Olympus VMZ VS Olympus SZ-3060, fight!!

[ClassMSpecie]

Hello All,

Torn between which one to get (max 4x mag). 6 inch working distance for VMZ and 7.5 inch for SZ-3060 with 0.5X auxiliary lenses. More the merrier, but 6 inch works as well.
I might be providing inaccurate information, so correct me if you see one.

Pros for VMZ:

• Older

• Cheaper

• Sturdier zooming mechanism?/no long lasting zooming rubber belt?

• Bronze internals

• More sturdier build quality?

Pros for SZ-3060:

• Better optics?

• 0.1x more zoom

• 20mm more working distance & 1.5 inch more with 0.5x auxiliary lens

• Auxiliary lenses are readily available at lower prices

• Better eyepieces: GSWH 10x/22 VS GWH 10x/23

Which one should I get and why? Also, am I totally missing an important player with same tier optics and price range?

Thank you for looking.

ClassMSpecie

[PeteM]

You could likely find a great scope from any of the major makers. Nikon and Leica have an equivalent to most anything Olympus makes. Probably Zeiss as well, but I don't know their scopes as well. Meiji also makes excellent stereo zoom microscopes.

Condition and chance are probably more of a factor than brand if you're looking for the most scope for the least money. I have both a VMZ and an SZ-4045 trinocular (similar but wider range than the SZ-3060 and different eyetube angle). As you say the VMZ is robust and often affordable. It's a nice scope; as are earlier Olympus zoom models. My initial reaction to the SZ-4045 was that it looked kind of cheap - but after cleaning it up I'm very happy with it. The optics are brighter, the zoom easier to operate. At near the same price point, I'd surely take it (and likely an SZ-3060) over the VMZ.

There are plenty of other great stereo scopes out there. What do you plan to use yours for? Also, where located? That makes a difference in what's commonly available.

[ClassMSpecie]

Thanks PeteM for responding. It would be used for many purposes including taking out splinters on my fingers, viewing plants and critters, occasional soldering microelectronics, etc. Because of such versatility, more working distance couldn't hurt, though not mandatory above 6 inches. How much more bright is the SZ-4045 to the VMZ (30%?, double?)? How about optical clarity and contrast? Any field curvature differences near the periphery of the eyepieces? Which one has a larger FOV (GSWH vs GWH)? I suspect that resolution would be similar. Which one is better for head and eye placement ergonomics (though this is not universal for everyone)? Does the GSWH 10x/22 eyepiece offer more generous eye relief and eye placement? I ask all these because there is a VMZ model I can get very soon if I wanted it (I am in California). Should I get the VMZ and be happy with it or wait patiently for a great deal on one of the SZ series? For the time being I can always use my B&L stereozoom 4, so there is no rush. However, if the I am paying premium for subtle differences, I might just get the VMZ. Of course there are night and day differences in the optics, but not sure my eyes can detect such differences at low-medium 40x magnification.

Thank you so much in advance.

ClassMSpecie

[Hobbyst46]

I find the VMZ very pleasant. Its only minus is the original 20w illuminator, which for me is not bright, especially when the mirror is rotated to the top illumination.
So I created my own illuminators for it.

[MicroBob]

My experience with stereo microscopes is that there is a higher percentage of damaged instruments in the market and they are not as modular as a biological microscope, so it is a write off when bad and not repairable. Many of them were used for soldering or in dust workshops. So the best one is the one in good condition. Typical problems are dust/mould in the optical path, damaged lenses and misaligned bino tubes.

[Scarodactyl]

I got a bunch of vmts a while back (same series but has two magnification settings rather than full zoom). I liked them and felt the build quality was very solid, but there was some amount of doming in the image as I recall. The newer one might perform a little better, though I don't think you'd find the vmz objectionable.

[PeteM]

It sounds like your scope will sit in a shop, perhaps ideally on a boom stand for those occasional looks, soldering, splinter removal etc.

I'd add a Meiji scope to the mix of scopes you're considering. Either an EMT with 10x and 30x (and a .5x reducer to screw on) or an EMZ with a wider range than either of the two you're considering. They're built as solidly as the VMT and have nice wide 23mm views and a wide zoom range. Best of both worlds. You could surely find an EMT affordably and perhaps an EMZ.

