Purchasing a microscope

Starting out in microscopy? Post images and ask questions relating to the microscope and get answers from our more advanced users on the subject.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Marci Hess
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:01 pm
Contact:

Purchasing a microscope

Post by Marci Hess »

I'm need guidance on purchasing a microscope. I don't understand all the technical specifications but want to before I purchase one.

So, I'll start with what I do know! Here's how I want to use the scope and the end results I'm looking for. My use of the scope would be for itty bitty, teeny weeny insects. Some of them would be mounted on points, others would be on slides (not mounted), and some would be aquatic or soil microbes (perhaps mounted). I need the scope so I can see the insect well enough to spread the appendages of an insect before I glued them to a point. I want to be able to take quality photos of them -- meaning photos good enough to be able to ID the critter and various parts of the critter. For example, maybe a close up of an antennae, wing, face, etc. I would also use the scope for viewing plant parts (stems, seeds, etc) but most of those aren't as small as the insects I'm working with.

How do I decide what specs I would need in a microscope to accomplish this?

Thank you for your help with this!

NikonUser
Posts: 2693
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:03 am
Location: southern New Brunswick, Canada

Post by NikonUser »

There are basically 2 types of microscopes: Compound Microscopes and Stereomicroscopes.
If I wanted to do what you are planning I would buy a stereo scope.
Here is what Olympus has to offer; Nikon has similar scopes, as probably do other makers.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/seg_secti ... ion=stereo
NU.
student of entomology
Quote – Holmes on ‘Entomology’
” I suppose you are an entomologist ? “
” Not quite so ambitious as that, sir. I should like to put my eyes on the individual entitled to that name.
No man can be truly called an entomologist,
sir; the subject is too vast for any single human intelligence to grasp.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr
The Poet at the Breakfast Table.

Nikon camera, lenses and objectives
Olympus microscope and objectives

Marci Hess
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Marci Hess »

There are lots of choices in stereo microscopes and corresponding prices. How do I know what specifications I need to accomplish what I'm trying to do?

NikonUser
Posts: 2693
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:03 am
Location: southern New Brunswick, Canada

Post by NikonUser »

You wrote: "My use of the scope would be for:"

"itty bitty, teeny weeny insects. Some of them would be mounted on points, others would be on slides (not mounted), and some would be aquatic"

A stereo scope with a magnification from about 6x to 50x or whatever higher magn. you think you would need


"or soil microbes (perhaps mounted)"

A compound microscope with 20x, 40x, and perhaps 100x objectives coupled with 10x eyepieces.

"I need the scope so I can see the insect well enough to spread the appendages of an insect before I glued them to a point."

The stereo scope described above.

"I want to be able to take quality photos of them -- meaning photos good enough to be able to ID the critter and various parts of the critter. For example, maybe a close up of an antennae, wing, face, etc."

The highest quality, expensive, stereo scope with a photo tube; OR microscope objectives and other lenses that can be attached to extension tubes or bellows and mounted on a linear translation stage for stacked images with Zerene Stacker

"I would also use the scope for viewing plant parts (stems, seeds, etc) but most of those aren't as small as the insects I'm working with."

The stereo scope described above

EDIT: I have no idea where all the line spacing came from :(
NU.
student of entomology
Quote – Holmes on ‘Entomology’
” I suppose you are an entomologist ? “
” Not quite so ambitious as that, sir. I should like to put my eyes on the individual entitled to that name.
No man can be truly called an entomologist,
sir; the subject is too vast for any single human intelligence to grasp.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr
The Poet at the Breakfast Table.

Nikon camera, lenses and objectives
Olympus microscope and objectives

Marci Hess
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Marci Hess »

It seems there's more info that I should know. How would I compare a $500 scope to a $10,000 scope or anything in between? Aren't there certain specs that make one better than another or more relevant to my application?

NikonUser
Posts: 2693
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:03 am
Location: southern New Brunswick, Canada

Post by NikonUser »

OK, so go to the Nikon or Olympus steremicroscope pages and compare the features of each company's basic scope with their advanced scope.
They usually characterize each scope. Compare specifications.

If all you want to do is look at small bugs etc. then just about any stereomicroscope - even $100.00 used models will serve that function; providing all the internal lenses are aligned properly. Mis-aligned lenses are just about impossible to correct.

A used stereo with magnification from about 6x to (OK) 100X will fit your needs. I find that the low power is often more useful than a high power.
I would not buy a stereo that has a minimum magn of about 12x.

