80% of the image quality is due to the person behind the microscope, and 20% to the microscope .

[mrsonchus]

----------
Is the upgrade from the stock objectives to the Plan Achromatics significant and worthwhile ?
Thus I included the Novel into consideration, considering the Novel comes pre upgraded with plan achromatics
----------

Hi and welcome. Personally the change I made from 'ordinary' objectives to the 'plan' versions was quite amazing and definitely worth pursuing - the prices are not hugely different but the flat-field (at least on my infinity Chinese 'scope, SP200) is remarkably superior, the clarity (focus) really does extend to virtually the whole image and is very noticeably better than the non-corrected objectives (certainly make photography far easier and superior in quality too).

My advice, absolutely 100% go for the 'plan' objectives, their superiority is far greater than their extra cost!

[JimT]

Leoric, one more bit of advice. The more people who chime in the more you will be confused

Take a chance and don't over analyze this. Pick one and be happy with it.

Like I have said before, my first telescope was not my last but I enjoyed all of them.

JimT

[The QCC]

Take a chance and don't over analyze this. Pick one and be happy with it.

Bravo!

[lorez]

But wait...! I have an idea too...

[einman]

I have seen some awesome photos taken with budget stands. I have seen some awesome photos taken with some very old stands. So go with what you feel comfortable with.

Sorry for botching some names during my discussion.

[einman]

Take a chance and don't over analyze this. Pick one and be happy with it.

Bravo!

I AGREE

[zzffnn]

Whether or not plan objectives are necessary depends on your subject, imaging method and how critical you are.

For pond protists, many of which are thick (not flat or thin,), plan objectives are not as important as they are for thin flat subjects (such as plant sections or histology sections). This is because some (thick/non flat) areas of a rotifer or algae will be out of focus under high magnification anyway.

I videotape live pond protists more often than I photograph them, so I personally prefer higher central resolution and brighter image (high aperture) and can sacrifice a bit of planarity or aberration correction.

If you are always immobilizing protists, photographing them and doing focus stacking, then high aperture, highly-corrected plan objectives will be valuable. Those can be expensive though.

[mes0]

I joined the forum a couple weeks ago asking for help in choosing a scope and received a lot of very useful feedback.

At first I almost bought an omax trinoc with oil darkfield and plan lenses and DSLR adapter and scope case for ~1500 cdn. If I added a phase contrast kit the price soared another 800-900$. I also looked at the Nikon e100 which was ~1100cdn new, and then another 600 for a trinoc head and another 2200 for a phase kit (and still no oil darkfield)...My budget was roughly 1500-2000 cdn.

I watched ebay, local classifieds, and government surplus auctions and ended up with 3-4 stands(olympus KHCx2, olympus E, American Optical 20), 2 oil darkfield condensers, a phase contrast turret condenser, a full set of phase lenses, piles of eyepieces, 2 trinoc heads, phototube lenses, 100x iris lenses + much much more for about 1300 cdn..

I think I did pretty well for being so impatient What I found was many Buy it now listings on ebay will allow you to make offers, and even ones that don't you can still message and give an offer. It seemed if I offered ~70% of their ask I usually got the item.

If you want the ebay listing links and prices I paid to give you an idea of what you can get I'd be happy to share.

[lorez]

I watched ebay, local classifieds, and government surplus auctions and ended up with 3-4 stands(olympus KHCx2, olympus E, American Optical 20), 2 oil darkfield condensers, a phase contrast turret condenser, a full set of phase lenses, piles of eyepieces, 2 trinoc heads, phototube lenses, 100x iris lenses + much much more for about 1300 cdn..

Now the fun begins.

lorez

[billbillt]

Hi Lorez,
That was quite a haul that you got... It would interesting to see pics of your equipment...
BillT