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 |
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 |
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! |
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 |
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 |
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 |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter