For other illumination techniques Swift is a no go?

[AmerigoMicroscopy]

I am researching getting a microscope, and have centered my self on the Amscope B120C or the Swift 350 and 380 T and B's. From what I can see, all of these microscopes are very good quality for the price, but Swift microscopes have one big caveat: helical condensers. So if I plan to use proper darkfield (not patch stop) and maybe a long way in the future phase contrast, are Swift scopes not really an option?

[AmerigoMicroscopy]

I don't believe there would be a need any added info, but if there would be please let me know!

[PeteM]

Anthony, you could probably cobble together a darkfield patch for either scope that would be useful up to 200x and semi-useful to 400x. However, there are several missing features in the lower-priced scopes you might want to consider.

1) The condensers tend to be attached to the stage - this usually means you can't easily swap in another type of condenser (phase contrast, polarization, high power darkfield, achromatic aplanatic, etc.) This is probably what you mean by "helical condenser" -- and both those scopes likely have this limitation. These stage-attached condensers are also much harder to center -- and the objectives insufficiently parcentered that slight adjustments to center the illumination circle would be useful.

2) A field iris is usually not included. That iris is useful in getting the best contrast out of your objectives. If you want this, the description will likely say Kohler illumination (sometimes approximating that) and the scope will be a bit more costly.

3) The objectives are usually fairly cheap achromats rather than plan achromats or better. Achromats are fine to begin with, but you may find yourself wanting something better.

4) The fine focus mechanism is sometimes omitted and, if included, a bit sloppy and/or prone to wear. This makes focus stacking more difficult, should you wish to take photos with full depth of field. There are commonly other build quality issues.

5) The turret may only have 3 or 4 places. You might want a 4x for scanning, a 10x, the ever-useful 20x that is often omitted, a 40x, and a 100x -- five objectives.

If I had $250-300 to spend, and worried about buying an older used microscope that might be incomplete, I'd consider finding an import microscope a level up, like an AmScope T490, that someone had used for a forgotten hobby or home-schooling and was offering at half price complete and in like-new condition. If the budget were higher and the interest keen, then taking the time to evaluate used former professional-level scopes would likely be worth the effort.

[AmerigoMicroscopy]

Referring to your first statement, the B120C does have a Rack and Pinion condenser that I believe would allow the things you were concerned about of the condenser. Correct?

[PeteM]

Don't know, not having had one. Did have an Omax equivalent with a rack-adjustable condenser mount, but it was pretty crappy and hard to adjust.

[crb5]

I have both Amscope 120 and Swift 350 scopes. They are very similar optically and have interchangeable binoc/trinoc eyepieces. It is likely some parts are made in the same factory. The main difference is that the Amscope 120 has a rack and pinion gear for adjusting the condenser height which is more convenient than the helical adjustment on the Swift (which can leave the filter holder pointing in an inaccessible position). Both scopes are easily modified at low power (up to 40x objective) with a dark field stop, oblique illumination, polarisation and fluorescence. Standard achromat objectives are OK for low power observations. They are best used with a small chip USB camera with no additional magnification lens such that only the central 1/4 to 1/5 of the field is imaged. Attempts to capture the entire field with a full frame camera show the primary image in not very flat. Alternatively, photos can be taken through the eyepieces which help correct aberrations in the objectives. See https://sites.google.com/ucsc.edu/cbag ... authuser=0 for more details.

[AmerigoMicroscopy]

@crb5 do you have a preference overall besides the 120's condenser? Right now im seeing you prefer the body of the Amscope.

[crb5]

I started with an Amscope 120 binocular microscope, then a year or so later realized a trinocular head would be useful. Amscope did not sell a separate trinoc head, so the cheapest option was to buy a Swift 350 trinocular scope. I switched the trinocular head to the Amscope body because I preferred the rack and pinion condenser. Not much difference apart from that.

[apochronaut]

Amscope isn't the only game in town but it is the worst. They are actually in the boat anchor business. They didn't get Scamscope for no reason.

Many more reputable and support savvy retailers exist as well as brokers/dealers of the very same instruments Amscope has with different branding . If you buy direct from China, there can be considerable savings and professional, knowledgeable support. Accu-Scope, BestScope come to mind. I have dealt with BestScope and they were great. I could ask them anything and they would respond immediately and offer up quality suggestions. I never got the feeling they were trying to upsell me.
In the U.S. , some of the scientific supply houses are logical competitors to Amscope. They are used to dealing in more professional circles, so they maintain stock of accessories and often continue support for delisted items. They want to kerp you as a customer, not just sell another microscope.
LW Scientific, although priced a little above a beginners ticket mostly for new instruments, have sold enough that a regular supply of their models continues on ebay. The 160mm tube Revelation III is often available for under 200.00 as a binocular 4 objective. Trino heads are available and sometimes a trino microscope shows up at a low price. I've even seen boxed unused ones, going for 400.00 or less. One I can vouch for is the LW200 model, because I bought a fluorescence version of it for under 100.00 on ebay a few years ago. I have seen them sell for as low as 60.00. It is a discontinued infinity corrrected model, also sold by Prior in England some years ago as a Pol model for over 2,000.00. The microscope is still made in China and parts are still available. It just got too pricey for LW to sell, so they replaced it with a less expensive more trendy looking model. They are a bargain on ebay. An exceptionally sturdy and well built microscope with fine quality infinity planachro optics, although some versions are 160mm. The model seems to be used in China in more professional circles.

[Chas]

crb5; I am curious to know how much the Amscope B120 microscope might weigh, roughly, (I dont seem to be able to find the weight of it online).... I am looking around for something to take on holidays and the Amscope M620 looks as if it might be a monocular version of the B120:
https://amscope.com/collections/compoun ... cts/c-m620

I guess the monocular version ought to be a bit lighter than the binocular.

[crb5]

I agree, the M620 does look like the monocular version of the Amscope 120. I had a similar travel problem when we visited the UK last year. I ended up buying an even cheaper scope with no proper condenser nor stage micrometers once I arrived https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B09 ... UTF8&psc=1. It was good enough to see the local plankton, but definitely inferior to the Amscope 120. One advantage though was it came with battery power, so it could be used in the field. That inspired me to add battery power to my Amscope 120 when I returned home https://sfmicrosociety.org/features/let ... e-anywhere.

[Javier]

I have been using the Amscope b120 (rebranded as Arcano xsz 100 here in Argentina) scope for a couple of years now. It has been a wonderful scope to me. I added a 20 x objective to replace the Oil 100x, which I almost never used. It is very easy to add some home made filters to perform oblique and dark field illumination (this one up to 200x). I also added a linear polarizer to the head of the scope to achieve polarization, although the 1W led shows it limitation under this technique, and I can only go up to 200 x while doing visual, and 100 x when imaging with my phone.

Is it a quality scope? I guess it is not, but it was one of the best purchases I have ever made. Microscopy is a side hobby to me, and spending much more than US 250 was never an option.

Here are some unedited images (frames from videos) showing different techniques.

Edit: It is a very lightweight scope, do not hesitate to get the binocular version.