PDA

View Full Version : what is the difference between cheap microscopes and expensive ones?



waloshin
February 21st, 2010, 02:02 AM
Cheap like amscope, expensive like nikon, fisher scientific. Is it just the optics and overall build quality or what?

fatcrab
February 21st, 2010, 04:15 AM
optics

Biochem
February 21st, 2010, 04:25 AM
Optics, light source (Diode, mercury, lasers, incandescent), filters, CCD camera, ability to stay in focus for long period of time and ergonomics can all have an impact on price.

Cheap and expensive is also a very relative term. For me cheap <= 30 000$ and expansive >= 1 000 000$.

What do you want to do with the 'scope ?

waloshin
February 21st, 2010, 04:56 AM
Optics, light source (Diode, mercury, lasers, incandescent), filters, CCD camera, ability to stay in focus for long period of time and ergonomics can all have an impact on price.

Cheap and expensive is also a very relative term. For me cheap <= 30 000$ and expansive >= 1 000 000$.

What do you want to do with the 'scope ?

Just for hobby use checking out cells, bacteria ect. Though a million dollar electron scanning microscope would be awesome.

swoll1980
February 21st, 2010, 05:32 AM
For me cheap <= 30 000$ and expansive >= 1 000 000$.

So what do you call everything in-between $30,000 and $1,000,000? Just right?

Biochem
February 21st, 2010, 05:57 PM
Just for hobby use checking out cells, bacteria ect. Though a million dollar electron scanning microscope would be awesome.

For bacteria are very small so you need a good 100X NA 1.4 oil objective. look also for some kind of staining to enhance contrast (Gram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram_staining) works well and is very easy to do).

On the other hand eukaryote cell can have very little contrast. Staining them is an option but dark field microscop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_field_microscopy)y is very cool.

For hobby use get a base with 2 ports (1 for the 10x eye pieces and the other for a SLR camera). There are mirrors in the base and their quality will impact your images so don't get the cheapest one but most of the money should go on objectives. Also remember when selecting your objectives that the most important factor is the numerical aperture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_aperture) not the magnification. you will get more resolution with a 60X NA 1.4 than with a 100X NA 0.6



So what do you call everything in-between $30,000 and $1,000,000? Just right?
It all depends on what you get and what you want to do. A Ferrari for 40 000 is a good deal but a Lada for the same price...

waloshin
February 21st, 2010, 08:42 PM
For bacteria are very small so you need a good 100X NA 1.4 oil objective. look also for some kind of staining to enhance contrast (Gram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram_staining) works well and is very easy to do).

On the other hand eukaryote cell can have very little contrast. Staining them is an option but dark field microscop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_field_microscopy)y is very cool.

For hobby use get a base with 2 ports (1 for the 10x eye pieces and the other for a SLR camera). There are mirrors in the base and their quality will impact your images so don't get the cheapest one but most of the money should go on objectives. Also remember when selecting your objectives that the most important factor is the numerical aperture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_aperture) not the magnification. you will get more resolution with a 60X NA 1.4 than with a 100X NA 0.6



It all depends on what you get and what you want to do. A Ferrari for 40 000 is a good deal but a Lada for the same price...

How is this one: http://store.amscope.com/b100a-ms.html

Biochem
February 22nd, 2010, 12:23 AM
How is this one: http://store.amscope.com/b100a-ms.html

It all comes down to your budget. If you can't afford more, than go for it.

However, This claim makes me doubt a bit:

This microscope is made by the same technicians and on the same production line as optical instruments for Leica, Zeiss, Nikon and Olympus.
Those company don't share plants much less technicians. But, the marking on the objectives are incomplete which makes me thinks they are cheap and not achromatic as mentioned or are rejects that doesn't meets the quality standards of the afore mentioned company.

On the other hand, I should mention that I do high precision multi-dimensional (up to 5D) microscopy for a living so I'm definitively more picky than the average bear concerning component quality. For me, small 0.00005 mm shift between the blue and red color means a hell of a headache.