1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

Everything relating to microscopy hardware: Objectives, eyepieces, lamps and more.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
josmann
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:23 am
Location: San Jose, CA

1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#1 Post by josmann » Sun Oct 17, 2021 4:05 pm

Hey folks, I'm interested in the history of Japan's workhorse microscopes of the 80s - specifically Olympus' BH2 and Nikon's Optiphot/Labophot microscopes. Overall, the impression I get from researching each is that the BH2 was a masterpiece of simplicity and capability which cemented itself as an icon of late 20th century microscopy while the labophot/optiphot also ran. On paper, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of difference between the two. They certainly look similar (who copied who, anyway?) and while I've read a few arguments about which scope is better, the general impression I get is they're about equal all things considered. So why was the BH2 so much more successful (ostensibly) and remembered so much more keenly and fondly? Was it cheaper or better - or did Olympus just have a better marketing approach and/or industrial pedigree? Or is the BH2's popularity just an artifact of it captivating a few hobbyists who have since amplified its perceived importance?

Would appreciate any insights!
The highest quality live-streamed microscopy in the world.
Sundays around 8PST: https://www.youtube.com/@diettoms/streams
Occasionally (for now): https://www.twitch.tv/diettoms

Join the Discord: https://discord.gg/FgpUUnJaSE

viktor j nilsson
Posts: 760
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:12 pm
Location: Lund, Sweden

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#2 Post by viktor j nilsson » Sun Oct 17, 2021 5:00 pm

I don't claim to know a lot about it, but I don't think that Olympus won its market share purely based on its optical and mechanical quality compared to its competitors. Olympus was involved in some really shady business practices in the 80s, and I've heard rumors that their selling and pricing strategies were quite aggressive, while their accounting department worked hard to cover up their financial losses...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_scandal

User avatar
josmann
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:23 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#3 Post by josmann » Sun Oct 17, 2021 5:17 pm

viktor j nilsson wrote:
Sun Oct 17, 2021 5:00 pm
I don't claim to know a lot about it, but I don't think that Olympus won its market share purely based on its optical and mechanical quality compared to its competitors. Olympus was involved in some really shady business practices in the 80s, and I've heard rumors that their selling and pricing strategies were quite aggressive, while their accounting department worked hard to cover up their financial losses...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_scandal
Very interesting, thanks. I wonder if Nikon experienced any suspicious fires in their manufacturing facilities back then....

One thing I've read about which is likely related is the practice of forming keiretsu - huge cooperatives between Japanese businesses. Instead of trying to capitalize short term off of B2B transactions with each other, they would forego profits in return for equity and other non-capital trades. The idea was to facilitate rapid development of global market share, and, considering that Olympus themselves boast about the market share of the BH2, I think it's likely that this was at play.

Of course, if you look at Japan's economy in the 80's as a whole, and the subsequent unprecedented fall in the 90s, it's hard to believe that any major Japanese company wasn't participating in this kind of thing to some degree. Maybe Olympus is just one of the ones that got caught...

Overall, though, yeah I wouldn't be surprised if the general success of the BH2 came purely through business "strategy." Even if Nikon was trying to do the same, capitalism usually finds a victor.
The highest quality live-streamed microscopy in the world.
Sundays around 8PST: https://www.youtube.com/@diettoms/streams
Occasionally (for now): https://www.twitch.tv/diettoms

Join the Discord: https://discord.gg/FgpUUnJaSE

Scarodactyl
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#4 Post by Scarodactyl » Sun Oct 17, 2021 6:45 pm

Given how many -phots there are on the used market Nikon must not have done too badly even with Olympus' dominance.

PeteM
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#5 Post by PeteM » Sun Oct 17, 2021 7:05 pm

There's a case to be made, in terms of quality, that the BHTU, BHT, and BHS Olympus scopes and their Nikon Labophot / Optiphot scopes are of equivalent high quality. With the stands, the Nikon had problems showing up later with plastic fine focus gears, and to a lesser extent condenser focus gears and the soft-touch finishes on their wrist pads. Olympus seems to have more power supply failures after decades - something that can either repaired or replaced with a LED conversion. The basic focus mechanisms for both scopes are excellent (as are the 70's to 80's equivalents from Leica and Zess).

