Buying from the "big 4"

[zondar]

Greetings All,

I have used a variety of high-end microscopes over the years at work (for viewing integrated circuits, etc.), and am in the process of purchasing equipment for personal use.

I recently bought a Stemi 508 stereo with 0.63 "apo" barlow, directly from Zeiss. I routinely use a Stemi 2000c at work, but when I looked through the 508 for the first time, I audibly gasped! Really nice! But communication was almost completely absent, and I never got any indication of when it might arrive, and in the end it arrived suddenly without any notice (I was lucky I was at home).

Unlike the others in the big 4, Zeiss does let you look at pricing on-line (what a stunning innovation! ). And so, since I'm a bit of a Zeiss fan-boy anyway, I next looked at the Zeiss materials / biological microscopes. Ah, but pricing for what I wanted, e.g. starting with an Axioscope platform, was a bit shocking (upwards of ~$30k U.S.).

Next I'm looking at a BX53 for comparison. But buying from the "big 4" is a bizarre and infantilizing experience. You will be given a product brochure but no price list. The distant but nice-enough person on the other end will want to steer you towards what he or she thinks you need (e.g. an off-the shelf configuration) rather than what you do. Adjusting the configuration after you do get their offer (if you ever get that far) will be more teeth-pulling, with each interaction being slower and more difficult than the last.

It's enough to make ebay seem welcoming (actually not), provided you have the patience to sort through endless listings of random junk-level stuff, all with hopelessly small and blurry photos, inadequate descriptions beyond "if you don't see it, it's probably not included", and so on.

So next I contacted a dealer with some good-looking used equipment in their inventory; someone that has been mentioned here. I provided a brief description of what I'm looking for ... with zero contact returned. You don't want to sell me an expensive microscope?

I'll end up with something, sometime, but not sure what or how!

[Hobbyst46]

Big 4 dealers are mainly tuned to sell to institutes rather than individuals, so their transactions comprise of quotations, bids, competition, and trying to have the customer obliged to buy more and more from the same source in the future.
Another reason for the pricing is those microscopes can be upgraded with a plethora of accessories, and potential for software control.
Another point against buying very modern microscopes is the high price of parts, in the hundreds or thousands $.
On the other hand, institutes often get rid of outdated (and still first-class) microscopes, just because they can afford it and consider that cutting edge equipment is essential (and attractive to potential students). I would try to try for such "surplus" stuff.

[Scarodactyl]

If you're not an institution it's hard to beat buying used. Businesses and universities surplus top tier stuff for pennies on the dollar and surplus dealers resell it for not much more. I got my Nikon E800 with DIC for a fraction of what it should have cost.

[zondar]

I agree. I'm just venting a bit about how difficult the process can feel.

If I could find that awesome institution-sourced scope, unmolested and with most of the features and accessories I want, available at a steal as surplus, I'd go for it immediately. But it seems that used research-grade scopes are most often oriented towards fluorescence or live cell cultures or they include automation, etc., that I neither need nor want.

Despite the high cost, there are at least a few advantages to buying new: I can get pretty much exactly what I want, now-ish, without much risk, with everything in perfect condition and hopefully guaranteed to work together in harmony.

By contrast, unless lucky, buying used means accepting compromises, followed by scrounging for months for those accessories that remain missing, all while dodging a mine-field of mistakes and misrepresentations.

My fluorite refractor (telescope) was bought new more than 30 years ago, and I never regretted for a moment spending a little more for it. But amateur astronomy hardware is different in that it's aimed exactly at amateurs, while microscopy much above the Amscope level isn't. Sigh.

I'm not sure what direction to go in. Zeiss allows the purchase of a higher-tier microscope on-line without having to run the gauntlet of sales reps that don't see a big sale on the horizon. You just have to be willing to figure some things out for yourself (a rep would likely comment on your selection if asked to), and then take a very cold bath on the prices!

Or I could find a good used one and do the scrounging routine for what's left (like if that dealer would return my contact!). Or I'll give up and get something more "pro-sumer" that lacks features that I'd like (higher wattage light source, better condenser, DIC available, etc.), but that doesn't require begging for a quote like you are Oliver Twist asking for more gruel.

[Hobbyst46]

...DIC available...

DIC is not an option in many inexpensive (say, 1000-3000$) new microscopes.
For a new system microscope, favorable reviews on Bestscope (i.e. BS-2081) have been posted in the past 3-4 years by several forum members, for example:
https://www.microbehunter.com/microscop ... hp?t=13375
Some other favorable opinions on affordable microscopes and customer service of the supplier Bresser have been posted as well. They did not mention phase contrast or DIC though.

[zondar]

Yes, I saw that post and a few others about it, earlier.

It's interesting, but I'd wager the net cost of that microscope, well-equipped, including 50 lbs of air shipping and import tariffs (I'd have to expect California's "use tax," even), would be somewhat over $10,000, and likely about the same as a decent used "big 4" with DIC. In that case, I'd go big-4 used.

