AmScope or Swift

[Judge]

Both AmScope and Swift have trinocular microscopes in my price range ($450.00). I do mostly pond water and marine water. I could use recommendations as to which company is preferred. Positives and negatives.
Thanks

[BramHuntingNematodes]

Are they different?

[Scarodactyl]

They're similar overall.

[Microworld Steve]

It's really hard for me to say because I have a couple of each. I really like my Swift Stellar 1 with Plan Infinity objectives.

[crb5]

Some parts at least are likely made in the same factory. I have an Amscope 120B and Swift 350T and have swopped the Swift trinoc head to the Amscope body as I prefer the condenser mechanism on the Amscope (vertical rack and pinion rather than helical mount). The helical mount changes the position of the filter and in some positions this clashes with the stage micrometer adjusters. The rack and pinion mount doesn't have this problem.

[apochronaut]

It seems that within any given price range for a new Asian microscope, the offerings in terms of optical performance are pretty similar. Optics are made in dedicated facilities mostly and the manufacturers of microscopes buy them to spec. Motic, who seem to make Swift, probably produce optics in house but that doesn't mean every Swift microscope uses optics made by Motic. Within a price bracket, each assembler of instruments will find the cheapest option for objectives that meet spec. Chinese microscopes can even have Indian objectives and visa versa. That's why over time, you will see the same microscope all of a sudden be "upgraded" with different looking objectives. Similar performance but from a different supplier. It's like a vegetable wholesaler buying carrots. One week they are from Texas, the next week, Quebec. Whatever is available in the volume needed.
The big difference is planarity, followed by field of view. Although plan objectives are not necessarily better for specimens thicker than a smear, their superior peripheral corrections means that they should provide better edge to edge resolution.
Most pedestrian microscopes have an 18mm field of view but 20mm has become the norm as of about 20 years ago. That field is determined by 3 factors. The objective image circle, the potential image circle in the optical tube and the field stop in the eyepiece. If at all possible, aim for a 20mm f.o.v. More often than not, a simple change in eyepieces will facilitate that.

Other performance gamechangers that might not be so obvious are.
1) Is the led easily replaceable ? I see microscopes advertised as having replaceable leds. Chinese electronics don't have the best reputation and led drivers will fail on some stands, as well as the led itself.
2) Stage size. The bigger the better.
3) As mentioned, in a previous post , a focusing condenser and a rack and pinion focusing condenser is always best.
4) Portability. Rechargeable power supplies are a bonus.
5) Weight. Light means that the internal components of the microscope will be small and or made from weaker materials and possibly fragile. The same is true of the structural components. Weight also means stability. With high magnification objectives the tinyest vibration can sent turn a pond water sample into a ripple tank experiment.

Just a few boxes to check off when you cannot actually try out the competing stands.

[Greg Howald]

They have great similarity and some significant differences, like the condensers mentioned here. Rack and pinion condensers can be easily changed for dark field or phase work. But I haven't seen a helical condenser system that even offers those options. Sometimes it's not another scope you need. It's having a scope with expandable options.

[Judge]

Thanks all. I’ll start my search and let you know how I make out.

[Judge]

I went with the SW380T. Thinking about replacing the 100X (oil) with a 60x.