Optically, I'd give the slightest edge to Nikon for its "chrome free" optics. You can get an equally good photo image from Olympus, but it requires a photo relay lens with corrections. The two companies were like Nike and Reebok or Pepsi and Coke -- battling each other on every front and really not all that much product-wise to distinguish them.

If there's a reason for Olympus' greater microscope market share in the US, I'd guess it was because they worked harder at sales and distribution. Nikon was making lots of money on their cameras, Olympus not so much. I'd assume that greater attention and investment went to each company's more profitable segments?

Forty years later, Olympus still seems to command greater attention from hobbyists. In part, because the original larger market share meant there are a few more scopes and options around today. In part because enthusiasts like Alan Wood providing documentation and Carl Hunsinger on maintenance have done such a good job providing information.

That said, a Nikon Labophot or Optiphot might be the better buy today. It's highly likely one will have to replace the fine focus gear ("Lothman" on Ebay has that covered), but once past that the trinocular heads, phase condensers, DIC prisms, etc. seem to show up a bit cheaper and the chrome free optics can make it a bit easier to couple a digital camera using "neutral" photo relay optics to get a proper-sized image for various sensor sizes.

User avatar
josmann
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:23 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#6 Post by josmann » Sun Oct 17, 2021 7:28 pm

Thanks Pete - was hoping you'd chime in.
PeteM wrote:
Sun Oct 17, 2021 7:05 pm
If there's a reason for Olympus' greater microscope market share in the US, I'd guess it was because they worked harder at sales and distribution. Nikon was making lots of money on their cameras, Olympus not so much. I'd assume that greater attention and investment went to each company's more profitable segments?
Definitely a reasonable theory. I've worked first-hand in companies where things like this happen. You want to show that you have something the other guy has, but if it's not your money maker, it won't get pushed very hard. If you compare between Nikon's museum: https://www.microscopyu.com/museum and Olympus' museum: https://www.olympus-lifescience.com/en/ ... eum/micro/ you definitely get the impression that Olympus was more serious about microscopy earlier on. So it seems reasonable that they would also be one of the first names that came to mind when shopping for a scope.
PeteM wrote:
Sun Oct 17, 2021 7:05 pm
Forty years later, Olympus still seems to command greater attention from hobbyists. In part, because the original larger market share meant there are a few more scopes and options around today. In part because enthusiasts like Alan Wood providing documentation and Carl Hunsinger on maintenance have done such a good job providing information.
Yeah this was definitely a big factor for me. Not only is the practical info great but I love perusing the old sales brochures and whatnot (40 years later and they still make me want to buy something). I can't even find a sales brochure for the -phots online except for one on their polarizing variants. Actually, going back to those museums, Nikon doesn't even highlight the Optiphot except in its IC inspection configuration...
PeteM wrote:
Sun Oct 17, 2021 7:05 pm
Optically, I'd give the slightest edge to Nikon for its "chrome free" optics.
I've read about that as well, although I will say that I've had no obvious CA issues with my Olympus objectives on my low end Chinese scope (and they absolutely trounce the cheap achromats it came with) or through my Varimag. That said, they're SPlanApo 10x and 20x so it may be that the issues don't become readily apparent until FNs/mags that I'm not yet observing. Or maybe I'm just not looking closely enough. I'm planning to do some cross-comparison videos in the future where I look at this more in depth - might pick up some lower end Olympus objectives as well.
The highest quality live-streamed microscopy in the world.
Sundays around 8PST: https://www.youtube.com/@diettoms/streams
Occasionally (for now): https://www.twitch.tv/diettoms

Join the Discord: https://discord.gg/FgpUUnJaSE

farnsy
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:03 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#7 Post by farnsy » Sun Oct 17, 2021 7:50 pm

I'm interested in the data/statistics used to form the conclusion that Olympus did better than Nikon in that era, or now. I'm not necessarily doubting it, but I would like to see the evidence or anecdotes.

