Astronomer Considering Microscopy

What is your microscopy history? What are your interests? What equipment do you use?
Message
Author
Terry Mc
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:16 pm

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#31 Post by Terry Mc » Thu Feb 03, 2022 8:26 pm

mikemarotta wrote:
Thu Feb 03, 2022 2:56 am
Terry Mc wrote:
Wed Feb 02, 2022 4:41 pm
My two cents? The Olympus BH-2 line of models is very much worth considering. I use the BHT model. These are modular scopes so that they can be customized a bit, and parts are readily available on eBay etc. The optics are great. I too am an amateur astronomer!
Well, I am very much impressed! At $3800, it is a bit more than I can make the best use of. If I were younger, I would consider this an entry to a new line of work.
But thanks for the very pleasant shopping experience!

Mike M.
Hi Mike,

Keep an eye on eBay, I have under $500 invested in mine and I'm sure that you can find something in that range as well. These are 1980's microscopes that haven't been in production for awhile now.

mikemarotta
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:27 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#32 Post by mikemarotta » Thu Feb 03, 2022 11:03 pm

mikemarotta wrote:
dtsh wrote:
Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:38 pm
Your location will likely matter, but are any of these appealing?
https://www.shopgoodwill.com/ ...
Thanks for the recommendation. I sort of knew about the online presence of Goodwill from a magazine article last year, but it never occurred to me to search there.
I much prefer that to Amazon or eBay.
Best Regards,
Mike M.
So, i went to Goodwill, registered and logged in and found more than I could have imagined. I then went into telescopes (which I know a little better) and compared pricing for different makes and models there to understand some context for what to expect from these microscopes.
One Now at Goodwill.jpg
One Now at Goodwill.jpg (83.55 KiB) Viewed 6959 times
Two more now at Goodwill.jpg
Two more now at Goodwill.jpg (73.45 KiB) Viewed 6959 times
Two now at Goodwill.jpg
Two now at Goodwill.jpg (76.37 KiB) Viewed 6959 times
Actually, I wanted a lot more, objectives, oculars, etc. How can you pass up those prices?

Then I realized that this is just my random visit. Stuff like this is always there.
Perhaps it is best to wait.

Best Regards,
Mike M.
-----------------------------
Michael E. Marotta
Technical Writer

apochronaut
Posts: 6268
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#33 Post by apochronaut » Thu Feb 03, 2022 11:24 pm

One of the differences between microscopes and smaller telescopes is that a lot of microscopes start their life as workhorse instruments in schools, vet clinics or other lab or professional situations. They can be used quite rigourously and can suffer from poor care and can be subject to a lot of wear and dirt. Usually telescopes are cared for or possibly little used.

At the prices of those instruments at Goodwill you can afford some damage but how handy are you and would you rather have a fully operational instrument to start with? Many used microscopes will need some TLC to get them functional ; at least a thorough clean and lubrication. You can't really ask any questions or verify the condition can you?

Ebay has an advantage in that you can ask a lot of questions to verify the condition and if the listing does not have disclaimers that evade ebay's rules ; the purchase is protected both by ebay and usually by paypal too. It is a pain to have to return something but at least on ebay you can if the microscope does not match the description or the information given through messaging, and the seller pays for it and a full refund too. Ebay's prices are more than Goodwill generally but the purchase is more secure. Some ebay sellers are restorers as well.

mikemarotta
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:27 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#34 Post by mikemarotta » Fri Feb 04, 2022 11:54 am

Thanks for the recommendations.
Javier wrote:
Thu Feb 03, 2022 12:31 pm
Did you consider the Motic ba 310? Seems to be a very popular scope among advanced amateurs and the results people obtain mounting iPhones + ilab cam adapter are impressive.
I was unaware of the Motic product line. I watched your video and then found your YouTube channel.
Greg Howald wrote:
Thu Feb 03, 2022 1:12 pm
Wow! Tons of advice here from highly educated and experienced people. So I'll chime in too. Greg
And you offered a lot of advice, also, Greg. I made it into a bulleted list for myself as a guide.

I also viewed three more of Oliver Kim's tutorials. There's a lot to consider.

Best Regards,
Mike M.
-----------------------------
Michael E. Marotta
Technical Writer

Javier
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#35 Post by Javier » Fri Feb 04, 2022 1:45 pm

mikemarotta wrote:
Fri Feb 04, 2022 11:54 am
Thanks for the recommendations.
Javier wrote:
Thu Feb 03, 2022 12:31 pm
Did you consider the Motic ba 310? Seems to be a very popular scope among advanced amateurs and the results people obtain mounting iPhones + ilab cam adapter are impressive.
I was unaware of the Motic product line. I watched your video and then found your YouTube channel.

