Re: Scope Quality Question
- From: "Kevin Cunningham" <smskjd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:33:46 GMT
"GTO" <gregor_o@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:75%9e.1880$zX7.663@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> What scopes are recommended by this group?
>
> There are those, who proclaim that everything besides Zeiss, Leitz (now
> Leica), Nikon or Olympus is junk. And there are those who recommend the
> "big" names in microscopy without entirely stepping other scopes into the
> ground.
>
> You are asking about the differences between a $500 and $5000 scope, one
> made by Swift and the other one made by, for instance, Olympus.
>
> I will now assume that your Swift is as well built as my old PZO from
> 1975. So, it is not junk and actually useful for microscopy.
>
> What would you realize when working with your new $5000 toy:
>
> 1) You have less money left on your bank account.
> 2) If you are married, your wife will purchase shoes for an additional
> $4500 just to compensate for your crazy expenditure.
> 3) All your microscopy friends don't talk with you anymore since your
> scope is better (see below).
> 4) You are too much afraid of really using it since you would never be
> able to pay for repairs (...just kidding!).
> 5) You are always cleaning the scope and believe that with extensive
> cleaning you actually add value until you realize that you actually
> degrade optical performance through excessive cleaning.
> 6) Every gear works precise and smooth. It's ergonomical and you just feel
> the stability and comfort when working with your new $5000 toy. You just
> have to look at it and your heart glows.
> 7) The illumination (including condenser) is far better.
> 8) The optics has more contrast and, if you purchased more expensive
> gears, has also more resolution.
> 9) You can expand the scope (if you have some money left or win in the
> lottery!).
> 10) You can mount a heavier camera on the frame and your stage does not
> start to drift when attaching a phase-slider condenser.
>
> Yes, you can see and feel a difference.
>
> BTW, stay away from the entry level scopes of the big names. If you want
> to save a bundle, embrace the used market patiently. Or just stick with
> your Swift if you are happy with it.
>
> Gregor
>
> "Charles" <ckraft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1ftg61553ntbai7v4i7n6jre5jq15uvgmh@xxxxxxxxxx
>> years ago I bought a Swift microscope. It 9is apparently one of the
>> Chinese brands.
>>
>> What am I missing? what difference would I see with one of the scopes
>> recommended in this group.
>>
>> I'm strictly an amateur, no training at all.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Charles
>>
>> Does not play well with others.
>
As always a good post! The big problem with Swift is it doesn't mamufacture
a thing. They come up with what they want and they ask vendors to bid on
it. For some *&^%$ reason I worked on a bunch of Swifts. It was plain as
day that one group was made by one company and the others by a second
company. All of them had the same model designation.
Kevin Cunningham
SMS
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Scope Quality Question
- From: GTO
- Re: Scope Quality Question
- References:
- Scope Quality Question
- From: Charles
- Re: Scope Quality Question
- From: GTO
- Scope Quality Question
- Prev by Date: Re: I'm a newbie
- Next by Date: Re: WTB Long Working Distance Micro/macroscope
- Previous by thread: Re: Scope Quality Question
- Next by thread: Re: Scope Quality Question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|