In the microscope world, there seem to be geographic pockets of brand loyalty. Our perception of popularity and success is mostly dependent on what we see in the group around us. I have heard people describe each of the major brands as the premier brand and also heard each described as an also-ran. I think it just depends where you live. For example, I see a lot of people in the US describing either Nikon or Olympus as the major/premier brand most frequently, although I don't see a lot of agreement on which it is. In Europe and other places, I hear Zeiss and Leica mentioned more often. But I believe there are pockets of fans for each brand in every country.

I would be interested in the overall picture, though, historical or current.

Generic Chinese scopes seem to be built compatible with the Olympus system, so that's some kind of evidence, although it could also be because Olympus retained the dimensions from earlier standards while choosing "aberration-free" objectives. That's good for cloning. Or maybe Olympus is just considered the premier brand in China, so that's what they want to emulate.
Last edited by farnsy on Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
josmann
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:23 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#8 Post by josmann » Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:05 pm

farnsy wrote:
Sun Oct 17, 2021 7:50 pm
I'm interested in the data/statistics used to form the conclusion that Olympus did better than Nikon in that era, or now. I'm not necessarily doubting it, but I would like to see the evidence or anecdotes.
Yeah, me too. Olympus claims best worldwide market share on their website, but who knows over what timespan or how they measured that. And, as discussed above, Olympus may not be the most reliable source for honest data ;)

I'm sure a lot of Germans and other Europeans were buying German stuff - they pretty much always do that anyway, but obviously the German optical pedigree is formidable today and still was going back hundreds of years.

That said, Japan in the 80s was essentially what China is now - maybe with a better reputation. If you pay attention to a lot of US media from the 80s (Back to the Future II or Die Hard, for example), you definitely get the feeling that people seriously thought Japan's economy would take over the world. We know that Japanese companies were generally extremely aggressive with product pricing (to a fault) and the BH2 is, by all accounts, a quality product. So I think it's reasonable to conclude that, in light of the circumstantial evidence and what we generally know about Japan's industry, the BH2 probably did perform very well.

I'd love to see sales figures, but I'd place good money on that information being lost to time.
The highest quality live-streamed microscopy in the world.
Sundays around 8PST: https://www.youtube.com/@diettoms/streams
Occasionally (for now): https://www.twitch.tv/diettoms

Join the Discord: https://discord.gg/FgpUUnJaSE

apochronaut
Posts: 6272
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#9 Post by apochronaut » Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:09 pm

CFI was a marketing schtick, made out to be some sort of technical achievment that the "others" hadn't achieved yet, knowing full well that many would fall for it. Do they also have a perfectly flat field and perfect spherical aberration too? In fact, microscope companies choose where to locate the various corrective elements in their optical system. Had Olympus chosen to make a carbon copy of Nikon's CFI system, they could have, they just chose a different way of achieving a very similar result, as did all the other companies. Reichert D.I.N. infinity objectives have a deliberate .6% lateral ca designed into the objectives and end result in image quality is the same( many say , better)
It's 6 of 1, half dozen of the other. CFI is irrelevant You still need a finely engineered telan lens for any infinity system, and well corrected eyepieces for the system.

Scarodactyl
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#10 Post by Scarodactyl » Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:22 pm

I have no doubt olympus, zeiss or any of Leica's predecessor/component companies could have made a similar optical system. While it isn't a real measure of optical prowess to make a CF system it is also not just a gimmick--distributing corrections across multiple components makes a system more proprietary and less flexible. How much that actually matters varies with one's needs but it's been a legitimate benefit for me.