Money for this is not a deal-breaking obstacle for me, thankfully, but to save some, I could buy the basic mechanics new, and go used for objectives and maybe a few other items that aren't hard to find. I read a post here by someone who happily took this approach with a Leica DM2500.

I could also consider getting a lower-tier stand (e.g. Axiolab or the equivalent), which saves quite a bit (at least $4000) over the forced a la carte of next step up. Transmitted-light DIC would be harder or not possible, though, without later upgrading the stand.

[PeteM]

For the price of a new basic brightfield Zeiss, you could likely buy a used infinity-era scope with phase and/or DIC - complete and in good shape. The photons might never know they were going through used optics . . .

Personally, I think Leica DM, Nikon Eclipse, and Olympus BX are all a bit better from this era than Zeiss. Their longer tube reference lengths are one plus. There also seem to be more parts available for Olympus BX and Nikon Eclipse compared to Leica DM and Zeiss Axio. A possible plus if you want things like ergo trinocular heads, and top notch objectives.

If you're going for an inverted scope, the newer Zeiss do seem pretty nice.

[apochronaut]

It was I that brought the BS-2081 forward as a possible new microscope option to beat the cost of the majors. I even went so far as to solicit a proforma invoice for a system but instead decided to build on my Diastar platform with a couple of objective purchases and instead put the money into a BS-3091 18:1 zoom apochromat stereo. Even though I didn't buy the BS-2081, I passed all the info. on to a couple of other members that eventually did buy one. One if them even bought 2 ; a 100 watt halogen version and a 3 watt led version.

The BS-2081I was going to buy was to cost around $9000.00 delivered with 5 planfluor objectives and 2 planachros for BF, DF and DIC, 4 planachro phase objectives, a DIC universal condenser, an oil DF condenser, a phase carousel condenser, 25mm eyepieces and trinocular head. 7 place nosepiece and 100 watt halogen. The objectives are 25mm NIS and at the time they had 2 planapos available and by now I would imagine a full set is available. It seems like a pretty good price for all that.
The same frame is available from Radical in India with optics made by Seiwa. Radical also has a wider range objectives listed, even some pretty fancy water immersion.

Perhaps the two buyers could chime in with their experiences.

[zondar]

That's a lot of goodies! Yes, sounds like a good value for all that at that price.

I started with Zeiss because I've used them at work for a long time and hence know a bit about them. I've always found them to be great, and I'm pretty happy with the 508, too. But I've never used any other big-4 scope for any length of time.

I agree that Olympus in particular has much wider availability on the used market than Zeiss. Nikon as well. I've been looking over the Olympus BX series, and it's very complete.

By "tube reference length," are you talking about finite optics?

[PeteM]

I meant the infinite "reference" tube length, which is 165mm for most Zeiss Axio, 180mm for Olympus BX, and 200mm for Leica DM and Nikon Eclipse. Here's Nikon's take on the pros and cons: https://www.microscopyu.com/microscopy- ... al-systems

Olympus makes a pretty good case that their choice balances such things as past compatibility and keeping scope dimensions somewhat compact and ergonomic.

[zondar]

Ok, the focal length of the tube lens. Sure, I can see the slightly longer focal length being a modest benefit. More troubling, I see references to corrections in the tube lens. I thought infinity optics meant all corrections in the objective, with none in the tube lens.

A question: None of the big-4 websites seem to list authorized dealers, so far as I've seen. If true, why is this? Any recommendations for an Olympus dealer in the U.S. for a mid-tier order? It's not clear that I'm converging with Olympus directly.

Thanks.

[PeteM]

I believe Olympus assigns dealers to territories. If you're on the West Coast, I believe McBain is still an Olympus dealer. Olympus' decision to exit the business as "Olympus" and now as "Evident" may be another issue in getting the service you desire.

FWIW, the whole dealer mode is breaking down - with many of them going out of business. Chinese (Indian, etc.) competition keeps margins low in selling to hobbyists, schools, and routine medical use. There's still money at the high end, but the remaining dealers are not especially interested in dealing with a hundred non-institutional inquiries to find the one serious mid-range buyer like yourself. And today's high-end is more about exotic techniques than a good infinity brightfield scope that might go to DIC someday.

Depending upon what you want - the used route might be pretty easy and a whole lot less expensive. If you don't need automation in your microscope, you should be able to get something that will operate trouble-free for many years and only require routine service.

[zondar]

McBain's web-site does not mention Evident or the sale of Olympus microscopes anymore (parts for them maybe, though). They sell Motic now as their big line, and just a few others.

They do mention the sale of used microscopes, so I'll give them a call and ask what they have. They are within driving range if they are OK with a visitor.

