Suggestions for travel stereoscope

[sreynolds]

I'm looking for suggestions for a travel stereoscope - price under $1,000 US, with camera port, built-in incidental and transmitted lighting a plus, magnification range 1-40x, case available - any ideas? I love my Wild M7A but won't put it through travel rigors. I have a Motic SMZ143 which meets all above specs, except the imaging is terrible, especially through the trinoc port.

[PeteM]

An M3b or M3c might fill the bill. The clip stops units are pretty robust. Lacking a zoom, they're often affordable. They're small and lovely instruments. And you could share objectives and accessories with your M7a.

For lighting I'd suggest reflected illumination via a LED flashlight held in a cheap clone "Magic Arm." For transmitted illumination, I'd suggest a thin LED panel under a glass stage plate. Most any stand has enough room under it to fit these, so you avoid the cost and weight of an official Wild-era transmitted stage. Both are light, cheap, eminently usable, and will run a long time between charges.

[Scarodactyl]

The Leica/cambridge/bausch and lomb sz6 is insanely light and does image well. Would probably need careful packing though. Another option is a Leica MS5 or M50, people complain about the plastic shells but they do make them light and they're both compact, optically equivalent to an M3c.

[sreynolds]

It appears that the Cambridge SZ6 is a Greenough design - my experience with the Motic SMZ143, a Greenough design, was unsatisfactory for photography. Part of the problem is that the light path coming to the photo port is not perpendicular to the subject, but angled. Does that problem occur with the SZ6? I'm inclined to stay with a CMO setup although the SZ6 looks nicely compact.

[PeteM]

Steve - yes it's a Greenough design. If "travel" means a desire for super light, it fits the bill. If "travel" means compact enough to fly with or fit with a bunch of other luggage, it's not as robustly built as some better-quality CMO designs.

[Scarodactyl]

No stereo microscope is going to be ideal for photography, greenough or cmo. Image quality is good but not top tier with an sz6, but top tier is rarely very mobile. With a CMO system if you want less compromise on photos you'll have to carry around heavy plan or planapo objectives with them, since the more compact achros are going to have noticeable distortions and CA.
I was not very impressed with the motic smz I tried either, but while they do have some inherent limitations greenoughs can produce very good images (for a stereo).

[apochronaut]

I am trying to figure out if ANY full performanc stereo microscope fits the bill for travel. Travel can mean many things from field to carry on a plane to another location. Since you mention photography, I assume the type of travel you are interested in is limited : here to there sort of thing.
Can you clarify a little?

[Scarodactyl]

It isn't too hard to pack one securely in a pelican case with fitted foam. The GIA used to make a wonderful portable (luggable) version of their Gemolite microscope with an sz6 head.

[Sure Squintsalot]

It's worth considering if you're committing to a scope that's "carry-on" or if it will be checked luggage. The carry-on weight limit is strictly enforced at 7.5kg (15lbs) especially for international travel. I've gotten the stink eye a few times on domestic travel for exceeding that limit, but had to be taken for "a short discussion" when travelling to Asia.

Scope + case + rolling luggage should not exceed 15lbs for carry-on.

[apochronaut]

Wasn't talking about padding. It was size. I'm thinking , does he want portable use, or just portability? It seems just portability

. If it's just portability, there isn't much difference between an SZ7 and an SZ6, once the case is involved, depending on the stand chosen, and the SZ7 is still a peach, the SZ6, not so much. I think both will be heavy in a case.

If he really wants to downsize and keep some quality in a small packege, it is hard to beat a well collimated Cycloptic. All aluminum, quite light. Add in another lb. , if the U.W.F. 15X eyepieces from B & L are added in. It's CMO , infinity corrected , apochromatic and the trinocular works pretty good. There are still thousands of them available. Cheap. The last one I bought was 149.00 with a trinocular.

[sreynolds]

Photography is an important feature for me. I had come to the conclusion that a good case, like a hard-shell music-gear case, was going to be necessary, and that I would opt for a scope that promised good images, using a direct projection approach with a mirrorless camera to keep things as compact as possible. 'Travel' means I can put is in a case and take it with me in the car, and not worry about it getting out of alignment or otherwise damaged. I had pretty much settled on a Wild M3B with the Motic 1500.3 beam-splitter/phototube, which was going to cost around $1,200 all in without a case. I had not considered a cycloptic, but thanks to

If he really wants to downsize and keep some quality in a small packege, it is hard to beat a well collimated Cycloptic. All aluminum, quite light. Add in another lb. , if the U.W.F. 15X eyepieces from B & L are added in. It's CMO , infinity corrected , apochromatic and the trinocular works pretty good. There are still thousands of them available. Cheap. The last one I bought was 149.00 with a trinocular.

I will look closely at the cycloptic. Thanks.

[PeteM]

If you get a Cycloptic, you may want to mark the location and then reinforce the glue holding the prisms to the metal cover. The old adhesive is a weak link in an otherwise wonderful stereo microscope.

