Beginners scope for insect identification?

Bathcat · Post by **Bathcat** » Sun Jun 10, 2012 5:21 pm

I'm an amateur entomologist and am looking for a stereo scope for insect identification. I don't plan on using the scope for photography, but this seems like a great place for feedback on potential purchases, so I thought I'd see what you all thought.

As it stands, I'd like to spend as little money as possible, and was thinking of buying one of these from AmScope: http://www.amazon.com/AmScope-10x-20x-3 ... Y3F3URP0KX

And one of these light sources: http://www.amazon.com/Fiber-Optic-Goose ... Y3F3URP0KX

The little camera that comes with it would just be gravy. If I could just hook it up to my computer and view what I was looking at on the monitor as opposed to being bent over the scope, it'd be that much easier.

I've read on entomology-related websites that the Olympus SZ40 is very popular for insect identification, but of course these are more expensive. I'm wondering what spending more money is going to do for me in terms of just using the scope as a scope. All I plan on doing with is looking at pinned insects between 2 and 60 millimeters.

Thanks!

Bathcat · Post by **Bathcat** » Sun Jun 10, 2012 6:02 pm

Or, would it be better to combine the cost and buy this boom mounted scope with wide field eyepieces and an 80 LED light ring? I haven't had experiences with LED rings versus gooseneck light sources, and don't know which would be better.

http://www.amazon.com/AmScope-3-5X-90X- ... 68&sr=1-13

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:37 am

Bathcat,

I think one reason you have not gotten much feedback is that most of us are hesitant to recommend specific hardware we have never used.

But a few general comments might be useful. For your purposes a basic stereo should be fine. The Chinese ones seem to be a very good value for the uses you mention. (When you get into this primarily to take photographs, with the inherent "pixel-peeping" and close scrutiny involved, then it become important to look at more "upscale" optics. And even then a stereo might not be the best path).

Zoom capability, rather than fixed magnification steps is nice. Be aware that the microscope you referenced really has two lens settings 1X and 3X. It is supplied with 10X and 20X eyepieces, which is what enables the 4 magnification settings. I think swapping eyepieces regularly could get tiresome pretty quickly. I would also be concerned with the lowest magnification settings. 10X as your lowest magnification may not be the best choice. I think the ability to have a lower magnification in the 5X range would be a real asset. (This is often obtained with the use of a 0.5X "Barlow" lens attached to the microscopes "lens").

The FO illuminator you mention actually costs more than the microscope. Many microscope stands (like the one you referenced) have built in lights. These can vary from quite good to barely adequate. I would skip the FO illuminator and put more money into the microscope (perhaps a zoom with lower magnification capabilities) and see if the stand lights are adequate. If you find you need additional, or more "flexible" lighting, consider adding two of the Ikea JANSJÖ LED lights:
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/90214233/

These are not as bright as a FO illuminator, but extremely versatile, very inexpensive, and many of us here have really found them to be fantastic for many uses.

As to the "boom stand" I would be more inclined to go with stereo stand with top and bottom lights. Boom stands are nice for certain uses, but take up a great deal of table "real estate". Good ones are very heavy and thus really only suitable if you intend to keep the microscope in one place and have the room to do so. It is extremely nice to be able to pick up your stereo scope and move it to a different room or even outside or take it with you on a trip.

Gary W Brown · Post by **Gary W Brown** » Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:00 pm

Bathcat,

I agree with Charles.

There is a big difference between the inexpensive Chinese microscope and the Bausch & Lomb, Nikon, and Olympus stereo microscopes.

If you were to invest a little (maybe a lot) more in one of the older stereos with the Ikea lights that Charles suggested you would have a very good setup for what you are planning to do.

Gary

Chris S. · Post by **Chris S.** » Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:55 pm

Bathcat,

Echoing Charlie and Gary to an extent, I'm one of the folks who only feels comfortable commenting on equipment I've had experience with. That being so, I'll suggest you look at used models of the Bausch and Lomb StereoZoom series. Quite a few of these sell for $200-$300 on eBay. What I use is probably the StereoZoom 7 model, but it isn't marked and I'm not certain. I purchased it as surplus classroom equipment, and it serves me well. Some of my collaborators' stereoscopes are B&L models that look different from mine, and so are probably not the "7," but they all work similarly and very well. Also, I used various B&L models in college and high school--all have been quite decent workhorses. I doubt that you would go wrong in getting a clean, used copy from a seller with a good record.

Olympus and Nikon stereo microscopes are likely excellent, but I have no experience with them. And while I haven't tried an AmScope, I'm skeptical. Optical equipment seems to be an area where a used Mercedes is better than a new GMC, or perhaps Yugo.