I don't get the name change to Evident. Olympus was such a well known brand that it seems a confusing waste to have spurned it.

Anyway, where can those "easy" used purchases be made? Nothing about Ebay seems easy to me.

[Phill Brown]

It's always good to keep some perspective on what the intended use will be.
Dust and environment control in a domestic setting is worth some planning in.

[MichaelG.]

I don't get the name change to Evident. Olympus was such a well known brand that it seems a confusing waste to have spurned it.

Agreed … April 1 seemed a suitable day for such a change.
https://www.olympus-ims.com/en/evident/
https://www.olympus-global.com/ir/data/ ... ml?page=ir

MichaelG.

[Scarodactyl]

Olympus has spun off all their real businesses and slimmed down to their garbage endoscopes. I just hope that the endoscope business shutters and one of the real olympuses can get the name back. Now is a really bad moment to have generic branding in the microscope space, when several increasingly credible Chinese copies are aiming to compete seriously.

[zondar]

It's always good to keep some perspective on what the intended use will be.
Dust and environment control in a domestic setting is worth some planning in.

Very true. Facetiously, the intended "use" is as a retirement present to myself, as I like learning and playing in technological fields (also for photography, as I mentioned). More fun and interesting than a gold watch, which my employer is definitely not buying me, right?

But DIC in particular can be considered an extravagance for a hobbyist. Not only are the prisms, etc., expensive on their own, but you are driven to a more expensive stand, turrets, etc., to hold and use them. Maybe I should back off on some of my wants? Phase contrast is somewhat similar as a contrast-enhancement technique, and far more accessible, but I just don't think it's as aesthetically appealing. It also has the disadvantage of requiring dedicated objectives, while DIC can use normal, albeit high quality, bright-field objectives.

As for dust, I bought my Stemi 508 to use in my "lab," e.g. for fine soldering, etc. But once I got it, I decided it was too nice and new for that space, which can resemble a war zone more often than not. For now it's in my office, which is much cleaner. Some day, when the shininess has worn off some, I'll likely give in and move it to the lab.

If and when I got a compound scope, it would stay in my office for sure. Maybe the stereo would stay beside it as to assist then, too.

[PeteM]

As an aside, next week, a group of "CAD pioneers" will be meeting to capture a sort of videotaped oral history. Briefly, the history of this software and hardware industry goes something like this: 1) All sorts of cool technology implementations - and nearly two hundred companies trying to gain a toe hold. 2) Outreach to customers and battling for market share with continuous product and customer support improvement. 3) A few winners emerging and a few outstanding niche suppliers still standing. 4) More often than not, the companies left are subsequently taken over by financial types, who don't much care about either the technology or customers but figure they can make a few bucks either jacking up prices or selling off the assets.

One can see this in who runs the company. First, engineers and scientists. Next, maybe marketing and sales. Possibly, operations. Finally, a "profits-for-shareholders" takeover. Which is pretty much the self-serving version of free-market competition. Once a start-up has broken even (decades ago, perhaps), then the real capital to fund operations and innovations (and pay shareholder dividends) comes from its customers.

Olympus was an innovator - especially on the high-value-for-customers side. Its older scopes are still a marvel. It once gained dominant market share and a had a robust dealer network. As a result, it became one of the "big four."

Last year, it was acquired by a hedge fund (Bain Capital) and renamed "Evident" with all sorts of promises of cool things and great customer support to come. I'm skeptical.

[zondar]

Oh dear, those sharks, Bain Capital!? A grim prediction: A hollowing out for quick, short term profits will likely ensue, leaving behind little more than a zombie corpse.

Reminds me a little of H.P. spinning off their famed instrument division (so they could focus on ... Compaq!? How did that work out?). They are now on their second new name (H.P. to Agilent to Keysight). They still make some good stuff, but a lot of their products have stagnated terribly, and the likes of Siglent are starting to kill them.

[Scarodactyl]

More like Evidon't.

But DIC in particular can be considered an extravagance for a hobbyist.

Absolutely, but while it may not be necessary it is awfully nice! Every technique has its place but it's a particularly nice option to have.

[Phill Brown]

There's a lot to be said for buying a pre owned recent Chinese microscope.
If after 6 months it's really what you like,with what you will then know the worst that can happen is you have a scope you are not afraid to let children join in with.
Necessity for work is nothing like trying to get motivated to look through half a glass of water one drop at a time for something that might not be there.

[PeteM]

. . . Reminds me a little of H.P. spinning off their famed instrument division . . .

