Strong beginner microbiology scope

[jerseyman201]

Hey all! Looking for a strong beginner microscope that is $500-800 range. While this may seem excessive for a beginner, I'm more so speaking of myself as a beginner. Perhaps the better term would be amateur microscope? Unsure. Anyway, looking for a microscope (or better yet, which features) that will be straight forward but have more advanced and detailed options which can lead to better photographing and logging. Whether that entails darkfield, phase contrast, infinity lens, etc I want a really fantastic image!

Whether a smartphone is good enough for this (S21 Ultra with a 3x/10x optical zoom/wide angle/macro is my current), or if a 15+mp usb3.0 camera would better? If I will get a much better field of view from a dedicated camera I don't mind spending the extra $$$ on top of the $500-800 down the line, in order to retain the more advanced types of viewing from a higher priced microscope such as darkfield or phase contrast etc. Now I certainly may be wrong (I hope I am!), but since I have an astigmatism I believe my best option is to use a screen with my glasses on for long sessions? My glasses aren't insanely corrective or anything, but I'd just figure thats not really something microscopes in this range offer, an individual correction system per eyepiece?

My usage is for a current small scale and soon to be large scale future business where ill be examining predominantly soil dwelling organisms and soil food web microbial life, which is why I'm willing to spend a bit more than someone just starting might typically (since it will be crucial for the success of my business).

What kits will make or break having the ability to capture great images of ALL the soil dwelling organisms is my main question. Obviously with regards to bacteria, I'm not keen on anything other than quantifying. Although having different lighting methods may allow this process to happen easier, as they are outlined better? Any input super appreciated!

Lastly, I am seeing that the swift, newest model (SWIFT Stellar 1 Pro-T) has infinity setup but can't adjust the condenser? Is that true and if so, how important is that feature for microbiology? I believe Ive read it's fairly important, and it makes me lean towards an Omax with brightfield/darkfield combo or phase contrast combo instead which does seem to have an adjustable condenser (the omax also has a 3w LED compared with a 1w LED on the Swift). Just again, I obviously don't know what's really the key for microbiology and capturing the best possible images as such a noobie!

Tldr
1. Are darkfield and phase contrast worthwhile for soil food web organisms, for photographing well and quantifying accurately such as: bacteria, fungi, protozoa, Nematodes, and microarthropods? And in what order should I prioritize them in my purchasing decision?

2. Will a really high quality cell phone give better usable images for both long term viewing or streaming (due to my requirement of wearing glasses for correction) and sharing/logging purposes than a dedicated 10-15megapixel+ usb3 camera.?

Thanks so very much advance and thanks for taking the time to read. Hopefully there is something in the 500 to 800 range that will allow me to observe and log everything beautifully!

[BramHuntingNematodes]

Phase contrast is useful for looking at nematodes which are otherwise pretty transparent. Darkfield also. Phase is very nifty, but you might want to save some of your pennies while learn how to use a microscope as several older, discontinued lines can be found on the second hand market in some cases with a superior selection of phase modalities than can be found on any new scopes

[dtsh]

A used instrument from yesteryear will often get you the most bang for the buck. Providing your location makes it easier to suggest models to look for or you might get lucky and have someone near you. I typically have a spare or 4 sitting around, but shipping often makes them too expensive.

New or used, these tend to be things that I require of any compound microscope...
- mechanical stage, some have a micrometer for measurement though I myself have never used that utility.
- an adjustable conenser. Needs to be able to be raised/lowered, must have an iris.
- at least 17w of incandescent light or at least 3w of LED. If you want phase contrast or darkfield, I feel these wattages won't perform great, but should at least be functional.

Features that are nice to have, but not absolute deal breakers if not present.
- Koehler illumination (full, modified, etc). Look for an iris in the lightpath below/before the condenser.
- Phase contrast
- as many watts of illumation as you can get.
- plan objectives (provides flat-field view)
- trinocular head

I think a cellphone does very well, but a good mount for it makes it much more pleasant. I started by using my cellphone and it worked fine, my only complaint was the effort required to pull the images off to process them.
I use a dedicated camera and view from the display much of the time, but I dont always use it.