I've had half a dozen with loose prisms - some subsequently chipped beyond repair. They had apparently been dropped or jarred somewhere along the way. Two had already been factory repaired, and the glue holding them broken loose yet again.

Repair is pretty easy if you know precisely where the prisms go and catch the problem before the prisms rattle around and get chipped. It's a pain if you try to realign them yourself without the factory jigs.

[apochronaut]

If the scopes were donations Pete, you get what you pay for. If you bought them, then you made a mistake. You are turning people off of buying what is essentially a quality steal in a stereo.
All one needs to do if buying a Cycloptic on ebay or elsewhere is just verify that the seller knows enough to guarantee that the instrument won't be DOA. A little extra bead of epoxy around the already secure prisms once it is in your hands will provide a very strong bond for years to come. You don't even have to worry about prism cement with a Cycloptic, as is the case with porro prism stereos because the prisms are one piece roof prisms.

[PeteM]

. . . If you bought them, then you made a mistake. You are turning people off of buying what is essentially a quality steal in a stereo. . . . A little extra bead of epoxy around the already secure prisms once it is in your hands will provide a very strong bond for years to come. . .

I did buy them (perhaps a dozen), Phil, and consider it a potential problem first-time buyers should know about. A high percentage of these scopes have detached prisms - or get detached in shipping. At least twice, I asked the seller if there was any rattling sound in the head -- and to pack it carefully -- and still was sent a Cycloptic with one or both detached prisms.

My suggestion if sreynolds buys one was much the same as yours, ". . . reinforce the glue holding the prisms to the metal cover . . ."

They're good scopes -- and I appreciate that you're a fan of most anything American Optical -- but like the broken plastic focus gears endemic to many otherwise excellent Nikon 'phot scores or the delamination of Zeiss objectives -- this is something users should check for before buying a Cycloptic and deal with before, say, knocking it about while traveling.

[apochronaut]

How do you know it is a high percentage? There were more Cycloptics sold during a certain timeframe than any other stereo microscope, probably as many as 10 or more other models put together. What's a high percentage of 50 ,000 microscopes sold? The fact that there are some on the cheapskate used market with undisclosed defects doesn't in any way indicate a high percentage, if that is the market you are buying out of.
How many do you personally know of? I know of 4, and 3 of them I rejected due to defects, a high percentage for me because of the price range I am looking in. However, the low cost used microscope market is full of broken microscopes, 99% of them not Cycloptics. I have bought 4 and got stung once but got a refund.
Of course there are maybe more Cycloptics with prism problems on the cheap used market than Zeiss Stemis for instance but they outsold Zeiss Stemis in N. America by over 10:1. There are still 1000's of Cycloptics in active service and very easily found excellent ones on the used market if you buy with care. Plus lots of fractional apochromatic CMO's for less than 1/4 the price you will pay for others. A Cycloptic is not the best stereo in existence but for what it offers : light weight, apochromatic optics, quality construction, a nicely made trinocular in an infinity corrected optical tube, a potential extra wide field, multiple apochromatic CMOs for extra W.D., an inexpensive trans-illumination base, multiple units quite readily available and low cost. Nothing equals it.
As with every other used microscope purchase, buy carefully and ask questions.

[dtsh]

I've no idea what the rate of failure is for Cycloptics, my sample size is tiny at 3 complete Cycloptics that I'm certain were looked over beforehand by someone who understood them, of those one lost a prism. No doubt the sheer number of them has some effect, but I've seen several folks post here about loose prisms and have sent some spare parts out. What percentage of them is that? No idea, but it is a noticeable number of folks who post here who've experienced it, so it's a worthy thing to mention to someone even as a precaution. I personally wouldn't let it stop me from buying one, especially if I had a guarantee of it arriving functional.

I've been nothing but pleased with my Cycloptic and happy that apochronaut mentioned them to me when I was looking as for me it's been a perfect fit. I've considered getting a 580 as an upgrade, but I'm not sure for my use it would be an improvement or not. One thing I love about the Cycloptic is that there aren't a lot of delicate parts to bind or get out of alignment, it is an excellent design with the possible exception of the prism adhesive. I'd considered a few times of making a jig for them, but I doubt I'll ever get around to it.

[woyjwjl]

The early version of TWX-1 had metal elastic pressure plates around the prism, which were later replaced by cement in order to compromise costs.......

[sreynolds]

I have ordered what should be a nice copy of a Wild M3B and will get a foam-lined hardshell case. I know how to do direct-projection camera attachment with the Wild, and I have confidence in the Wild optics. I find a lot of Cycloptics on Ebay, but none of the trinocular attachments, and what I read about the trinocs in this forum suggests that direct-projection is not its first strength. Will post pictures of the setup when I get it, thanks for the advice and commentary.

[Scarodactyl]

Hard to go wrong with Wild.