As said a couple times - condition is key. You want to inspect a used stereo microscope before buying it or buy from a source where returns are easy.

[ClassMSpecie]

Hm....A food for thought. I read somewhere in the forums that even the Nikon SMZ 10 (older, not the new 10A) and SMZ 2T/2B models have some doming at low magnifications. How is the VMZ or VM model's doming compare to that of B&L Stereozoom 4, 5, or 7? I did see little bit of doming on my BL SZ4 near the edge of the field, but didn't bother me too much. I actually had to look for one as my eyes got adjusted to it (doming) quickly. I'd actually expect to see some doming on all the microscopes without a Plan objective. Now the question is how much? A view like a convex side mirror is definitely a turn off.

[ClassMSpecie]

Wow, a Meiji EMZ one looks very solidly built, and appears to have a non-helical zooming mechanism. It's a serious competitor to the Olympus SZ series. Is ~40% larger FOV area worth getting a whole new system for? Yeah, I'd definitely get one from a "free return" vendor unless a "as is" item appears at a hard to resist bargain price. Because the Olympus SZ models have huge working distance, I might still consider it for posture/height adjustment purposes. I'll put on hold buying the VMZ for the time being. Extra costs can be justified to avoid unnecessary neck pains. One thing I can complain about the B&L SZ4 is the hunched over sitting position at it's current height. What eye tube angle is feasibly best for posture on a horizontally placed bench? I'd think a 0% angle would be the best as no neck bending would be involved when sitting, but it's probably going to be very heavy, expensive, and big (not feasible!)!

Thank you in advance.

ClassMSpecie

[PeteM]

A Meiji with a .5x auxiliary objective will have essentially the same 6" working distance you're hoping for in an SZ-3060.

[jfiresto]

... I read somewhere in the forums that even the Nikon SMZ 10 (older, not the new 10A) and SMZ 2T/2B models have some doming at low magnifications....

I believe I can confirm just how domed, if you are interested, as I now have my father's SMZ-2T. The only issue is that instead of sliding onto a standard 25mm post, the -2T expects a 24½ – but I bet I can scheme a way to temporarily mount it.

[Scarodactyl]

The smz-10's doming at low mag is fairly extreme as these things go, similar to the original Wild m3. That's probably more an issue with the CMO arrangement if you don't use well corrected objectives. I don't recall seeing that particular issue on greenough stereos though you get other issues.

[ClassMSpecie]

The SZ 3060 has 200mm and up working distance with various auxiliary reducers; it's so versatile. Do you see doming affect on this model? I've decided to skip the VMZ model, so checking for the doming affect is not necessary, unless you want to share it for the record. Yeah, come to think of it, I don't think I have seen PLAN objectives on Green-borough designs in my limited experience; maybe due to unrealistic cost and demand.

Thanks.

[Sliding Focus]

I use an Olympus SZ3060 at work. I don’t see any doming—but then, I don’t see any on our B&L StereoZoom 4s either, so YMMV.

I haven’t seen any noteworthy field curvature on either of the above models, but field curvature isn’t really an issue for my application (insect identification). At low magnifications, both ‘scopes have enough DOF to effectively hide any lack of flatness that might be present—as I’d expect to be the case on most stereos. And at high magnifications, these models’ Greenough design means that only part of the field can ever be in focus on a flat surface—regardless of how flat the field may be—because their light paths are angled. I can examine our SZ3060’s field flatness in more detail if you like, but I’d be very surprised if it were meaningfully better or worse than an SZ4.

The SZ3060 in our lab seems to give a slightly easier/more relaxed view than do our SZ4s. Also, I prefer how its zoom adjustment is positioned on the side of the microscope body (vs. the top). However, if I were spending my own money, I’d pass on an SZ3060 if I already had an SZ4—and unless the price was close or I really needed 40x instead of 30x, I’d pick the SZ4 if I were a buyer choosing between the two. IMO, the SZ3060 is a nice upgrade from the SZ4, but it’s not a big enough one to justify switching or paying the difference in cost. (NB: I’m writing from the USA, where used SZ4s are common and cheap. The SZ3060 may be the better buy elsewhere.)