User avatar
josmann
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:23 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#11 Post by josmann » Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:32 pm

apochronaut wrote:
Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:09 pm
CFI was a marketing schtick, made out to be some sort of technical achievment that the "others" hadn't achieved yet, knowing full well that many would fall for it. Do they also have a perfectly flat field and perfect spherical aberration too? In fact, microscope companies choose where to locate the various corrective elements in their optical system. Had Olympus chosen to make a carbon copy of Nikon's CFI system, they could have, they just chose a different way of achieving a very similar result, as did all the other companies. Reichert D.I.N. infinity objectives have a deliberate .6% lateral ca designed into the objectives and end result in image quality is the same( many say , better)
It's 6 of 1, half dozen of the other. CFI is irrelevant You still need a finely engineered telan lens for any infinity system, and well corrected eyepieces for the system.
Scarodactyl wrote:
Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:22 pm
I have no doubt olympus, zeiss or any of Leica's predecessor/component companies could have made a similar optical system. While it isn't a real measure of optical prowess to make a CF system it is also not just a gimmick--distributing corrections across multiple components makes a system more proprietary and less flexible. How much that actually matters varies with one's needs but it's been a legitimate benefit for me.
Both of you guys have valid points.

Scaro: In general, my understanding is that better performance can be achieved by distributing your optical corrections lengthwise along the optical axis, so it's not a case of simply trying to engineer a proprietary system (although that may have been considered a benefit by the sales staff). I believe that's the principal reason that Olympus moved to the long barrel objectives - they could do better correction and/or correct over a wider FOV. It gives you more headroom to meet the Abbe sine condition and whatnot. I'd guess it's also another benefit of an infinity system but I know less about the nuances of that whole arena.

Apo: are you saying that BH2-contemporary Nikon's had inferior SAC or field flatness or rather that the Nikon eyepieces were correcting this instead? I haven't messed with them so I don't know.
The highest quality live-streamed microscopy in the world.
Sundays around 8PST: https://www.youtube.com/@diettoms/streams
Occasionally (for now): https://www.twitch.tv/diettoms

Join the Discord: https://discord.gg/FgpUUnJaSE

Scarodactyl
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#12 Post by Scarodactyl » Sun Oct 17, 2021 9:04 pm

Olympus kept short barrel objectives, it was Nikon that went long and wide (along with zeiss and leica I guess) I'm sure it wasn't for no reason, but it's clear Olympus can still fairly similar results in some(most?all?) cases. At least the one pair I tried head to head (nikon 20x apo, olympus 20x sapo) gave essentially identical results on aps-c, both excellent. It may be more relevant for achieving longer working distances or at other magnifications.
I'm cynical enough to suspect being proprietary is behind at least some distribution of corrections nowadays, but it does seem more optically elegant to distribute the corrections. It may also be cheaper to design or make optics that way, though if so it isn't reflected in the pricing. I don't know enough about Leica or Zeiss's lineups to know if they offer significantly better specs than Olympus or Nikon, or if there are subtler advantages in use.
My own usecases are kind of niche and (on the compound side) strongly weighted towards Nikon and Olympus and Mitutoyo's strengths. I would not say that CF optics are inherently better, but it is a nice feature with some benefits that especially favor what I do. If you aren't doing a couple types of mix and matching of heads or objectives or direct projection to a camera in the finite era then it probably won't benefit you at all--worse, you may be paying extra for it.

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

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#13 Post by Hobbyst46 » Sun Oct 17, 2021 9:28 pm

My two cents. The used quality microscope market available today is the outcome of generations of acquisition of research-grade and high-level microscopes by academic institutes and premium service clinics, not hobbyists and students. As such, these acquisitions were mostly affected by marketing to that specific audience. That means expandability, versatility, optical performance, but on top of that, customer support by the firm representatives. Not necessarily repair: Institutes used to employ a technical staff for that, but warranties, supply of spares and accessories etc. And, if the initial impression from the first microscope is positive, the same lab will buy more of it, for sharing objectives, etc. I think that aggressive marketing was indeed a major factor.

