Re: Quality of imported microscopes?

From: Michael A. Covington (look_at_ai.uga.edu.for.address)
Date: 10/03/04 

Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:21:49 -0400

"EarlCox" <earlcox@earlcoxreports.com> wrote in message
news:yfZ7d.51865$ci3.2338828@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>I have a friend who runs an engineering design company and he bought two of
> these stereo-microscopes on eBay. For his work they are just fine. I also
> use one of them on my field trips to collect and classify myxomycetes
> (slime
> molds). I find, for this kind of field work, the optics and the movement
> are
> fine. Anyway, for a 160 bucks, they are pretty nice and are almost a
> disposable scope. If you don't like the optics or the movement, you can
> probably sell it for part of your original costs and move up to one of the
> name brands in the $500 to $800 range I suspect, however, that my
> pragmatic
> approach to what is "fine" (that is, measuring the scope quality on
> something akin to an economic utility function) will not sit well with a
> lot
> of people. And, of course, any time you buy a non-name brand instrument
> (especially on eBay) you run the risk of getting something that is far,
> far
> less than fine.
>
> Earl

Thanks. Can you describe the optical quality in more detail? When you look
at a flat, regular object, such as maybe a piece of lens paper held flat, do
you see a lot of blurring or color fringing at the edges? Is the image
sharp at center of field? Is the eye relief adequate for use with glasses
on?

Most of my experience with a microscope is with a Nikon binocular microscope
(originally from a doctor's office, I think) that is about 40 years old but
has (for its time) excellent optics. (Plan-achromat objectives, compensated
eyepieces with long eye relief.) Of course, it's designed to work at much
higher powers than a low-cost stereo microscope. Will I notice a big step
down in optical quality?

Loading