A Gardening forum. GardenBanter.co.uk

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » GardenBanter.co.uk forum » Permaculture and plant science discussions » Plant Science
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Microscopes for botany?



 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 18-03-2004, 02:12 PM
Howard Clase
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Microscopes for botany?

Now that I'm retired and have more time for botany I'd like to get something
better for plant identification that the 10x and 20x magnifying glasses
I've been using up to now. I've seen some marvellous things through
binocular microscopes in biology labs and would like to get something
similar for myself, new or used. So I'd like some advice on what to look
for and possible sources for someone living on the north eastern edge of N.
America (Newfoundland, Canada).

Howard Clase
Ads
  #2  
Old 19-03-2004, 01:57 AM
Aaron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Microscopes for botany?

Hello Howard,

We live in a wonderful world where industry buys expensive microscopes
uses then for a short while and then when they are amortized puts them
on the used market for enthusiast like us. A good industrial
microscope that has seen adequate care will retain its usefullness for
30 to 50 years.

There are two types of microscope you should consider owning. A
stereo microscope will magnify in the range of 10X to 40X give or take
a few X. These are wonderful for examining hand held and unprepared
specimen. Flowers and leaves are very good subjects. The second
type of microscope is the compound microscope with magnification from
100X to 1000X. A compound microscope is basically designed for
examining prepared slides. The higher magnification is needed to see
cellular details. Specimen must be very thin for this microscope to
work well. .

The four major manufacturers still in business are Zeiss, Olympus,
Nikon and Leica. Older companies that are no longer in the microscope
business also have a legacy of quality instruments. Bausch and Lomb,
Reichert and Wild Heerbrugg are a few. These companies made the best
scopes and the best bargains are used instruments from these makers in
the 15 to 30 year old range. There are huge numbers of both type
instruments for sale on eBay at very reasonable prices.

There are also lots of newer scopes coming in from China and India
that look like good microscopes but just do not have the quality of
the older used instruments. Another advantage of the better used
instruments is that they hold their value for resale. Newer
instruments loose value the instant they are purchased. The lost is a
very large part of the purchase price. Much worst than buying a new
car.

Unfortunately, it takes some hands on experience to understand and
evaluate microscopes. The only way you can get this experience is to
hook up with a serious enthusiast or visit a local dealer and learn.
Microscopes at one level can be simple but they can have all sorts of
features which are best decided upon before purchase. Too many
newcomers get impatient to own a scope, have no idea of value, start
with an under funded budget and buy the first scope that comes along
only to see other better opportunities a short while later.
Hello
My advice is to do your home work first and put off purchasing a scope
until you can focus in on what you will really want..

The best source for information about microscopes are the Molecular
Expressions and Microscopy U websites. These are professionally
maintained at the highest level and are sponsored by the biggest names
in microscopes. They are also free of commercial content and THEYARE
FREE. The information is vast and this is THE place to begin. Better
than any books you can purchase.

Start with learning about the parts and features. There are
interactive applets that illustrate the various principles. All the
different variations of equipment are discussed in detail.

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/

http://www.microscopyu.com/

Good luck,
Aaron


On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:30:56 +0000 (UTC),
(Howard Clase) wrote:

Now that I'm retired and have more time for botany I'd like to get something
better for plant identification that the 10x and 20x magnifying glasses
I've been using up to now. I've seen some marvellous things through
binocular microscopes in biology labs and would like to get something
similar for myself, new or used. So I'd like some advice on what to look
for and possible sources for someone living on the north eastern edge of N.
America (Newfoundland, Canada).

Howard Clase


  #3  
Old 19-03-2004, 10:33 AM
P van Rijckevorsel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Microscopes for botany?

Aaron schreef
There are two types of microscope you should consider owning. A

stereo microscope will magnify in the range of 10X to 40X give or take
a few X. These are wonderful for examining hand held and unprepared
specimen. Flowers and leaves are very good subjects

There are also lots of newer scopes coming in from China and India

that look like good microscopes but just do not have the quality of
the older used instruments. Another advantage of the better used
instruments is that they hold their value for resale. Newer
instruments loose value the instant they are purchased. The lost is a
very large part of the purchase price. Much worst than buying a new
car.

+ + +
Not quite true. A lot of recent improvement in stereomicroscopes is in the
improved coatings. This means that a modern instrument of iffy-looking
provenance can be better than an old one by one of the trusted companies. I
would not beforehand rule out a stereomicroscope from a new source. There is
no substitute for trying them out yourself and making your own judgement.
PvR

Steromicroscopes go up in magnification as far as you like, but watch the
light!



  #4  
Old 19-03-2004, 09:43 PM
Aaron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Microscopes for botany?

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:17:40 +0100, "P van Rijckevorsel"
wrote:


Not quite true. A lot of recent improvement in stereomicroscopes is in the
improved coatings. This means that a modern instrument of iffy-looking
provenance can be better than an old one by one of the trusted companies. I
would not beforehand rule out a stereomicroscope from a new source. There is
no substitute for trying them out yourself and making your own judgement.
PvR

Steromicroscopes go up in magnification as far as you like, but watch the
light!


I would not like to have what I posted taken as an absolute rule.
However, my advice,comes from experience with many insruments. It is
good advice for a newbie. Everyone is free to comment..

The issue of microscope quality is often reduced to provanance alone.
Its snobbish and that is not my position. The issues are materials,
design and workmanship. All the makers including the big four make
low cost entry scopes for routine lab work and student use.. Here the
technical genius of these large companies is directed to minimizing
the cost instruments for routine laboratory work. Their aim is to
make it as cheap as they can to attract price buyers and still feel
okay with their name on the product.. Again, these are not great
instruments. There is a difference between routine microscopes and
research level instruments. I am appending an article that I wrote
and posted to sci.techniques.microscopy some time ago that expands
this theme..

Fine optics require expensive exotic glasses and very accurate precise
manufacture to get the lens profiles. (Coatings are important but the
fundamental accuracy of the lenses is more so. Remember the original
defect in the Hubble telescope mirror.). Also the internal metal
parts of a microscope require lots of high precision machine work to
provide the proper orientation of the lens elements and accurate
durable focusing,, especially in zoom stereo microscopes. Materials.
workmanship and strict quality control are not cheap, even in the
thrid world. There is no "free lunch." An experienced microscopist
will spot quickly the absence of the atributes. My point is that a
good industrial quality instrument has a very low price for the
quality abailable because others have withstood the depreciation..

It is easy for a new buyer to be fooled because the new imports look
slick on the outside. It takes a few hours spent using an instrument
for eyestrain and headaches to develope. These symptoms are related
to poor focus and alignment of the optics. It also takes experience
with many different instruments to recognize a quality image. A quick
look down the eyepieces is not going to reveal the truth. New buyers
are going to be impressed with any view because the initial response
to any magnified images is so positive.

However, you do raise another point. Not everyone needs or
appreciates top level quality. So whatever meets your needs is fine
as long as you are happy. That is why microscopes of every
desctiption, quality and price are being sold today..

Aaron

Appended post from sci.techniques.microscopy:
(Sorry for any redundencie)

This question (new versus old microscopes) appears on this NG
regularly from novice buyers who are
tempted to purchase one of the new off-brand microscopes that are
imported from Japan, China, India, the old Communist block countries
Russia, etc. The price gets their attention and the scope looks
slick. The older name brand microscopes cost as much or more than
these "new" scopes. It is clear the questioners have neither the
background to evaluate an "older" microscope for inherent value, nor
assess a new scope for optical quality Hence the question.

Successfully purchasing a microscope (new or old) requires
considerable background knowledge which can't be provided in brief
comments. However I hope the following helps.

The top four old line manufacturers still making high quality new
microscopes are Zeiss, Olympus, Nikon and Leica. The new off-brand
microscopes vary in performance from "yuk" to quite good. Are the
best of these equal to the top four. In my opinion, no. They may
look like modern microscopes but the necessary precision in
manufacturing the optics is not quite there.

I think it is now necessary to generally define terms age and quality.
First, the word "older" as I want to use it refers to scopes 10 to 25
years old, but no more than 50. Quality microscopes younger than 10
years are difficult items. These are still in their prime and
generally in the possession of the original purchaser. If you do
happen to pick one up, parts are scarce and very expensive purchased
new. Starting in the mid 1950's binocular and trinocular designs
became more common and focusing was achieved by moving the stage
rather than the optical tube. These changes produced the greatest
improvement in ergonomics. Subsequent inovations are to raise the
height of the eyepieces to avoid stuping and lower the controls to
make them easier to reach . These last improvements can be aproximated
by raising the scope to eye level, using an adjustable height chair
and providing rests to bring your hands closer to the controls.

With respect to quality there are routine laboratory scopes and more
elaborate research instruments.

The major manufacturers market routine laboratory scopes with
inexpensive achromat objectives and simple eyepieces. They are not
great optical instruments, however ergonomic and slick looking they
may be.. These are the most numerous microscopes available. Many
older bright field / dark field microscopes equal and exceed the
performance. The ergonomics of new and old scopes are not so different
for this type.

The quality of objectives and eyepieces is the most important
characteristic separating routine scopes from research scopes.
Planachromat and especially flourite and plan apochromat objectives
are much higher optical quality and cost more both for the number of
individual lens elements and the choice of exotic materials that go
into a single objective. Phase contrast, Differential Interference
Contrast (DIC), epi-illumination, powerful lamps, high NA turret
condensers, and elaborate mechanical stages are other typical
components of research level microscopes. So quality has two
dimensions. One is the precision in manufacture. Second is the
complexity of the components.

The price for a given quality of optics is much less for an older
scope than the corresponding newer microscopes. Microscopes are much
worse than cars considering initial depreciation. Buy a new scope,
any new scope, and especially the high end research scopes and you
will be very hard pressed to resell it for anywhere near the original
cost. Generally speaking and recognizing a few exceptions, a well
cared for microscope will retain almost all of its optical performance
over time. There is an excellent supply of high quality microscopes
retired from industrial and academic institutions which are excellent
for hobbyists or others with a restricted budget. I believe these
scopes are the real bargains if properly evaluated for parts and
condition.

Is a new Zeiss, Olympus, Nikon, Lica research scope easier to use and
does it posses outstanding quality in the optics? Yes!! But the
prices of the new microscopes are between 4 and 15 times the same
quality scope that is 15 to 25 years older. Today, older
top-of-the-line microscopes sell on eBay for $1,000 to $4,000 dollars
that cost as much as $20,000 purchased in 1975 dollars. Premium grade
objectives, for Zeiss, Nikon, Olympus and Leica scopes, which cost
several thousand dollars new, go for a few hundred dollars in good
optical condition used. Going back as far as the 1950's Bausch and
Lomb, AO and other companies manufactured excellent quality compound
microscopes that are now available for $500 or less. The B & L line
of stereozoom microscopes are very available and popular in the $300
to $700 range. Greenough stereo scopes go for $100 to $250 depending
on condition and features. These are all excellent scopes.

The new research grade equipment from any of the four major
manufacturers is typically in the $15,000 to $80,000 range today as
you choose the best grade of objectives and add phase contrast, DIC
and epi illumination and other choice optional components.

So my personal preference is to purchase very high quality research
grade equipment that is 10 to 30 years old in as near to pristine
condition as I can find. It is used and there will be some traces of
wear and tear, but the performance will be far beyond what the same
dollars could purchase in new equipment.

Aaron



  #5  
Old 20-03-2004, 11:33 PM
P van Rijckevorsel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Microscopes for botany?

Yes, it is much too wide a field for absolute rules.
Much will depend on what is easily available and accesible to OP.
When it comes to stereomicroscopes quite a lot can be told by looking at
optical quality throughout the field of vision. Lots of the cheaper
instrument have the picture blurring towards the edges, and this is not hard
to spot when one knows what to look for. A complete newbie who does not know
what to look for will be in trouble.
PvR

+ + +
Aaron schreef I would not like to have what I posted
taken as an absolute rule.
However, my advice,comes from experience with many insruments. It is
good advice for a newbie. Everyone is free to comment..

The issue of microscope quality is often reduced to provanance alone.
Its snobbish and that is not my position. The issues are materials,
design and workmanship. All the makers including the big four make
low cost entry scopes for routine lab work and student use.. Here the
technical genius of these large companies is directed to minimizing
the cost instruments for routine laboratory work. Their aim is to
make it as cheap as they can to attract price buyers and still feel
okay with their name on the product.. Again, these are not great
instruments. There is a difference between routine microscopes and
research level instruments. I am appending an article that I wrote
and posted to sci.techniques.microscopy some time ago that expands
this theme..

Fine optics require expensive exotic glasses and very accurate precise
manufacture to get the lens profiles. (Coatings are important but the
fundamental accuracy of the lenses is more so. Remember the original
defect in the Hubble telescope mirror.). Also the internal metal
parts of a microscope require lots of high precision machine work to
provide the proper orientation of the lens elements and accurate
durable focusing,, especially in zoom stereo microscopes. Materials.
workmanship and strict quality control are not cheap, even in the
thrid world. There is no "free lunch." An experienced microscopist
will spot quickly the absence of the atributes. My point is that a
good industrial quality instrument has a very low price for the
quality abailable because others have withstood the depreciation..

It is easy for a new buyer to be fooled because the new imports look
slick on the outside. It takes a few hours spent using an instrument
for eyestrain and headaches to develope. These symptoms are related
to poor focus and alignment of the optics. It also takes experience
with many different instruments to recognize a quality image. A quick
look down the eyepieces is not going to reveal the truth. New buyers
are going to be impressed with any view because the initial response
to any magnified images is so positive.

However, you do raise another point. Not everyone needs or
appreciates top level quality. So whatever meets your needs is fine
as long as you are happy. That is why microscopes of every
desctiption, quality and price are being sold today..

Aaron

Appended post from sci.techniques.microscopy:
(Sorry for any redundencie)

This question (new versus old microscopes) appears on this NG
regularly from novice buyers who are
tempted to purchase one of the new off-brand microscopes that are
imported from Japan, China, India, the old Communist block countries
Russia, etc. The price gets their attention and the scope looks
slick. The older name brand microscopes cost as much or more than
these "new" scopes. It is clear the questioners have neither the
background to evaluate an "older" microscope for inherent value, nor
assess a new scope for optical quality Hence the question.

Successfully purchasing a microscope (new or old) requires
considerable background knowledge which can't be provided in brief
comments. However I hope the following helps.

The top four old line manufacturers still making high quality new
microscopes are Zeiss, Olympus, Nikon and Leica. The new off-brand
microscopes vary in performance from "yuk" to quite good. Are the
best of these equal to the top four. In my opinion, no. They may
look like modern microscopes but the necessary precision in
manufacturing the optics is not quite there.

I think it is now necessary to generally define terms age and quality.
First, the word "older" as I want to use it refers to scopes 10 to 25
years old, but no more than 50. Quality microscopes younger than 10
years are difficult items. These are still in their prime and
generally in the possession of the original purchaser. If you do
happen to pick one up, parts are scarce and very expensive purchased
new. Starting in the mid 1950's binocular and trinocular designs
became more common and focusing was achieved by moving the stage
rather than the optical tube. These changes produced the greatest
improvement in ergonomics. Subsequent inovations are to raise the
height of the eyepieces to avoid stuping and lower the controls to
make them easier to reach . These last improvements can be aproximated
by raising the scope to eye level, using an adjustable height chair
and providing rests to bring your hands closer to the controls.

With respect to quality there are routine laboratory scopes and more
elaborate research instruments.

The major manufacturers market routine laboratory scopes with
inexpensive achromat objectives and simple eyepieces. They are not
great optical instruments, however ergonomic and slick looking they
may be.. These are the most numerous microscopes available. Many
older bright field / dark field microscopes equal and exceed the
performance. The ergonomics of new and old scopes are not so different
for this type.

The quality of objectives and eyepieces is the most important
characteristic separating routine scopes from research scopes.
Planachromat and especially flourite and plan apochromat objectives
are much higher optical quality and cost more both for the number of
individual lens elements and the choice of exotic materials that go
into a single objective. Phase contrast, Differential Interference
Contrast (DIC), epi-illumination, powerful lamps, high NA turret
condensers, and elaborate mechanical stages are other typical
components of research level microscopes. So quality has two
dimensions. One is the precision in manufacture. Second is the
complexity of the components.

The price for a given quality of optics is much less for an older
scope than the corresponding newer microscopes. Microscopes are much
worse than cars considering initial depreciation. Buy a new scope,
any new scope, and especially the high end research scopes and you
will be very hard pressed to resell it for anywhere near the original
cost. Generally speaking and recognizing a few exceptions, a well
cared for microscope will retain almost all of its optical performance
over time. There is an excellent supply of high quality microscopes
retired from industrial and academic institutions which are excellent
for hobbyists or others with a restricted budget. I believe these
scopes are the real bargains if properly evaluated for parts and
condition.

