Microscope

[austin_socal]

Do you guys think a microscope like this is good enough to determine what type of Dino is in my tank?
TIA

Vintage White K-12 Student Microscope 4X 10X 40X Objective Lenses & Accessories | eBay

Explore the micro-world with this vintage student microscope equipped with 10X and 40X objective lenses. Ideal for educational and scientific purposes.<br><br>• 4X and 10X and 40X objective lenses<br>• Sturdy white metal frame<br>• Includes cleaning cloth and cover<br>• Ideal for educational...

www.ebay.com

 

[TX_REEF]

I'm sure it would work fine, but also would recommend you consider a bluetooth microscope that syncs to your mobile device - much easier to get photos, as simple as taking a screenshot! I use this one: https://amzn.to/47Y1imU

 

[14 foot reef]

I'm sure it would work fine, but also would recommend you consider a bluetooth microscope that syncs to your mobile device - much easier to get photos, as simple as taking a screenshot! I use this one: https://amzn.to/47Y1imU

How well does this work ? if it works as claims, this is probably a no brainer, but I would imagine it has its limitations

 

[TX_REEF]

How well does this work ? if it works as claims, this is probably a no brainer, but I would imagine it has its limitations

I haven't had any issues with it, super easy to use and get photos. The focus can be a little finicky since it's such a portable device, but I can recommend it.

 

[DaJMasta]

If you're going to be in that sort of pricerange, the more modern digital scope is probably better - it's really the bottom of the barrel in terms of price, though, and illumination could be an issue. I would consider looking around on craigslist or facebook marketplace or something for a used one if you want the most image quality for your buck.

For dinos, you probably want a 40x to 100x objective (not more), 10x eyepieces, and a light that illuminates through the target rather than from the top. The scope you linked on ebay doesn't appear to have a light at all, and the USB ones without a base will illuminate from the top. When you're looking at something very small, the light intensity has to be pretty high to see anything since the field of view only captures a small area of the light available, so microscopes designed for this kind of use generally have a special lens under the stage called a condenser that focuses more light into the area you're actually looking.

The convenience of a built in camera is hard to deny, but a good image quality (from decent optics and good lighting) will let you compare a clearer image by eye even if it's not as easy to post for someone else to compare.

 

[austin_socal]

How well does this work ? if it works as claims, this is probably a no brainer, but I would imagine it has its limitations

I’d like to know that as well

 

[14 foot reef]

If you're going to be in that sort of pricerange, the more modern digital scope is probably better - it's really the bottom of the barrel in terms of price, though, and illumination could be an issue. I would consider looking around on craigslist or facebook marketplace or something for a used one if you want the most image quality for your buck.

For dinos, you probably want a 40x to 100x objective (not more), 10x eyepieces, and a light that illuminates through the target rather than from the top. The scope you linked on ebay doesn't appear to have a light at all, and the USB ones without a base will illuminate from the top. When you're looking at something very small, the light intensity has to be pretty high to see anything since the field of view only captures a small area of the light available, so microscopes designed for this kind of use generally have a special lens under the stage called a condenser that focuses more light into the area you're actually looking.

The convenience of a built in camera is hard to deny, but a good image quality (from decent optics and good lighting) will let you compare a clearer image by eye even if it's not as easy to post for someone else to compare.

Do you have a brand and model that fits these specs that you recommend ?

 

[austin_socal]

If you're going to be in that sort of pricerange, the more modern digital scope is probably better - it's really the bottom of the barrel in terms of price, though, and illumination could be an issue. I would consider looking around on craigslist or facebook marketplace or something for a used one if you want the most image quality for your buck.

For dinos, you probably want a 40x to 100x objective (not more), 10x eyepieces, and a light that illuminates through the target rather than from the top. The scope you linked on ebay doesn't appear to have a light at all, and the USB ones without a base will illuminate from the top. When you're looking at something very small, the light intensity has to be pretty high to see anything since the field of view only captures a small area of the light available, so microscopes designed for this kind of use generally have a special lens under the stage called a condenser that focuses more light into the area you're actually looking.

The convenience of a built in camera is hard to deny, but a good image quality (from decent optics and good lighting) will let you compare a clearer image by eye even if it's not as easy to post for someone else to compare.

Thank you. Do you have a particular one that you like that you could link

 

[DaJMasta]

I don't, there are tons of reasonable options on the new market and even more on the used. If you can find something by Nikon, Zeiss, Olympus, or Leica (the big four of microscopes) on the used market with a 40-100x objective, complete, and looking like it was made in the last 40 years, it would be hard to beat especially under $100 almost regardless of model.