That is not my video nor my YT channel. That would be awesome though :lol:

mikemarotta
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:27 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#36 Post by mikemarotta » Fri Feb 04, 2022 1:56 pm

Javier wrote:
Fri Feb 04, 2022 1:45 pm
That is not my video nor my YT channel. That would be awesome though :lol:
I am sorry that you did not properly identify your source. We are informal here, but surely as a citizen-scientist you must appreciate the danger of accidental plagiarism. In fact, as a professional writer, I have to be mindful of self-plagiarism. I cannot properly just cut and paste my own words across media presentations without attribution. Good science practice can seem demanding but is necessary in order to identify truth.
-----------------------------
Michael E. Marotta
Technical Writer

Javier
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#37 Post by Javier » Fri Feb 04, 2022 2:28 pm

mikemarotta wrote:
Fri Feb 04, 2022 1:56 pm
Javier wrote:
Fri Feb 04, 2022 1:45 pm
That is not my video nor my YT channel. That would be awesome though :lol:
I am sorry that you did not properly identify your source. We are informal here, but surely as a citizen-scientist you must appreciate the danger of accidental plagiarism. In fact, as a professional writer, I have to be mindful of self-plagiarism. I cannot properly just cut and paste my own words across media presentations without attribution. Good science practice can seem demanding but is necessary in order to identify truth.
The credits are on the top part of the video as hyperlinks. How would this be comparable to copying and pasting unquoted text? Remember that when you upload a video on YT you have an insert option, and every click or reproduction you get is doing you a favor as a content creator.

mikemarotta
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:27 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#38 Post by mikemarotta » Fri Feb 04, 2022 9:57 pm

[deleted]
-----------------------------
Michael E. Marotta
Technical Writer

mikemarotta
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:27 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#39 Post by mikemarotta » Fri Feb 04, 2022 10:16 pm

Javier wrote:
Fri Feb 04, 2022 2:28 pm
The credits are on the top part of the video as hyperlinks. How would this be comparable to copying and pasting unquoted text? Remember that when you upload a video on YT you have an insert option, and every click or reproduction you get is doing you a favor as a content creator.
The credits at the top are not informative: "Microscope VLOG #1 - My microscope."
I put "microscopes javier" into YouTube and that search returned a hit, to an Oliver Kim video, actually.

Whether someone gets click credits or not is irrelevant. The salient problem is identifying the creator of the work. The converse of that is being clear that you are not the creator. It is simply practicing good scientific method.
-----------------------------
Michael E. Marotta
Technical Writer

Javier
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#40 Post by Javier » Fri Feb 04, 2022 11:02 pm

mikemarotta wrote:
Fri Feb 04, 2022 10:16 pm
Javier wrote:
Fri Feb 04, 2022 2:28 pm
The credits are on the top part of the video as hyperlinks. How would this be comparable to copying and pasting unquoted text? Remember that when you upload a video on YT you have an insert option, and every click or reproduction you get is doing you a favor as a content creator.
The credits at the top are not informative: "Microscope VLOG #1 - My microscope."
I put "microscopes javier" into YouTube and that search returned a hit, to an Oliver Kim video, actually.

Whether someone gets click credits or not is irrelevant. The salient problem is identifying the creator of the work. The converse of that is being clear that you are not the creator. It is simply practicing good scientific method.
I disagree. The hyperlink is the credit for the author work. There is no scientific method about inserting videos from YouTube, it is an allowed practice that benefits content creators, and it's far from plagiarism.

That being said, let me tell you that I find very sad having this conversation, since I took the effort to insert the video for you to have an immediate access, and you implied that that could be a dishonest practice.