Is a new Zeiss, Olympus, Nikon, Lica research scope easier to use and
does it posses outstanding quality in the optics? Yes!! But the
prices of the new microscopes are between 4 and 15 times the same
quality scope that is 15 to 25 years older. Today, older
top-of-the-line microscopes sell on eBay for $1,000 to $4,000 dollars
that cost as much as $20,000 purchased in 1975 dollars. Premium grade
objectives, for Zeiss, Nikon, Olympus and Leica scopes, which cost
several thousand dollars new, go for a few hundred dollars in good
optical condition used. Going back as far as the 1950's Bausch and
Lomb, AO and other companies manufactured excellent quality compound
microscopes that are now available for $500 or less. The B & L line
of stereozoom microscopes are very available and popular in the $300
to $700 range. Greenough stereo scopes go for $100 to $250 depending
on condition and features. These are all excellent scopes.

The new research grade equipment from any of the four major
manufacturers is typically in the $15,000 to $80,000 range today as
you choose the best grade of objectives and add phase contrast, DIC
and epi illumination and other choice optional components.

So my personal preference is to purchase very high quality research
grade equipment that is 10 to 30 years old in as near to pristine
condition as I can find. It is used and there will be some traces of
wear and tear, but the performance will be far beyond what the same
dollars could purchase in new equipment.

Aaron









  #6  
Old 20-03-2004, 11:38 PM
P van Rijckevorsel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Microscopes for botany?

Yes, it is much too wide a field for absolute rules.
Much will depend on what is easily available and accesible to OP.
When it comes to stereomicroscopes quite a lot can be told by looking at
optical quality throughout the field of vision. Lots of the cheaper
instrument have the picture blurring towards the edges, and this is not hard
to spot when one knows what to look for. A complete newbie who does not know
what to look for will be in trouble.
PvR

+ + +
Aaron schreef I would not like to have what I posted
taken as an absolute rule.
However, my advice,comes from experience with many insruments. It is
good advice for a newbie. Everyone is free to comment..

The issue of microscope quality is often reduced to provanance alone.
Its snobbish and that is not my position. The issues are materials,
design and workmanship. All the makers including the big four make
low cost entry scopes for routine lab work and student use.. Here the
technical genius of these large companies is directed to minimizing
the cost instruments for routine laboratory work. Their aim is to
make it as cheap as they can to attract price buyers and still feel
okay with their name on the product.. Again, these are not great
instruments. There is a difference between routine microscopes and
research level instruments. I am appending an article that I wrote
and posted to sci.techniques.microscopy some time ago that expands
this theme..

Fine optics require expensive exotic glasses and very accurate precise
manufacture to get the lens profiles. (Coatings are important but the
fundamental accuracy of the lenses is more so. Remember the original
defect in the Hubble telescope mirror.). Also the internal metal
parts of a microscope require lots of high precision machine work to
provide the proper orientation of the lens elements and accurate
durable focusing,, especially in zoom stereo microscopes. Materials.
workmanship and strict quality control are not cheap, even in the
thrid world. There is no "free lunch." An experienced microscopist
will spot quickly the absence of the atributes. My point is that a
good industrial quality instrument has a very low price for the
quality abailable because others have withstood the depreciation..

It is easy for a new buyer to be fooled because the new imports look
slick on the outside. It takes a few hours spent using an instrument
for eyestrain and headaches to develope. These symptoms are related
to poor focus and alignment of the optics. It also takes experience
with many different instruments to recognize a quality image. A quick
look down the eyepieces is not going to reveal the truth. New buyers
are going to be impressed with any view because the initial response
to any magnified images is so positive.

However, you do raise another point. Not everyone needs or
appreciates top level quality. So whatever meets your needs is fine
as long as you are happy. That is why microscopes of every
desctiption, quality and price are being sold today..

Aaron

Appended post from sci.techniques.microscopy:
(Sorry for any redundencie)

This question (new versus old microscopes) appears on this NG
regularly from novice buyers who are
tempted to purchase one of the new off-brand microscopes that are
imported from Japan, China, India, the old Communist block countries
Russia, etc. The price gets their attention and the scope looks
slick. The older name brand microscopes cost as much or more than
these "new" scopes. It is clear the questioners have neither the
background to evaluate an "older" microscope for inherent value, nor
assess a new scope for optical quality Hence the question.