Yep, same deal. HP was a client back when John Young and then Lew Platt ran the company very much in the tradition of Hewlett and Packard. A buddy (Chuck House) was there for the good times and tracked the wreckage post Carly Fiorina -- and lived to write of it: https://www.amazon.com/HP-Phenomenon-In ... 0804752869

[Wes]

I could buy the basic mechanics new

Thats what I would do. You would have a solid foundation to build upon while avoiding the potential minefield of intricate mechanisms and light train components being damaged, misaligned and so on. Also consider getting an objective turret that comes with the possibility to install DIC prisms later on. Maybe also think about an inverted stand as it opens amazing possibilities to observe organisms in petri dishes with a coverslip bottom (this is actually a game changer). And finally get an ergonomic binocular tube, trust me you don't need the neck/back fatigue from having to lean over a 45 degree inclined eyepieces.

[zondar]

Thanks for the feedback.

Your suggestion for an inverted stand is particularly thought-provoking. I think I've felt reticent about that due to the greater possibility of damage to the objectives, etc. But maybe it's worth the risk.

Future compatibility for DIC can be a problem in that many systems seem to require just one more slider, etc., than is available on the stand, e.g. prism plus analyzer on the objective side, whereas there's commonly only room for one. Or maybe it's deliberate differentiation for marketing purposes: Want DIC? Buy this more expensive stand!

Also, thanks for the suggestion for an ergonomic tube. I wasn't seriously considering that, but it makes sense.

Finally, great videos!

[PeteM]

FWIW, the mechanical bits of DIC-capable BX (BX40, BX50) and Eclipse-era (E600, ME600, E400) scopes haven't been a problem in the nine scopes that have passed through. All nine were nearly as new. Even with many showing a last service date a decade or more before, they were near silky smooth. I'm sure there are trashed ones out there or serviced with the wrong grease and moving as if through cement, but the odds of a good one seem pretty good.

Three power supplies were bad or missing (that's why they were cheap), but that is easily remedied with a new power supply or a complete LED conversion.

Leica DMLB scopes have a pretty cool two-speed fine focus, but the ball detent in this is likely to be missing if the scope has been taken apart. The focus is still entirely usable, but it's a bit like a slightly balky stick shift in keeping the fine focus in one gear or the other. The scopes are otherwise robust, though you have to make sure the optical components are compatible. There were early "Delta" and later "HC" versions. It's the same with the larger DMRB research scopes. It's also harder to get the parts for proper corrections for photography. However, if you find one complete, the image quality is outstanding -- arguably better than Olympus comparing plan fluorite to plan fluorite DIC optics.

A Nikon 50i, which has more plastic parts in the gear train, arrived with these plastic parts shattered from poor packing. Nikon arranged the stand's geometry on these to accept four, five, and six-hole interchangeable nosepieces, but NOT to fit the slightly larger DIC nosepieces. The E400 is the same but can be modified with a bit of work to handle DIC. The 50i is slightly more ergonomic (an ergo head is typically provided, low profile stage, and a similarly silky and speedy fine focus), but the E400 is probably the better deal.

I don't have Zeiss infinity experience beyond one of the early lower-end Axios, which worked OK but was built to a lower standard than the Olympus BX, Nikon Eclipse, and Leica DM. The higher-end Zeiss are probably fine, especially the inverted ones, judging by visits to a biochemistry researcher friend. I also know that the new and somewhat affordable Zeiss infinity microscope is made by Motic with a 180mm reference tube length rather than Zeiss' usual 165mm. It's a decent scope, but has a fixed nosepiece and no provision for DIC.

[Phill Brown]

I'd miss DF too much to go with inverted only.
It's not impossible but not practical much above 10x mostly.

[zondar]

Evidently, I'm forced to give up on "Evident," since I'm just being ghosted now.

I'm also ghosted by two used-scope dealers that I've contacted. One asked what my budget was, and I responded with a more-than-adequate 5-figure sum. But apparently not adequate enough to bother hitting "respond." Such a strange business!

I'm still considering ordering something from Zeiss (at least they took my order for the Stemi 508). If there's a Zeiss expert here reading this, please PM.

Or maybe I'll lower my sights? Perhaps start with a basic scope and get on the "how many scopes does one person need" upgrade train?

[Hobbyst46]

...Big 4 dealers are mainly tuned to sell to institutes rather than individuals, so their transactions comprise of quotations, bids, competition, and trying to have the customer obliged to buy more and more from the same source in the future...

Another potential route for finding a relatively modern high grade microscope (not necessarily 'big 4") would be a local dealer that caters to institutes. Sometimes, such a microscope, equipped with versatile illumination and good optics but not confocal, not motorized, not computer-controlled, might be purchased from a supermarket-like vendor that sells all kinds of laboratory stuff. I believe that salespersons from such vendors would welcome any buyer who can afford a 4-figure microscope. And even suggest a good second hand solution.

Or maybe I'll lower my sights? Perhaps start with a basic scope and get on the "how many scopes does one person need" upgrade train?

That would be a good idea, that will help you identify exactly which features to look for in your "ideal" microscope. And weigh in many factors: cost of optical parts and accessories, ease of maintenance, preferred contrast mode etc.