Scarodactyl
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#14 Post by Scarodactyl » Sun Oct 17, 2021 9:52 pm

It also can't be overstated how little some researchers know or care about the specifics of microscope specs. I helped a friend's lab replace their old micro/photo setup where they were taking a Zeiss surgical microscope, screwing a helicoid onto the objective filter thread and attaching that to the stage, using a surgical beamsplitter with a 3x or so magnification factor over to a small sensored IR camera from the 1990s with a fancy Oriel illuminator with a liquid light guide for coaxial illumination. It took me a while to figure out what they needed because they were such specific and strongly specced components, there must have been a need for those particular features. Actually literally no component was carefully selected, it was just whatever they had lying around that they'd inherited from previous labs. None of them were what they needed, except I guess for the camera which was once well specced and had just become obsolete. It was pretty cheap to get them a setup that was way simpler and better once I figured that out.

User avatar
josmann
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:23 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#15 Post by josmann » Sun Oct 17, 2021 10:10 pm

Scarodactyl wrote:
Sun Oct 17, 2021 9:52 pm
Actually literally no component was carefully selected, it was just whatever they had lying around that they'd inherited from previous labs.
I went into the lab the other day and had a funny little moment. Someone had pulled our UPlanSApo Ph3 100x objective out of a drawer and installed it on a cheap 160mm inverted scope. Little bit of oil residue on it as well. I asked them how the imaging was - they said not great :lol: :lol: :lol:

Takes neat pictures when installed in the proper microscope with the proper condenser, though! You can see bacterial flagella very clearly and the camera is capable of exposing at less than 1/200th of a second. Unfortunately, the iPad app is somehow incapable of including video functionality ("the technology just isn't there yet" I guess) so I've only got the still. Will try to figure this out in the future and record some cool stuff when the boss isn't looking.
ID4_0038-sm.jpg
ID4_0038-sm.jpg (49.15 KiB) Viewed 7787 times
The highest quality live-streamed microscopy in the world.
Sundays around 8PST: https://www.youtube.com/@diettoms/streams
Occasionally (for now): https://www.twitch.tv/diettoms

Join the Discord: https://discord.gg/FgpUUnJaSE

PeteM
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 6:22 am
Location: N. California

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#16 Post by PeteM » Sun Oct 17, 2021 10:46 pm

Scarodactyl wrote:
Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:22 pm
I have no doubt olympus, zeiss or any of Leica's predecessor/component companies could have made a similar optical system. While it isn't a real measure of optical prowess to make a CF system it is also not just a gimmick--distributing corrections across multiple components makes a system more proprietary and less flexible. . . .
Just to add to Stephen's point, these excellent microscopes and their film photo systems were produced well before digital cameras became affordable. With Leitz/Leica, Reichert, Olympus and Zeiss excellent images can be obtained IF your digital sensor can be matched up with an appropriate photo relay lens - typically 35mm or Polaroid size. In the Nikon "CF" case, most any generic adapter will do. One doesn't necessarily have to hunt for a properly corrected photo relay lens with the right magnification for ones camera (which may range from 1/3" to full frame, depending if one has a cheap USB camera, a supposed 1" sensor, MFT, APS-C, to full frame).

For Olympus, proper 2.5x photo relay lenses are readily available for full frame DSLR and mirrorless cameras. So no problems there. The 2x relay lenses better suited for APS-C cameras are rare and expensive. The Olympus OEM C-mount adapters are fairly common and can sometimes be found to match up with still smaller sensors.

What I'm not sure of is how much attention makers paid to getting absolutely flat fields and no residual aberrations when the target was an old video camera with resolution (NTSC) of roughly 525 pixels across and half that down?

In the Leitz finite, Leica Delta, and Leica HC cases it does seem they worked at it. A "neutral" c-mount adapter for a 1" Sony sensor give somewhat unsatisfactory images for all three - color fringing near the edges and so on. If one takes the time and spends the money to hunt down a proper adapter (sometimes rare) both planarity and (the lack of) color fringing are much better.

One may also recall the problems Hans and others documented trying to get images free of chromatic aberration with a Reichert MicroStar IV trincoular head. The proper adapters to get excellent photo images can be hard to find or somewhat of an afocal kludge. Find that rare adapter, with the proper photo relay lens, and things get much better.