Since I made my point, I won't be adding any further comment on this topic.

richbart
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2021 2:07 pm
Location: Iowa, USA

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#41 Post by richbart » Sat Feb 05, 2022 6:13 pm

Hi. I’m a newbie to the group also. I’ve got an Olympus BH2 BHTU. It has S and D plan objectives. I worked with microscopes before when I worked in labs, and after I retired I decided to get a scope. I originally bought an inexpensive microscope and eventually found the BH2 on EBay and watched videos on you tube on how to refurbish them. I wish I would have went straight to the older scope. I feel you can’t go wrong with older Olympus, Zeiss, Leits, or Nikons. AO is good too. You get a great scope for less money. If I was too buy a new one I personally would buy a Motic 310E. If you watch “Microcosmos” you can see what they can do. No matter what you get though you’ll have fun.

mikemarotta
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:27 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#42 Post by mikemarotta » Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:10 pm

richbart wrote:
Sat Feb 05, 2022 6:13 pm
Hi. I’m a newbie to the group also. ... I worked with microscopes before when I worked in labs, ... I feel you can’t go wrong with older Olympus, Zeiss, Leits, or Nikons. AO is good too. ... No matter what you get though you’ll have fun.
Welcome to the group, Rich. Thanks for the recommendations. I look forward to your reports here on MicrobeHunter. I saw your introduction, also.
Protozoan and crystal photography are the things I enjoy most.
Thanks!
Mike M.
-----------------------------
Michael E. Marotta
Technical Writer

AJHope
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:45 pm

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#43 Post by AJHope » Tue Feb 08, 2022 9:40 pm

Amazing thread, I have been an astronomy enthusiast since I was a kid and I am not interested in learning about the micro world instead of the macro one...
It was great to find this thread, exactly what I needed to find.

Good luck with the new endeavors Mike, I am sure there is a whole other universe to dream of, just at a completely different scale!

- AJ

apochronaut
Posts: 6268
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#44 Post by apochronaut » Wed Feb 09, 2022 12:24 am

why are you on this forum then, if you are not interested in the micro world?

Phill Brown
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 1:19 pm
Location: Devon UK.

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#45 Post by Phill Brown » Wed Feb 09, 2022 11:58 am

The plot thickens.
Any child told to watch the birdie in a Brownie 127 camera spends the rest of their days looking into lenses in the hope they will find what they where supposed to see.
Not as scientific as discussions on NA but where there is smoke there is reduced visibility.
Happy days.

Dubious
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun May 09, 2021 7:55 pm

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#46 Post by Dubious » Wed Feb 09, 2022 10:07 pm

Mike, do you have a budget for the microscope? That will pretty much define your options if you are buying new, which I believe you said is your intention.

mikemarotta
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:27 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#47 Post by mikemarotta » Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:39 pm

Dubious wrote:
Wed Feb 09, 2022 10:07 pm
Mike, do you have a budget for the microscope? That will pretty much define your options if you are buying new, which I believe you said is your intention.
Thanks. I am not sure where my pain point is. I know that I can go to $1500, though $3000 would buy more instrument than I could use productively. I have considered used instruments and posted some typical examples of Olympus, etc., that I found on the Goodwill Online shop. The major problem there for me is that I do not have an optics bench here and even if I did, I am not a bench technician. I write, based on library research and interviews of experts. So, if I bought a bargain that needed work, I would have wasted my money on something I cannot use.

I also considered the inexpensive alternatives to Zeiss, Leica, Olympus, and Nikon. However, the other day, I had an hour to wait for someone and I watched Oliver Kim's video comparing top-of-the-line to bargain scopes and was convinced, again, to consider only the Big Four. The two strongest reasons were durability and resale value. Kim said that his school wanted to save money when it came time to pay the factory to refurbish their 30-year old Olympus inventory and instead they chose to buy cheaper goods which began failing after three or four years. For those, it is cheaper to throw them out than to repair them. That runs contrary to my philosophy.

Best Regards,
Mike M.
-----------------------------
Michael E. Marotta
Technical Writer

Hobbyst46
Posts: 4277
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:02 pm

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#48 Post by Hobbyst46 » Thu Feb 10, 2022 4:04 pm

mikemarotta wrote:
Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:39 pm
I also considered the inexpensive alternatives to Zeiss, Leica, Olympus, and Nikon. However, the other day, I had an hour to wait for someone and I watched Oliver Kim's video comparing top-of-the-line to bargain scopes and was convinced, again, to consider only the Big Four. The two strongest reasons were durability and resale value.
The North American used microscopy market displays other used quality microscopes, besides the big 4. As mentioned many times on this forum by experts.
The budget you mentioned should buy complete microscope with some accessories. That would be a much better and cheaper idea than buying a basic setup then seeking accessories one by one.
Best of all is to try it in person before you buy; alternatively, buy from a dependable fellow microscopist; or from a nearby acedemic institute that sell older surplus instruments upon upgrading. Again, if it can be tested ahead of purchase.