But if you want to get decent photos you will need a stereo with a phototube and with high quality lenses (APO objectives). Your $10,000.00 scope will have these.

Basically, in new models, you get what you pay for.

My choice would be a simple basic stereo scope (no phototube) for looking and arranging legs and antennae for pinning, etc.
and then go the microscope infinite objective + bellows + translation stage + DSLR for high quality stacked photos using Zerene Stacker. Lots of examples for this type of setup here on PMG.net.
NU.
student of entomology
Quote – Holmes on ‘Entomology’
” I suppose you are an entomologist ? “
” Not quite so ambitious as that, sir. I should like to put my eyes on the individual entitled to that name.
No man can be truly called an entomologist,
sir; the subject is too vast for any single human intelligence to grasp.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr
The Poet at the Breakfast Table.

Nikon camera, lenses and objectives
Olympus microscope and objectives

Marci Hess
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Marci Hess »

I'm intrigued. Are the set-ups something that a person has to put together from a variety of places or is there a one-stop location for these items?

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

I don't understand all the technical specifications but want to before I purchase one.
Excuse me a smile :) - that's an ambitious quest.
If you start with college student grade versions of exactly what NU has suggested, you won't break the bank and you'll see that much of what you want is covered "well". Whether it's well enough, or you want something "somewhat" better for much more money, is something only you will be able to judge. If you go for something used, but widely used and respected, it'll be easy to sell without a big loss.
"Up" a notch could be ordinary lab grade, of some age, or some of the better popular scopes from mainstream microscope merchants.

If and when you want to go better in a particular direction, you'll kow more about what to spend money on.
For variables in Stereos, there's transmitted and incident illumination, polarised or not, and darkfield. Then angle/ ergonomics of the head, types of eyepieces, long arm or otherwise, overall size, magnification range, zoom or fixed optics, working distance, photo tube or not, inverted or not, and more - enough to fill a small book.
Some things you can get round, to a point, such as using an eyepiece camera if there's no phototube, an accessory light if it doesn't come built-in, and so on.

When you look at compound microscopes the book gets a lot bigger - beyond my understanding, in some areas.

And always, you can buy something of similar spec for 10 times the price, and not see any difference for most applications.

If you particularly want to do "focus stacking", microscopes don't really come set up for that, so you do have to put some things together.

Marci Hess
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Marci Hess »

Yes, I know -- I can be quite greedy with my information requests!! I know I want something better than student grade and I know I don't want to spend $10,000. Unfortunately or fortunately, there's a magnitude of choices in between there. It's weeding thru those magnitudes to figure out how much I need to spend to get the outcome I want without overspending. To do that I need to learn more about microscopes. I've gathered a great deal of info from the conversations. Every time someone mentions something I research it. It leads to more questions.

The idea of putting together of system for my camera without a microscope is very intriguing!! Since the photo aspect is imperative, this could be the answer for me. Now I need to understand the process for doing this and where all the parts for doing it can be purchased.

Charles Krebs
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Contact:

Post by Charles Krebs »

Agree with NU... a stereo scope best meets the needs you described. However, as you have seen, there is a huge range of features, prices, and capabilities.

Most stereo scopes are primarily used for observation. The optics are often "optimized" to provide great depth-of-field and usually large working distances (lens to subject). Unfortunately these characteristics can often be at odds with what is needed for very high quality photography.

One specification that will be of interest is the numerical aperture (NA) of the lens (sometimes you can choose different lenses, sometimes not). Most lower to mid-range stereo scopes do not even provide this information. Higher lever and research-grade scopes often will. The ability to resolve fine detail (and thus view very small details effectively) at higher magnifications is directly related to the NA. Typically the higher the NA the greater the resolution, the less the depth-of-field, and the shorter the working distance. A NA of about 0.07 or 0.08 is pretty common on a most "basic" stereo scopes. This will provide pretty decent visual observation up to about 40X (good depth-of-field and working distances), but just OK photographic results up to about 4X or 5X on a camera sensor. (But don't forget the sensors image will be enlarged-- typically about 10X or so -- to make the image a viewable size on screen or in a print, so they would be comparable to what you see through 10X eyepieces). If your photographic needs are for ID purposes... not making big prints to hang on a wall :wink: ... this may be adequate.