For Nikon, the 2.5x relay lens is common, the Nikon 2x not too hard to find, the generic 2x usable, and generic C-mount adapters will do a good job for smaller sensors. These can be had, quite affordably, at .5x, .63x, .7x, .8x, and 1x magnifications. Generic adapters -- or even the pricey LM, Diagnostic Instruments etc. versions) won't generally have Olympus, Leica, Zeiss etc. chromatic and planarity corrections - but they do quite well on a Nikon Labophot or Optiphot.

Gatorengineer64
Posts: 123
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2021 12:10 am

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#17 Post by Gatorengineer64 » Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:28 am

I'd say after spending a good part of the day working on a Zeiss Universal, that was as per Zeiss's ads the same scope in 1978, that it was in 1958, that it was simply a race to the bottom, as is with most things today. The Zeiss, I am working on has an all metal and lots of brass focusing assembly with probably at least a half dozen precision gears. No plastic. Zeiss and Leitz, didn't have the market share because America then and now buys on one thing lowest price. I guarantee that Oly was cutting a little better deal than Nikon was. Europeans will buy in part Domestically produced goods and will generally pay a little more for quality. Americans buy on Price, that's why we don't make anything here anymore while Europe has a relatively robust manufacturing base. Now Japan is hollowed out and their production is going to China and India as well.

As an aside, I just read a review on a high end >$3000 Sony camera lens, that attributed things to sample variations LOL, sad world we live in. In the day, German / Swiss optics didn't have much sample variation.

User avatar
josmann
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:23 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#18 Post by josmann » Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:09 am

Just to add some figures to this discussion - according to the price list on Alan Wood's website, a trinocular BHTU with DPlan objectives would have cost around 1420 GBP back in 1984 which converts to about 1900 USD (assuming 1.35x conversion). Adjusting for inflation, that means you could pick up a photomicrography-ready Olympus scope for right about $5000 today. Based on what I know about the pricing of current entry level infinity-corrected systems, that seems like a pretty darn good deal for a reputable manufacturer!
The highest quality live-streamed microscopy in the world.
Sundays around 8PST: https://www.youtube.com/@diettoms/streams
Occasionally (for now): https://www.twitch.tv/diettoms

Join the Discord: https://discord.gg/FgpUUnJaSE

farnsy
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:03 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#19 Post by farnsy » Mon Oct 18, 2021 6:33 am

josmann wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:09 am
Adjusting for inflation, that means you could pick up a photomicrography-ready Olympus scope for right about $5000 today. Based on what I know about the pricing of current entry level infinity-corrected systems, that seems like a pretty darn good deal for a reputable manufacturer!
That sounds more-or-less like what they sell their CX line for today, doesn't it? I have never used a BHTU but it seems more comparable to a current CX scope than to a BX.

User avatar
josmann
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:23 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#20 Post by josmann » Mon Oct 18, 2021 7:09 am

farnsy wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 6:33 am
josmann wrote:
Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:09 am
Adjusting for inflation, that means you could pick up a photomicrography-ready Olympus scope for right about $5000 today. Based on what I know about the pricing of current entry level infinity-corrected systems, that seems like a pretty darn good deal for a reputable manufacturer!
That sounds more-or-less like what they sell their CX line for today, doesn't it? I have never used a BHTU but it seems more comparable to a current CX scope than to a BX.
The Olympus naming scheme follows this pattern:

A*: research lab grade scope
B*: clinical lab grade scope
C*: higher education grade scope

The BHTU was introduced shortly after the BHT (the "standard" BH2). The primary differentiator was the rear-angled turret which made swapping between objectives more ergonomic - important in high throughput clinical applications (and, indeed, the most common design approach these days). But you don't have to take my word for it! This lovely full color brochure will tell you everything you need to know: http://www.alanwood.net/downloads/olymp ... ochure.pdf

If you're purely comparing functionality, the BH2 might seem most comparable to the CX, but in its heyday, the BH2's technology made it clinical grade and it would be most accurate to compare it to other clinical grade scopes.
The highest quality live-streamed microscopy in the world.
Sundays around 8PST: https://www.youtube.com/@diettoms/streams
Occasionally (for now): https://www.twitch.tv/diettoms

Join the Discord: https://discord.gg/FgpUUnJaSE

microEYE
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2021 10:06 pm

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#21 Post by microEYE » Fri Nov 05, 2021 4:33 am

This is a topic I am very interested in. As a University student in New Zealand in the 1980's, I worked part-time for a Company who sold and maintained Olympus microscopes (the Company was a sub-agent, on behalf of the main NZ Importer). The BH2 Series arrived in NZ at a perfect time....the exchange rate favoured the Japanese manufacturers here (both Olympus and Nikon). The BH2 instruments themselves were very good - solid, mechanically serviceable and with a good range of Plan Achromat and Plan Apochromat optics. But here, the overriding advantage (I believe), was simply the knowledge and expertise of the people demonstrating the instruments and accessories, backed by strong service back-up. They knew what they were doing.

For such a small (by world standards) market, sales of Olympus microscopes were extraordinary - the NZ Importer regularly won Awards from Olympus for their efforts here. Nikon struggled to compete.

microcosmos
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 9:05 am
Location: Singapore

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#22 Post by microcosmos » Fri Nov 05, 2021 6:44 am

Thanks for a very informative and interesting topic. I have little knowledge to contribute but some of my personal experience. A few months ago when I was shopping for a polarizing microscope, the Nikon Labophot/Optiphot and the Olympus BH2 series were the two contenders for me.

Two things won me over to the BH2 (in my case a BHSP):

- I preferred the Olympus design - more serious, angular and Soviet brutalism/industrialism (nevertheless with nice lines such as the super-retro asymmetric Jentzsch trinocular head and the tapering sloping arm), versus the Nikon's plastic-looking curves on the base and the ungraceful 90-degree arm. I also didn't like the extra non-functional branding stripes that Nikon put on the stand. It's like the old TGV Eurostar versus the new Siemens Eurostar. I loved the TGV and I can't stand the Siemens design. This is just my personal taste. I put design quite high as a priority and am even willing to sacrifice a little optical quality for a microscope that makes me happier when I look at it. I'm not sure the visual design factored in at all for most people but it did for me.

- Greg McHone. When surfing the internet for polarizing and petrographic microscopes I inevitably came across his pages and articles. Very soon after, I came across Alan's and Carl's pages, as he linked to some of them and some of the pdfs on those pages were scanned by him. He put the BH2 and BHSP in a very good light.

Another interesting thing (to me) I noticed in the area of forensic microscopy is that the McCrone Group seems to be a very Olympus-using institution. They seem to use lots of BH2s and now BX - I see them a lot in their webinars. Why did BH2 win for them?

microEYE
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2021 10:06 pm

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#23 Post by microEYE » Fri Nov 05, 2021 8:31 pm

I was thinking about this topic again overnight and just read your post about design. I think you are right about the design aspect...to me it is important. Back in the 80's the "new" look of the BH2 series seemed refreshing (although Leitz were already going down that design path); they looked new, solid,and were optically sound. A good combination. Certainly better looking the the BH that came before, or the Nikons (my opinion only).

If I was in the market for a second-hand microscope, my first choice would be the BH2....whether it be the biological, metallurgical or polarising variants.

One last personal thing on design. I loved the large, square, oversized designs of the the late 70's and 80's. Check out images of the following...

Reichert Polyvar
Carl Zeiss Jena Jenaval Contrast
Carl Zeiss Jena Jenaluminar
Carl Zeiss Jena Interphako

Where are the original castings? I want them!!!

User avatar
josmann
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:23 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#24 Post by josmann » Sat Nov 06, 2021 7:15 am

Considering the two tone approach, relatively low price, the era, and the modability, the BH2 reminds me a lot of the famous Japanese sport coupes of the 80s - notably the AE86.