I find that phase contrast is worth having. The halos can be a little annoyiing, but considering that it allows you to see otherwise invisible organisms without killing them it's an acceptable compromise to me. At the times I don't wan't/need the phase capability, phase objectives can be used without annuli, allowing them to work as typical objectives.

[PeteM]

Your up-to-$800 budget could get you something like a Zeiss Standard with Neofluar (higher resolution) phase contrast objectives and phase condenser. The phase condenser, if equipped with a darkfield stop, could get you darkfield up to 200x, maybe 400x. This would be a superior microscope IMO, to various AmScope-Omax-new Swift options under $1500.

Another option would be something like an American Optical Series 20, including a high power darkfield condenser and phase contrast.

Even a somewhat older cell phone, held firmly to a third eyepiece by a phone holder, should provide decent images - especially if you do focus stacking. A remote release is usually available cheap and a previous generation phone can be dedicated to the scope and run on WiFi.

[Hobbyst46]

At least for short-sighted or multifocal-eyeglass wearers, eyepieces that are designed for eyeglass wearers and are marked accordingly do a good job. One can wear the eyeglasses and during the whole session without problem.

For ergonomic and convenience reasons, I would definitely prefer a trinocular scope and a fixed camera (USB or DSLR or mirrorless) on the photo tube over a cellphone, which I find difficult to align and focus on the scope, even with expensive adapters. Just my opinion though.

[blekenbleu]

Several smartphone adapter reviewers report using third matching eyepiece and leaving the adapter attached to it. In many cases, this third conventional eyepiece with afocal smartphone attached could be used in the photo port of a trinocular head instead of relatively rare matching photo relay lens.

[jerseyman201]

Thanks so so so much for all the incredible replies! Were exactly what I was looking for. Seeing the condenser needing adjustment and at least 3w led already knocks the swift microscopes out of the competition (for my needs) so that helped immediately narrow it down, as the newest models they offer don't seem to have that option. The draw were the plan objectives, but seeing as I'd be using camera/cell phone I'd imagine it wouldn't make all that much difference anyway? Looks like it'll be between an Omax or if I can find a Zeiss model/American Optical at that price range with those similar features seems to be the options (have yet to start looking at those)! I will surely check used options as well, however I'd imagine I'd be hard pressed to find anything local unfortunately. Really good to know the images from the cell phone will be good, but thanks for the heads up about overall long term best to have a real screen/camera dedicated. My biggest worry is wanting to look up what I'm seeing USING my cell phone

[blekenbleu]

The draw were the plan objectives, but seeing as I'd be using camera/cell phone I'd imagine it wouldn't make all that much difference anyway?

IMO, Plan objectives are as useful for single images captured by afocal (cell phone or camera with lens over eyepiece)
as by dedicated matched trinocular camera, namely how much of the objective's field is usefully in focus;
a focus bracketing app can mitigate lack of planarity.

My biggest worry is wanting to look up what I'm seeing USING my cell phone

An old $50 iPhone SE without a cellular plan can capture good afocal microscope images.
After getting technique sorted, upgrading to e.g. a mirrorless micro 4/3 or APS-C camera with focus bracketing may become worthwhile.

Over the longer term, a microscope with wide availability of compatible objectives becomes important.
For example, if one uses 5x mainly for finding but 20-40x for images, then a parfocal imagining Plan objective is worthwhile.
It seems difficult to sort which aftermarket objectives are compatible with new scopes from China...

[lorez2]

I have several, many, actually, of the scopes being discussed in this thread. Send me a message if you would like specifics.

lorez2

[dtsh]

The draw were the plan objectives, but seeing as I'd be using camera/cell phone I'd imagine it wouldn't make all that much difference anyway?

Non-plan objectives are acceptable visually, but photography will greatly benefit from plan objectives. I have found stacking non-plan objectives to be significantly more difficult and you almost certainly want to do image stacking.