--Chris

Bathcat · Post by **Bathcat** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 12:41 am

Thanks for the replies, guys. I've asked a few entomologists what they thought of the features versus the price, and they all said it seemed great, but no one has had any experience with this brand. On the subject of this stuff's country of origin, one fellow said he remembers when people thought Japan could never touch German optics, and now here we are

AmScope and OMAX both seem to have similar pricing models, and plenty of good reviews on sites like Amazon, but that is probably from gun engravers, etc. I'm sure that the scope would suit my immediate needs (indentifying ground beetles and other Coleoptera, possibly some Diptera down the road), but the consensus seems to be that if I plan on using it for photography, I would want to go with a used head from a well known brand.

A couple questions:

Does the objective lens type have much effect on the view with stereoscopic microscopes? Am I going to be fighting with the focus at 90x because I bought something with a regular achromatic objective? Is the objective type even a consideration with a stereo microscope using diffused surface light on opaque subjects?

And lets say I did decide to start photographing my subjects. How much would I have to spend to get a decent replication of these photos? http://bugguide.net/node/view/638559 Or these? http://osac.science.oregonstate.edu/pro ... owseImages I realize both of those are using a stacking auto-montage system, but I'm just curious how much you guys think the hardware I would need to reproduce those would cost.

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 12:49 pm

Does the objective lens type have much effect on the view with stereoscopic microscopes? Am I going to be fighting with the focus at 90x because I bought something with a regular achromatic objective? Is the objective type even a consideration with a stereo microscope using diffused surface light on opaque subjects?

If you are a critical viewer, I know of no stereo microscope --other than some hugely expensive models from major manufacturers-- that will provide a crisp, clear image at (a viewed magnification of) 90X. And even in those cases you would probably be frustrated by the relatively small working distance involved. The vast majority of stereo microscopes simply do not have a large enough aperture to provide high resolution and high magnifications simultaneously. Stereo microscopes are typically made to have large depth-of-field and good working distances, but this normally entails modest magnifications and some compromise in resolution. The vast majority of stereo microscopes will have maximum numerical apertures (NA) in the vicinity of 0.07 to 0.1 (typo corrected...thanks Betty). As such they can be considered for viewing up to about 50X and for photography up to about 5X (on camera sensor) for photography. An "apo" model may indeed have a larger NA than the achromat (with smaller working distance). If so, the higher NA will provide a sharper sharper (if the NA were the same the "sharpness" will appear about the same). The "apo" characteristic is desirable for photography as most people will notice and be troubled by chromatic aberration more in photographs than in viewing.

And lets say I did decide to start photographing my subjects. How much would I have to spend to get a decent replication of these photos? http://bugguide.net/node/view/638559 Or these? http://osac.science.oregonstate.edu/pro ... owseImages I realize both of those are using a stacking auto-montage system, but I'm just curious how much you guys think the hardware I would need to reproduce those would cost.

The images you have referenced here are very modest in magnification... probably in the range of 1X to 2X onto an APS-C sized camera sensor. This would certainly be in the range of capability of most stereo microscopes. Again, when talking photography you will be happier with the results from a higher quality achromat or an "Apo". One other aspect of using a stereo microscope for "stacking" is that the image shifts a little between successive frames. The stacking software is very capable of handling this, but if photography becomes the primary goal a different arrangement (such as a "macroscope") may be preferred.

BTW... I would add Meiji to your "desirable manufacturer" list. They are a smaller Japanese manufacturer, and their stereo scopes are very good and have a good reputation for durability. Price-wise they may not be too different than some Olympus or Nikon, but sometimes you can find a used one at a better price than the more "popular" models.

Planapo · Post by **Planapo** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 3:16 pm

The vast majority of stereo microscopes will have maximum numerical apertures (NA) in the vicinity of 0.7 to 0.1.

Charlie made a typing error here and meant 0.07 instead of 0.7.

Just to add a number of NA of the latest Leica high-end research grade stereo:
With the 2x planapo objective the max. NA is stated as 0.35.

--Betty

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:23 pm

Betty,

Thanks for the "catch".

Olympus has a 2X 0.50 with a working distance of 20mm for their MVX10 macroscope. So they do exist, but rare and very expensive!!!

Planapo · Post by **Planapo** » Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:49 am

Charlie wrote:

Olympus has a 2X 0.50 with a working distance of 20mm for their MVX10 macroscope.

Gosh, I didn't know... darn!

...

...dig, dig, dig.....

...ahh,... but Zeiss comes to the rescue of our (fore)fatherland.

With their brand new Axio Zoom.V16 comes a 2.3x PlanNeoFluar Z that has a NA of 0.57.

Phew...

--Betty

Bathcat · Post by **Bathcat** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:34 pm

Charles Krebs wrote: The vast majority of stereo microscopes simply do not have a large enough aperture to provide high resolution and high magnifications simultaneously. Stereo microscopes are typically made to have large depth-of-field and good working distances, but this normally entails modest magnifications and some compromise in resolution.

Does this effect scale? For example, if I bought an Amscope with that went up to 90x, I understand that 90x isn't going to look good in a photograph, or even in the view. But if I bought one that went from say 7x-45x, would the ostensibly low quality optics lead to the 45x looking bad, as well?