If you're looking for new microscopes, Amscope is an easy default that offers pretty decent features and image quality without a lot of expense, but in terms of model, you want a compound microscope with brightfield/transmitted illumination, 10x or similar eyepiece(s), and a 40-100x objective (and some lower, definitely). While not a guarantee of quality, I think for a non-digital microscope, a binocular design is better than a monocular on average (they're more expensive to make, so they are often overall better, and there are basically no monocular scopes in the more premium categories), with trinocular (a camera port as well) is still more desirable.

Most digital microscopes will be reflected illumination (not transmitted) and will be of more limited use for single cell organism ID. They often have longer working distances (correlates to lower sharpness for the same magnification, but not always the case), and may not come with a particularly good stand/focus mechanism. The fully variable zoom is super handy, but trades off performance at high magnification for this, that's why a lot of microscopes still use individual objective lenses.

If you're working with higher power objectives, remember that having a coverslip and sometimes immersion oil (the objective will be marked "oil") is often imperative to get best optical performance, so getting a little accessory package with slides and coverslips is very useful. Especially so with single cell ID, since the depth of focus at high magnification is so shallow, you really want the sample to be very, very thin, so a flat slide, a drop of your subject, a coverslip on top, and then wicking out extra water through the sides of the coverslip with a piece of paper towel or something will help get a clear image.

And the age old marketing counterpoint: higher magnification is not necessarily better. You should be aiming for 400-1000x total system magnification (objective times eyepiece in the standard microscope category), and the image you see will not be getting any sharper than you can see at 600-700x (or maybe 800-900x with oil immersion), though it does get bigger. That means your 100x objective will make the target you're looking at bigger, but probably won't make it much sharper than the next lower power objective, and you'll need brighter illumination to see through it. This can still be useful by eye, but less so with a camera, and using 15x -25x eyepieces gets you the size increase (and light decrease) without any improvement in actual image sharpness. Seeing microscopes that advertise 1500x+ magnification is entirely a marketing gimmick and doesn't represent optical performance.

 

[austin_socal]

I don't, there are tons of reasonable options on the new market and even more on the used. If you can find something by Nikon, Zeiss, Olympus, or Leica (the big four of microscopes) on the used market with a 40-100x objective, complete, and looking like it was made in the last 40 years, it would be hard to beat especially under $100 almost regardless of model.

If you're looking for new microscopes, Amscope is an easy default that offers pretty decent features and image quality without a lot of expense, but in terms of model, you want a compound microscope with brightfield/transmitted illumination, 10x or similar eyepiece(s), and a 40-100x objective (and some lower, definitely). While not a guarantee of quality, I think for a non-digital microscope, a binocular design is better than a monocular on average (they're more expensive to make, so they are often overall better, and there are basically no monocular scopes in the more premium categories), with trinocular (a camera port as well) is still more desirable.

Most digital microscopes will be reflected illumination (not transmitted) and will be of more limited use for single cell organism ID. They often have longer working distances (correlates to lower sharpness for the same magnification, but not always the case), and may not come with a particularly good stand/focus mechanism. The fully variable zoom is super handy, but trades off performance at high magnification for this, that's why a lot of microscopes still use individual objective lenses.

If you're working with higher power objectives, remember that having a coverslip and sometimes immersion oil (the objective will be marked "oil") is often imperative to get best optical performance, so getting a little accessory package with slides and coverslips is very useful. Especially so with single cell ID, since the depth of focus at high magnification is so shallow, you really want the sample to be very, very thin, so a flat slide, a drop of your subject, a coverslip on top, and then wicking out extra water through the sides of the coverslip with a piece of paper towel or something will help get a clear image.

And the age old marketing counterpoint: higher magnification is not necessarily better. You should be aiming for 400-1000x total system magnification (objective times eyepiece in the standard microscope category), and the image you see will not be getting any sharper than you can see at 600-700x (or maybe 800-900x with oil immersion), though it does get bigger. That means your 100x objective will make the target you're looking at bigger, but probably won't make it much sharper than the next lower power objective, and you'll need brighter illumination to see through it. This can still be useful by eye, but less so with a camera, and using 15x -25x eyepieces gets you the size increase (and light decrease) without any improvement in actual image sharpness. Seeing microscopes that advertise 1500x+ magnification is entirely a marketing gimmick and doesn't represent optical performance.

Wow. Thanks man- I’ll do my searching now