Successfully purchasing a microscope (new or old) requires
considerable background knowledge which can't be provided in brief
comments. However I hope the following helps.

The top four old line manufacturers still making high quality new
microscopes are Zeiss, Olympus, Nikon and Leica. The new off-brand
microscopes vary in performance from "yuk" to quite good. Are the
best of these equal to the top four. In my opinion, no. They may
look like modern microscopes but the necessary precision in
manufacturing the optics is not quite there.

I think it is now necessary to generally define terms age and quality.
First, the word "older" as I want to use it refers to scopes 10 to 25
years old, but no more than 50. Quality microscopes younger than 10
years are difficult items. These are still in their prime and
generally in the possession of the original purchaser. If you do
happen to pick one up, parts are scarce and very expensive purchased
new. Starting in the mid 1950's binocular and trinocular designs
became more common and focusing was achieved by moving the stage
rather than the optical tube. These changes produced the greatest
improvement in ergonomics. Subsequent inovations are to raise the
height of the eyepieces to avoid stuping and lower the controls to
make them easier to reach . These last improvements can be aproximated
by raising the scope to eye level, using an adjustable height chair
and providing rests to bring your hands closer to the controls.

With respect to quality there are routine laboratory scopes and more
elaborate research instruments.

The major manufacturers market routine laboratory scopes with
inexpensive achromat objectives and simple eyepieces. They are not
great optical instruments, however ergonomic and slick looking they
may be.. These are the most numerous microscopes available. Many
older bright field / dark field microscopes equal and exceed the
performance. The ergonomics of new and old scopes are not so different
for this type.

The quality of objectives and eyepieces is the most important
characteristic separating routine scopes from research scopes.
Planachromat and especially flourite and plan apochromat objectives
are much higher optical quality and cost more both for the number of
individual lens elements and the choice of exotic materials that go
into a single objective. Phase contrast, Differential Interference
Contrast (DIC), epi-illumination, powerful lamps, high NA turret
condensers, and elaborate mechanical stages are other typical
components of research level microscopes. So quality has two
dimensions. One is the precision in manufacture. Second is the
complexity of the components.

The price for a given quality of optics is much less for an older
scope than the corresponding newer microscopes. Microscopes are much
worse than cars considering initial depreciation. Buy a new scope,
any new scope, and especially the high end research scopes and you
will be very hard pressed to resell it for anywhere near the original
cost. Generally speaking and recognizing a few exceptions, a well
cared for microscope will retain almost all of its optical performance
over time. There is an excellent supply of high quality microscopes
retired from industrial and academic institutions which are excellent
for hobbyists or others with a restricted budget. I believe these
scopes are the real bargains if properly evaluated for parts and
condition.

Is a new Zeiss, Olympus, Nikon, Lica research scope easier to use and
does it posses outstanding quality in the optics? Yes!! But the
prices of the new microscopes are between 4 and 15 times the same
quality scope that is 15 to 25 years older. Today, older
top-of-the-line microscopes sell on eBay for $1,000 to $4,000 dollars
that cost as much as $20,000 purchased in 1975 dollars. Premium grade
objectives, for Zeiss, Nikon, Olympus and Leica scopes, which cost
several thousand dollars new, go for a few hundred dollars in good
optical condition used. Going back as far as the 1950's Bausch and
Lomb, AO and other companies manufactured excellent quality compound
microscopes that are now available for $500 or less. The B & L line
of stereozoom microscopes are very available and popular in the $300
to $700 range. Greenough stereo scopes go for $100 to $250 depending
on condition and features. These are all excellent scopes.

The new research grade equipment from any of the four major
manufacturers is typically in the $15,000 to $80,000 range today as
you choose the best grade of objectives and add phase contrast, DIC
and epi illumination and other choice optional components.

So my personal preference is to purchase very high quality research
grade equipment that is 10 to 30 years old in as near to pristine
condition as I can find. It is used and there will be some traces of
wear and tear, but the performance will be far beyond what the same
dollars could purchase in new equipment.

Aaron









 




Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Buying Microscopes in UK Text NTLWorld Ponds 0 11-04-2003 04:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright 2004-2014 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.