BTW... I would add Meiji to your "desirable manufacturer" list. They are a smaller Japanese manufacturer, and their stereo scopes are very good and have a good reputation for durability. Price-wise they may not be too different than some Olympus or Nikon, but sometimes you can find a used one at a better price than the more "popular" models.

I looked them up on Ebay, and there were a few heads up for auction. I'll keep an eye out. What other stereo models are recommended? Is there a scope that is considered the Oly BHS of stereos? I've read that the Olympus SZ line is popular with entomologists. Would that be a good basis if I did decide to photograph later?

Thanks for the advice, everyone

Planapo · Post by **Planapo** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:45 am

Bathcat,

I would have a look at the market of used equipment, especially when living in the US where the used-market is much bigger than over here, and I would look for a scope from a well-known manufacturer. There are very good occasions on ebay.com, see e. g. # 150838192310
(Entomological research work was done with that model on the eastern side of the iron curtain at that time. This one is from the 1980s to 1990s and provided that it is damage-free, I consider US$175 an excellent bargain.)

I have spent countless hours working with stereomicroscopes, from entry-level, university-student-course models (of brand manufacturers) up to high end research instruments with planapochromatic objectives (prices new >> US$10k), and from my experience when viewing specimens for ID, at low to moderate magnifications, there is not so much difference that it would massively affect your work.

As to photography, it may be nice to take a quick shot through a stereomic for communication purposes, but if you want to do fine photography, like our members show in here, there are cheaper and mostly better ways, like e.g. taking photographs through (reversed) quality enlarger lenses (which often can be bought used for around US$20 or less. See for example this fine photograph lately posted by one of our members: http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=17297

--Betty

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:16 pm

Bathcat,

In the past year there have been a few threads here where I think I might have come across as as someone who "talks down" the capabilities of stereo microscopes. Not the case... they are absolutely essential tools, and good ones are a real pleasure to use. The problem has to do with the users expectations. It is the perfect tool for many jobs, but not the best for others. Marketing literature and terminology often adds to the confusion as well.

"Compound" microscope objectives are all clearly marked with their numerical aperture. This information is rarely even obtainable for most stereo microscopes, except for the ones that tend to be well "above average" in this regard. It will also vary with the zoom settings on stereos with zoom optics... typically being at the maximum NA only at the longest zoom setting, and considerably less at lower zoom settings. But it is the numerical aperture that directly determines how much a microscope can resolve.

Does this effect scale? For example, if I bought an Amscope with that went up to 90x, I understand that 90x isn't going to look good in a photograph, or even in the view. But if I bought one that went from say 7x-45x, would the ostensibly low quality optics lead to the 45x looking bad, as well?

Can't say without the NA data. If the maximum NA is the same in both cases (other optical qualities being about equal), then the one at 45X will look "sharper" than the one at 90X. There was an interesting discussion over at one of the Yahoo microscope groups:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Micr ... sage/65467

Betty said:

I have spent countless hours working with stereomicroscopes, from entry-level, university-student-course models (of brand manufacturers) up to high end research instruments with planapochromatic objectives (prices new >> US$10k), and from my experience when viewing specimens for ID, at low to moderate magnifications, there is not so much difference that it would massively affect your work.

She has had a lot more experience on stereo microscopes than I have and she is a keen observer (

). My far more limited experience bears out her observation.

One thing you do see more commonly on stereo microscopes is the marketing of higher power eyepieces. On a "compound" biological microscope the most commonly used eyepiece is a 10X. Occasionally you see people using 12.5X, but seldom more than that. Stereo dealers readily market 15X, 20X, 25X, and even 30X eyepieces. I would avoid the temptation to get high magnifications via high magnification eyepieces. You do not gain any more detail or resolution, you simply make the detail that is produced by microscope's primary optics "bigger". Stick to 10X or 15X. (There may be times when, although there is no additional detail produced, enlarging it with higher power eyepieces can allow you to "make out" some differences a little better than with lower power objectives. But most of the time you just get a larger, "fuzzier "image. At least I find them less satisfying to use.)

Bathcat · Post by **Bathcat** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:28 pm

Update: I went with this Amscope.. I'll write again with some initial impressions and questions as to how to get the most out of it soon.

Thank you for the input, everyone! I may be back for advice on how to get a fixed lens such as a Coolpix 5000 cheaply mounted, if the little USB camera doesn't work out.

Bathcat · Post by **Bathcat** » Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:18 pm

The optics through the eyepieces are great, exactly what I needed. Bright, clear view. I'm glad I went with the 144 LED ring, as it gets a little dimmer at the highest zoom, but upping the light keeps everything still nicely visible. The scope construction feels cheap, which I expected. Slight shifting when its picked up, there was a slight gritting noise with the focus knob, etc.

On the other hand, this camera seems to stink, but its nice to be able to take a picture of some sort through it. I seem to remember someone saying there was a firmware update or a homebrewed program to work with these cheapo Amscope cams, can anyone help on that?

Here's a shot of a carabid from my collection, after much fiddling with contrast and brightness in the input settings.