apochronaut
Posts: 6268
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#49 Post by apochronaut » Thu Feb 10, 2022 4:12 pm

if you can go up to $3000.00 , then you should look into the Bestscope BS-2081. You can sneak a planachromat 6 objective one in under that and have a platform you can build on if you ever want to. It accepts modern Nikon or Seiwa made objectives, so not limiting but their own better colour corrected objectives ( Planfluor) are not shabby. It is a better and more vesatile platform than the Nikon E200. They no doubt manufacture the E200 for Nikon. All the less expensive scopes from the big 4 are Chinese made, now. Nikon and everybody else deliberately limit versatility on their less expensive microscopes in order to upsell in the future.
The BS-2081 is Bestscope's flagship stand, so it has more capability and a greater range of accessories than the Nikon E200, which in ways is a much more expensive less versatile competitor, hanging on the Nikon name
Two forum members have recently bought the BS-2081 after I alerted one and then he another to that option through a post. I gather they are very pleased.

https://www.bestscope.net/bs-2081-resea ... icroscope/

The optical system the 2081 uses is a 60mm parfocal infinity system. It is the same system Nikon currently uses thtoughout it's range with the exception of the entry level Nikon E100, which uses a more common 45mm parfocal infinity system. Bestscope and other Chinese company's using that system call it the NIS60 system, standing for Nikon Infinity System 60mm parfocal. The objective threads are large : 25mm compared to the standard R.M.S. thread of .8" whitworth, or just over 20mm. Manufacturers are opting for longer parfocal lengths as fields of view expand and corrections for aberr6ations are more finely controlled in the objective, since more glass elements are needed to perform those tasks.
In the product picture supplied on the website, it is difficult to compare the BS-2081 to a standard Chinese 45mm parfocal microscope but taking into account the size of the objectives in the nosepiece, one can see that it is a much bigger microscope stand than most 45mm parfocal stands.

mikemarotta
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:27 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#50 Post by mikemarotta » Tue Mar 15, 2022 6:04 pm

apochronaut wrote:
Tue Feb 01, 2022 5:08 pm
All new microscopes priced under about $4,000.00 irregardless of what badge is on them are made in either China, India or Thailand. The Zeiss Primostar is not really a Zeiss microscope. It's just one that they have selected out of a Chinese factory that they feel comfortable putting their name on. It is not optically compatible with other Zeiss microscopes, so you cannot build on it or retrofit it to a higher performance by integrating Zeiss accessories with it : only the few Primostar accessories will work on it and possibly some Chinese Olympus accessories because it is basically a China made Olympus optical system. It is also about twice the price of the same microscope without the Zeiss name on it.
I have given this some thought over the past month. One factor is the easy glide over this: "It's just one that they have selected out of a Chinese factory that they feel comfortable putting their name on. ... It is also about twice the price of the same microscope without the Zeiss name on it. " That is exactly the reaoson why it is worth twice the price. I know from personal experience in astronomy that some new optical goods coming from China are just jammed down the throats of the American re-sellers who have no recourse. On the other hand, Zeiss, Takahashi, and some others can stand up to the source and insist on quality and can penalize the supplier for not meeting specifications. I had to return two astronomical instruments to two different retailers. They made the refunds, of course, but both stonewalled me and remained silent on the issue of quality.

That all being as it may, I am keeping my options open and I am not in a hurry. As I mentioned in another topic thread, I have bookmarks for Oliver Kim (of course), AmScope, Microscope World, New York Microscope, and Microscope Central. At this point, I am still just window shopping.

Thanks, again for all of the other advice. I do pay attention.

Mike M.
-----------------------------
Michael E. Marotta
Technical Writer

apochronaut
Posts: 6268
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#51 Post by apochronaut » Tue Mar 15, 2022 6:54 pm

I said, that it is a microscope " that Zeiss feels comfortable putting their name on" , and "that it is about twice the price of the same microscope without the Zeiss name on it". When one becomes savvy to how microscope technology has developed and how the edges blur at the entry level, it is easy for a company to take advantage over a naiive customer. There is no doubt that at the higher end , at the research level, Zeiss has managed to keep their head above water and is competing head to head with Leica, Olympus and Nikon. Zeiss is struggling however with the lower end and the entry level market, and uses their existing good name to manipulate the perception of quality at that level. When I said "the same microscope" , I meant the same microscope. Zeiss knows there are customers out there that are confused about the plethora of designs offered from the burgeoning Chinese microscope industry and they know they can dupe the naiive.
If you are going to buy Chinese , buy direct from a Chinese factory or broker and bypass the quality schtick of the major manufacturers. Unitron , a venerable U.S. marketer primarily of metallurgical and stereo microscopes for 50 years, wants ,$12,000 for the same microscope I landed at my door for under $5,000.00 from a factory distributor. They have no problem profiteering on the lack of understanding that the customers they purport to support wallow in.
I can guarantee you that any microscope you buy for 2000.00 or less, I can direct you to a version that is as capable for as low as 600.00 and if you go down to 1500.00 as low as 500.00. ......and that the cheap version will outlast the expensive version or be as long lasting.

User avatar
essence25
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 12:01 am
Location: USA

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#52 Post by essence25 » Mon Oct 10, 2022 4:15 am

apochronaut wrote:
Tue Mar 15, 2022 6:54 pm
I said, that it is a microscope " that Zeiss feels comfortable putting their name on" , and "that it is about twice the price of the same microscope without the Zeiss name on it". When one becomes savvy to how microscope technology has developed and how the edges blur at the entry level, it is easy for a company to take advantage over a naiive customer. There is no doubt that at the higher end , at the research level, Zeiss has managed to keep their head above water and is competing head to head with Leica, Olympus and Nikon. Zeiss is struggling however with the lower end and the entry level market, and uses their existing good name to manipulate the perception of quality at that level. When I said "the same microscope" , I meant the same microscope. Zeiss knows there are customers out there that are confused about the plethora of designs offered from the burgeoning Chinese microscope industry and they know they can dupe the naiive.
If you are going to buy Chinese , buy direct from a Chinese factory or broker and bypass the quality schtick of the major manufacturers. Unitron , a venerable U.S. marketer primarily of metallurgical and stereo microscopes for 50 years, wants ,$12,000 for the same microscope I landed at my door for under $5,000.00 from a factory distributor. They have no problem profiteering on the lack of understanding that the customers they purport to support wallow in.
I can guarantee you that any microscope you buy for 2000.00 or less, I can direct you to a version that is as capable for as low as 600.00 and if you go down to 1500.00 as low as 500.00. ......and that the cheap version will outlast the expensive version or be as long lasting.
Wow, you sound like you know your stuff, maybe you can tell me if its possible to replace/upgrade the shitty stage of an Eclipse E200 LED to a better one that is machined does not use an actual belt and of higher quality. Its ridiculous how jerky the E200 stage is.
Maybe you know if they make a stage that would fit the E200 (or retrofit) top mount 3 screws on stage holder.
The old Motic B1 scope I have has a stage eons above the E200 in precision/smoothness.
Apologies for the hijack... & thanks!

dtsh
Posts: 977
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 6:06 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#53 Post by dtsh » Tue Oct 11, 2022 3:47 pm

essence25 wrote:
Mon Oct 10, 2022 4:15 am
Wow, you sound like you know your stuff, maybe you can tell me if its possible to replace/upgrade the shitty stage of an Eclipse E200 LED to a better one that is machined does not use an actual belt and of higher quality. Its ridiculous how jerky the E200 stage is.
Maybe you know if they make a stage that would fit the E200 (or retrofit) top mount 3 screws on stage holder.
The old Motic B1 scope I have has a stage eons above the E200 in precision/smoothness.
Apologies for the hijack... & thanks!
I can't help in regard to the question, but you will probably have better luck if you start a thread about it rather than tacking it on to another unrelated thread.

User avatar
essence25
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 12:01 am
Location: USA

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#54 Post by essence25 » Sat Oct 15, 2022 8:08 pm

Thank you, you are right, will start a new thread... I did solve the issue with a Motic stage mod.

How do I delete the previous post?

mikemarotta
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:27 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Astronomer Considering Microscopy

#55 Post by mikemarotta » Sat Jan 14, 2023 5:39 pm

Just a belated update to my topic thread. Elsewhere here on the Forum, I did mention my eventual purchases.

First Purchases: Two AmScopes
March 15, 2022
https://www.microbehunter.com/microscop ... 24&t=15162

New AmScope B270 and Present Set-up
November 9, 2022
https://www.microbehunter.com/microscop ... 72#p129672

And I bought an array of different mounted slides. These are about half of the sets.
Slides Sets 4 of 8 different.jpeg
Slides Sets 4 of 8 different.jpeg (326.26 KiB) Viewed 3843 times
I also bought a couple of Histology and Microbiology textbooks from local used bookstores (an advantage to living in a college town). However, I also took some advice and found classic books via AbeBooks. Those proved interesting and enjoyable to own though much less informative.

Thanks.
Mike M.
-----------------------------
Michael E. Marotta
Technical Writer

Post Reply