Most good/higher-end stereos will have a main body with a certain zoom range. For example look specs on pages 19 and 20 of the Olympus brochure here:
http://www.olympusamerica.com/files/seg ... ochure.pdf (These are high-end scopes and likely very expensive... don't know what they cost. But the brochure gives nice detailed specifications)

The SZX16 body has a very large 16X zoom range (0.7x-11.5x) the SZX10 body has a 10X zoom range (0.63x-6.3x)

To this main body you then select a lens to add at the bottom and eyepieces at the top. If you select a 1X lens your basic magnification range will be (with the SZX10) .63X-6.3X. Viewing through 10X eyepieces means you will be seeing the subject at magnifications from 6.3X to 63X. Looking at the specs on those pages you can see that with this scope you have a choice of 8 different lenses. They have different magnifications, NA's and working distances. You also have a choice of "Apo" lenses and Achromat lenses. The "Apo" lenses are the best (especially for photography), but for a scope like this an Apo lens alone can cost 2-3 times as much as a totally adequate complete stereo of more modest specifications. For strictly viewing purposes they are very nice indeed but really not necessary over the achromats. (Personally I would also avoid trying to get higher magnifications using eyepieces over 15X. You will get larger images with the 20X and 30X eyepieces but you really don't see more subject details, and, for me at least, the viewing experience is much less satisfying).

NU said:
My choice would be a simple basic stereo scope (no phototube) for looking and arranging legs and antennae for pinning, etc.
and then go the microscope infinite objective + bellows + translation stage + DSLR for high quality stacked photos using Zerene Stacker. Lots of examples for this type of setup here on PMG.net.
Good advice. Because when you get right down to it, the stereo microscopes that have the very high-end optics needed for really good photography are extremely expensive (prohibitively so for most individuals). If all you really need is observation and perhaps some "personal" images to help with ID's you can do nicely at a small fraction of that cost. And with a little ingenuity you can put together a second component set-up (often at very modest expense) for the times when you need/want higher quality (and higher magnification) images. Although if you can find a stereo with a trinocular tube that meets your budget, and your imaging needs are modest (ID type purposes) it might be worthwhile for reference photographs.

Koorosh
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2014 3:39 pm
Location: London

Post by Koorosh »

I just bought a Nikon SMZ-U, which was top of the range when it came out (I think in the 90's) and the optics on it are really lovely.
I've always been told that the best scopes and optics are made by Zeiss and Leica, with Olympus and Nikon somewhere afterwards. Certainly, I remember always wanting to use a Leica MZ6 if it was available when I was at work, over the Olympus scopes.
However, of the optical quality that I get with the Nikon, I am very impressed! I can recall the quality of Leica's (admittedly mid/ upper mid range) scope, and I think the quality between the two is comparable, and possibly in favour of the Nikon, but I would need to use them back to back. The main difference is though, that if you wanted to buy a second hand MZ6, you'd be looking at over a grand. I paid £570 with postage for the SMZ!
I just bought a phototube for an unruly amount of money however, and based on further information I kind of wish I hadn't as it seems the likelihood of getting high quality images compared to the bellows set-ups is going to be a bit disappointing, but then I don't have all the technical specifications for the objective lens to truly know how badly it will perform. I'm trying to find out a little more currently.
If those scopes were bought new.... Seriously, if the scope is in good nick, you will get a much higher quality scope than what you would for the same price new. I think the SMZ-U was a few grand when it came out!
I bought mine from JB microscopes. Of note: the price that I got the scope for was very low! It is for sale online in other places and the price difference is considerable. Patience, and heavy amounts of time looking around for places to buy.
Where are you living?

Marci Hess
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Marci Hess »

I'm a bit slow in responding to your great comment, Charles Krebs. I appreciate what you're saying and have decided to go that route! I can use my $500 microscope for working under and I've gone the route of getting microscope objectives to fit the camera. I'm also toying with purchasing a Canon 1-5x lens but I want to play with the objectives first! I don't want to enlarge the photos but I do want quality ones, for ID purposes and for art purposes, since bugs are quite beautiful and intriguing. The sad part, is it's the growing season now so I have little time to work with this. I'll be back at it this winter and probably with tons of questions!

Thanks sooooo much for this website and forum!!

Koorosh
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2014 3:39 pm
Location: London

Post by Koorosh »

Thought this might be of some help- I now understand numerical aperture a little better :)
http://www.microscopyu.com/tutorials/ja ... index.html

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic