Re: General comment

In article <ToOdnTTeVJ1XLh3enZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Nick <nickmirro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes 
GTO,

I would ask that you do not reply to my posts anymore.

Nick, some hints to you on how these things work. And please understand, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and trying to be helpful.

FIRST: You have posted your question in a public forum; you simply don't have ANY say in who answers your question, or who chooses to join in any follow-up discussion. Period.

SECOND: Your original question was so vague as to be almost meaningless, and you were lucky anyone took the trouble to try to help you at all. You made no attempt to tell us what you were looking for, or what type of work you were trying to do, or what budget you had available.

THIRD: After you followed up and explained that you were looking for a stereo microscope, Gregor's response was considerably more helpful than you had any right to expect, and (so far as I can judge, I am not familiar with those instruments) pretty accurate.

FOURTH: Even if someone's answers are not quite what you are looking for, have the humility to consider the possibility that it might be because you asked the question in a cack-handed manner, not because the responder is an awkward sod. In fact Gregor is a very long-standing poster here, and is generally very knowledgeable and helpful.

I suggest you start again. Telling us what you are trying to achieve would be a good start.

David 


FIRST:  You come across as very bright but for some reason are not getting
the jist of any of my posts.

  (What I was hoping for)

Feedback and friendly comments (+ or -) regarding the inexpensive units that
I posted.

  (What you posted)

1.  A response that wrongly suggests and focuses on the idea that - I am
under the impression - I can get a complete Nikon setup for $1800.  My
estimation is that you are in the business of bashing and have found this
specific issue a potential vulnerability.

2.  Suggestion that I am not considering macro photography as an alternate.
Currently, I use Canon L lenses and have a variety of extension tubes,
teleconverters and multielement diopters.  This macro photography setup,
which is its primary use, cost over 10k.  I am quite experienced in this
area and cannot see it as a cost effective or practical alternative.  It is
not a good platform to observe from and isn't a less expensive way to get
high quality optics.


SECOND:  I find that your comments are condescending:

"get realistic"

"Most stereozooms are designed for an observer using both eyes and not for a
camera stuck onto one
eyepiece only."


Regarding your follow-up post, I admit that I posted a similar question on
the Yahoo hobby group.  You caught me.  I've learned my lesson.  If it
doesn't go through you, it is of limited or questionable value.

Please just ignore me if I post anything.  Thank you.

Nick



"GTO" <gregor_o@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:XtUff.23153$dO2.5423@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

That's the wrong question. The SMZ-1000 is a stereoscopic zoom microscope
that is part of an entire system. Like the SMZ-800, it consists of a
zooming body (from US pricelist 2002, just the SMZ-800 zooming body was
$1,314) and your choice of oculars, illuminators, stand, viewing body and,
last but not least, objective. You can put a combination together that
costs more than 10k or less. But for $1,800 you will not even come close
to the new price of this scope. Get realistic. If you want to use an SLR
to do some photomacrography, get a decent macro lens with focusing rail.
If you need more magnification, buy a second hand scope on eBay (e.g. a
good old B&L) and live with its limitations. It will do ok. The SMZ-1000
is an expensive scope for professionals working for the industry (deep
pockets!). You may get a good one used. But I doubt that you get it for
less than 5k if it's a working system.

Gregor

"Nick" <nickmirro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:yfidnXsuxc0Jlx3eRVn-tA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Well this is eye opening.  $15k?  Well actually thats depressing.  Maybe
I should clarify that I could do without the imaging ability initially.
It just needs to be an upgrade possibility.  I am now also will to fork
over up to $2500 and take something used.  Here are some inexpensive
zooms that I found tonight but I am unsure as to quality and usefulness.
Any comments?


Wild M5A Stereo
http://www.sherwooddallas.com/usedmicroscopes.html

Meiji EMZ-5TR
http://www.professionalmicroscopes.com/EM_series_Meiji.html

Carton NSZT-70SBF-SL
http://www.optekusa.com/nsz70family.htm

Olympus SZ III-TR Trinocular
http://www.mcbinst.com/A_Stereomicroscopes.htm

ULTIMATE (brand?) 3.35X-90X ZOOM

http://cgi.ebay.com/ULTIMATE-3-35X-90X-ZOOM-MICROSCOPE-W-USB-PC-CAMERA
_W0QQitemZ7555582727QQcategoryZ48740QQcmdZViewItem

Just to satisfy my curiosity, does anyone know what a Nikon SMZ 1000
lists for?

Nick




"Gary G" <see.signature@bottom> wrote in message
news:8jrvn190a848iqo4pii5q1cg9jlvbmti3a@xxxxxxxxxx

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:11:34 -0600, "Nick" <nickmirro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Its really, really hard for a beginner to pick out a new scope when
resellers and manufacturers don't publish sale or list prices.  I am
completely confused and have a very poor idea of what I can afford.

If I see one more Labx link on Google, I think I'm going to break
omething  ]: - (


Ok.  So what do you want to see?  Factual responses are true, but
unfortunatly depressing. Been there done that and have done that.

Basically, I see your post as seeking a $15K system for $1800.  This
is not going to happen.  This is not certainly your fault.  The scope
field is wide and has many nuances.  More info on what you seek to do
would help us help you.  If you want low quality, it will be low cost.
If you want high quality it will cost more.  So you need to balance
your requirements for image results and overall quality versus cost.
And the camera factor is a wild card.  Personally, I do not think that
an SLR is suited to a microscope system.  But of course, others may
disagree.

Not easy.

Gary Gaugler, Ph.D.
Microtechnics, Inc.
Granite Bay, CA 95746
916.791.8191
gary@microtechnics dot com








--
David Littlewood
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: General comment
    ... area and cannot see it as a cost effective or practical alternative. ... The SMZ-1000 is a stereoscopic zoom microscope ... > to the new price of this scope. ... >> zooms that I found tonight but I am unsure as to quality and usefulness. ...
    (sci.techniques.microscopy)
  • Re: General comment
    ... The SMZ-1000 is a stereoscopic zoom microscope ... buy a second hand scope on eBay ... If you want low quality, it will be low cost. ...
    (sci.techniques.microscopy)
  • Re: General comment
    ... The scope ... If you want low quality, it will be low cost. ...
    (sci.techniques.microscopy)
  • Re: MB reliability
    ... it creates a lower quality product, but for the business it is good. ... cost of production of the vehicle, which for them is too expensive, and ... Compared to the US, Mercedes pays ... technology in their cars, but that isn't the whole story. ...
    (alt.auto.mercedes)
  • Re: How do you make decisions that optimize software quality?
    ... > total cost of development and deployment - that means, ... due to the defects, which in turn cascades into lost sales, etc. ... The second limb of this is that code quality directly affects ... Executable acceptance tests. ...
    (comp.object)