You touched on ergonomics in one of your earlier posts, so FWIW: I’m not a huge fan of the ~60° inclination of the eyepieces on both the SZ3060 and SZ4, and so if I were looking to upgrade, I’d look for a model with eyepieces angled at 45° or less. Also, I’m not sure why, but the eyepiece angle bothers me a lot more on the SZ3060 than it does on the SZ4 (my best guess is it’s because of the SZ3060’s taller height—like you, I tend to hunch over the SZ4, whereas with the SZ3060 I sit more upright but have to bend my neck more).

If you just want more working distance than the 4” that your SZ4 gives you, have you considered picking up a copy of the SZ4’s 0.5x auxiliary lens?

[ClassMSpecie]

Thank you for sharing your experience on the SZ-3060. I have once again changed my stance on the SZ-3060 because of the 60 deg inclination. I am now looking to get a used SZ-4045 instead due to its 45 degree angle. Lower degree is better, but that appears to be in the realm of more modular and specialized CMO designs. I am currently using the B&L Stereozoom 4 with a 0.5x auxiliary lens, and it is very good (pretty flat view over all [0.5x lens has pretty strict back-focus distance to the eyepieces or else will dome] and generous eye relief). However, I tend to bend my neck and my upper back more than I'd like.
So, here is what I think I'll gain by upgrading from my B&L SZ4:

• ~30-40% greater FOV area

• 1.5/3.8 inch greater working distance with 0.5/0.4x auxiliary lens

• less body bending over all

• Best bang for the buck eyepieces

I know at the SZ-4045 price bracket, more options open up. My requirement is pretty much this now: 23mm field stop, 110mm working distance at the lowest innate magnification, 45 degree eye tube inclinations, price can't be much more than the SZ-4045 used model.

Thanks

ClassMSpecie

[PeteM]

The Olympus SZ-4045 and Meiji EMZ are in about the same used price range, depending upon your luck. Optically, very similar quality and specs. The EMZ will have better mechanical build quality, the same 23mm field of view, a slightly wider and higher zoom magnification range, and slightly less working distance. Both scopes can tweak magnification and working distances with auxiliary objectives.

With either, the best way to get the eyetube height right may be to adjust your workspace (bench height, chair height, possible risers if needed on the scope stand). A boom stand can be handy if you have the space, since you can easily adjust it to the right height and have the option of placing work on tables, in vises, on light boxes, measuring stages, etc.

I have and like both scopes (along with others, including the SZ4 you already have). The Olympus is light (split plastic housing) and nicely portable. The Meiji is heavier (cast aluminum housing) and sits in one part of the shop on a boom stand.

[ClassMSpecie]

Are there models with high eye tubes that can be included in the same price range as the Olympus SZ-4045? My bench height is not adjustable unless I build a platform of some kind, but that may make my arms less ergonomic as well.

Thank you.

ClassMSPecie

[PeteM]

My Meiji's eyepieces, when focused, sit about 16" above the bench, with a .5x reduction objective. I'll commonly raise them as much as another 4" or so to fit an x-y table or a soldering vise underneath - total 20".

FWIW, this 16" height is about the same as a Leica/Wild M8 - another nice scope and with a normal 6x to 50x range (no auxiliary lens fitted). The Wild scopes have a range of ergo adapters and supplemental objectives as well, but tend to be more expensive. You might find a Wild M3Z around the same price as the other two scopes. These Wild scopes will have the same range of ergo adapters, but not quite as wide a field of view.

Unless your bench is built into the wall, it can likely be raised and inch or two on blocks if just the right height is wanted. Just make up something that sort of look likes it belongs and captures the end of the legs. Quick example, among scores of options:

.
.

Base.png (278.33 KiB) Viewed 4679 times

[ClassMSpecie]

Thank you, I"ll look into those models as well. I'll look into platform/desk height adjustment as the last resort as it will still restrict my arm placements and movements.