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/initi ... k_real.jpg

Would anyone be terribly offended if I tried re-spraying a BH2 white....?
The highest quality live-streamed microscopy in the world.
Sundays around 8PST: https://www.youtube.com/@diettoms/streams
Occasionally (for now): https://www.twitch.tv/diettoms

Join the Discord: https://discord.gg/FgpUUnJaSE

microcosmos
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 9:05 am
Location: Singapore

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#25 Post by microcosmos » Sat Nov 06, 2021 7:55 am

microEYE wrote:
Fri Nov 05, 2021 8:31 pm
One last personal thing on design. I loved the large, square, oversized designs of the the late 70's and 80's. Check out images of the following...

Reichert Polyvar
Carl Zeiss Jena Jenaval Contrast
Carl Zeiss Jena Jenaluminar
Carl Zeiss Jena Interphako

Where are the original castings? I want them!!!
I must say they're quite an imposing design in their own right, although a bit too overwhelming as a personal home microscope for me. They look like tanks!
josmann wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 7:15 am
Would anyone be terribly offended if I tried re-spraying a BH2 white....?
Actually black and white is one of my favourite bicolour schemes in general but I do have a slight problem with its use on microscopes, though not through any fault of its own.

Almost all current microscopes by all manufacturers big and small, on every continent, uses the black and white colour scheme!! Some of them then try to add their branding in the form of loud and bright red or blue stripes. For me the black and white scheme has sadly become a symbol of mass production and standardization of microscopes.

The BH2's pale khaki and black is just right for me at least - light enough to exude the charm of white and black, but with the seasoned and vintage look.

[ps. I suddenly realised that the bh2 was also mass-produced :lol: ]

Sure Squintsalot
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon May 16, 2022 3:44 pm

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#26 Post by Sure Squintsalot » Tue May 17, 2022 4:23 am

The Japanese government may force corporations to band together and organize a rescue of a sinking flagship. In the 80s, the government organized the Japanese "big three" car companies to keep Mazda from permanently closing due to dismal sales, mainly in the US.

At the time, Toyota was months from releasing a convertible 2-seater, and Honda had one on the drawing board. Toyota's release was postponed so that Mazda could jump the line and get a headstart with the release of their Miata. Eventually, not only did the Miata save Mazda from closure, but Toyota shelved their plans entirely.

Something similar was done with the rescue of Olympus Cameras during the digital camera revolution about 15 years ago.

Was something similar done in the 80s for mid-level microscope sales in the US? Totally wouldn't surprise me, but maybe worth a look.

Phill Brown
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon May 24, 2021 1:19 pm
Location: Devon UK.

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#27 Post by Phill Brown » Tue May 17, 2022 8:21 am

Olympus all the way, Can everyone go for them and offload their unwanted 160mm Nikon stuff cheap on ebay,it's really not as good.
Japanese artisans have knocked out some ok stuff over the last 1000 years or so on their own merit,I did fact check that but happy to be corrected.
LED has to be the future,maybe when it gets sorted photoshop won't be so important in the final image.

MichaelG.
Posts: 3976
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:24 am
Location: North Wales

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#28 Post by MichaelG. » Tue May 17, 2022 8:25 am

Phill Brown wrote:
Tue May 17, 2022 8:21 am
Olympus all the way, Can everyone go for them and offload their unwanted 160mm Nikon stuff cheap on ebay,it's really not as good.
:lol:
Too many 'projects'

User avatar
blekenbleu
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:55 pm
Location: South Carolina low country
Contact:

Re: 1980's Nikon vs Olympus - Why did the BH2 win?

#29 Post by blekenbleu » Tue May 17, 2022 10:52 am

This brings to mind the elephant and blind men parable, except with a pair of elephants.
My guess about Olympus winning is because of their health care focus, which
would have Olympus sales folks showing up at hospitals and medical schools for other products and services;
similarly, medical folks attending conferences would notice more Olympus-related activity.

Meanwhile, Nikon is/was very involved with e.g. semiconductor photolithography.
While there may be many more BH2 than Optiphot, Labophot and Diaphot microscopes,
prevalence of used Nikon vertical illuminators suggests their popularity in industrial applications.
Perhaps winning ends up being about target markets.
Metaphot, Optiphot 1, 66; AO 10, 120, EPIStar, Cycloptic

Post Reply