Microscope for an industrial chemist?

[PeteM]

One of our potential Micronaut mentors is looking for a new microscope. I'm hoping others can weigh the pros and cons of various options.

He currently has a lower-end Leica stereo microscope with an AmScope 18mp camera - used for examining things like fibers, corrosion, silica, delamination of films, contaminants, broken semiconductor traces, and so on. He'd like better and more conveniently-taken images. His binocular Greenough Leica zoom isn't ideal for photos, and the AmScope USB camera isn't the best either. Higher magnifications and polarization could be useful. He'd also like to be able to do focus stacking and possibly fluorescence. His budget is around $2-3K.

Three options come to mind:

- Something like a Wild M3Z, with a trinocular intermediate, and the lens mount that allows centering the objective directly in line - all coupled to a mirrorless camera body. A bit hard to find, especially with a fine focus option, but it should be well inside the budget and even allow the purchase of a lesser compound microscope for higher magnification, possibly and eventually fluorescence,

- A microscope such as the Leica M400, M420 etc., again fitted with a better camera. This could be ideal, though pricey, for taking images at lower magnifications (as might be a dedicated camera rig). Others will know more about the Leica Makroskop and similar options.

- A good compound microscope fitted with a 2x objective at the low end and a mirrorless or DSLR camera up top. Ideally, with both epi and transmitted illumination. This would be the obvious choice for higher magnification, polarization, occasional focus stacking, and the addition of fluorescence. However, a 1x objective would probably be pricey. Something else would likely have to fill in the range from, say, 5x to 20x total magnification.

He does have a Zeiss surgical microscope that could be detached from its stand for lower magnification. It's too massive to fit into his lab otherwise.

Thoughts? Other ideas?

[Scarodactyl]

Hard to beat an M420 with an apozoom, and this one is proced kind of low from a reputable seller (not someone I've bought from but a frequent refurbisher and seller)
https://www.ebay.com/itm/225655265978
Easy enough to put a polarizer on. He has a more expensive one with an illuminated base too.

I have an m3z with an s type body and a third party trinocular head. No objective, no post, but not super spendy to get started.

[PeteM]

Stephen - how would you compare an M3Z with the sliding option to center the objective and a 1x plan apo objective to a Leica 400/420 Makroskop with a 6x Apo zoom?

I'd assume they both could be fitted with either a full-frame digital camera using OEM optics or directly to an APS-C digital camera with a modified tube (?). The zoom range should be the same. Essentially the same image quality unless the Makroskop has better zoom optics (?) and about the same field size unless the M3Z's larger (?) objective diameter makes a difference.

[Scarodactyl]

The macroscope has better image quality and a higher resolution. It should handily beat an M10 for photography much less an M3. I say this as the one with an M3 to sell too.

[PeteM]

I wonder how the M3Z or MZ6 would do if adapted to their 1x PlanApo with a claimed n.a. of .125 ?

The ApoZoom"up to" .116 n.a. according to one site, while the Leica Plan 1x that usually came with an M3 is only (I've heard) around 0.075 numerical aperture. I do know that a 1x Plan Nikon with a .105 n.a. is doing well on an Olympus stand.

It could be that just an adapter to the 65mm fitting of the 1x Plan Apo wouldn't do it, though - especially with a lens side shifter taking up a bit of space in the case of your M3Z.

[Scarodactyl]

I've compared my z6 apo (which is essentially equivalent to the apozoom) with my m10 before. The m10 is great for a stereo but the apozoom is better.
But again if he ends up wanting an s stand with an m3z I do need to part with it.

[PeteM]

Thanks, Stephen.

[annissteversonfir57]

One of our potential Micronaut mentors is looking for a new microscope. I'm hoping others can weigh the pros and cons of various options.

He currently has a lower-end Leica stereo microscope with an AmScope 18mp camera - used for examining things like fibers, corrosion, silica, delamination of films, contaminants, broken semiconductor traces, and so on. He'd like better and more conveniently-taken images. His binocular Greenough Leica zoom isn't ideal for photos, and the AmScope USB camera isn't the best either. Higher magnifications and polarization could be useful. He'd also like to be able to do focus stacking and possibly fluorescence. His budget is around $2-3K.

Three options come to mind:

- Something like a Wild M3Z, with a trinocular intermediate, and the lens mount that allows centering the objective directly in line - all coupled to a mirrorless camera body. A bit hard to find, especially with a fine focus option, but it should be well inside the budget and even allow the purchase of a lesser compound microscope for higher magnification, possibly and eventually fluorescence,

- A microscope such as the Leica M400, M420 etc., again fitted with a better camera. This could be ideal, though pricey, for taking images at lower magnifications (as might be a dedicated camera rig). Others will know more about the Leica Makroskop and similar options.

- A good compound microscope fitted with a 2x objective at the low end and a mirrorless or DSLR camera up top. Ideally, with both epi and transmitted illumination. This would be the obvious choice for higher magnification, polarization, occasional focus stacking, and the addition of fluorescence. However, a 1x objective would probably be pricey. Something else would likely have to fill in the range from, say, 5x to 20x total magnification.
The first and second options are unlikely to work. The second option with a Leica microscope can also be attractive given their quality and lower magnification capabilities. However, cost can be a factor. I know a lot in this area, in college I often asked for chemistry help, used https://edubirdie.com/chemistry-help for this. Now I can help anyone. In general, I choose the second option. I also recommend that you conduct a more detailed study of each option, perhaps by contacting specialists in the field of optics and microscopy, in order to make the best decision.

He does have a Zeiss surgical microscope that could be detached from its stand for lower magnification. It's too massive to fit into his lab otherwise.

Thoughts? Other ideas?

From your description, the three options you suggested seem reasonable and well-founded. Each of them has its pros and cons, and it is likely that certain compromises will be inevitable within the budget.