Re: MICROSCOPY ADVICE


"Stjepo" <Stjepo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1180339680.683738.282960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Kevin;

Is more than probable that you are right. Experience is important and
I appreciate it. From one of your comments I have improved the vision
of my current microscope changing the light from 20W to 30W (the
transformer is able to cope with this change).


Regards



Stjepo,

Now thats clever!

Thanks,

Kevin Cunningham
SMS


On 22 mayo, 13:49, "Kevin Cunningham" <sms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Stjepo" <Stj...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1179819900.729354.254180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Dear Kevin:

Thank for your honest answer. As it looks I own a "poorly built
Microscope" not to be used for nothing serious. The place it has been
used for the last 13 years was a scientific research centre, I assume
it was used only a few times as it looks like new, otherwise this
"poorly built microscope" would be completely ruined.

Paramecium's, rotifers some amoebas and me have voted for the
microscope to stay, considering the possibility of throwing it
through the window was not a bad idea, specially if the head of my
"loved" neighbour was to be the target but the first issue won. Not
being able for me to get a new "good brand used microscope" I am
condemned to stay with my "crap" for a while until I learn more about
Microscopes.

I had prepared a PDF with some of the pictures I have taken with this
"poorly built microscope" and I even have tried to send it to your
email but it rebound every time I did.

Till the moment I get a new "good brand used microscope" I will not
ask for more advice to an expert in good brands. My mistake was, and
allow me to make a resemblance, I requested advice of my little "FORD"
to an expert in "MERCEDES", "FERRARI" or "BMW".

The only thing that really confuses me is, how do you know it is a
"shitty stuff"? if, using your own words, you "have never seen either
a Radical or a Seiwa and I want to keep it that way". Perhaps because
as you say "No one in their right mind makes 160mm microscope anything
any more", but at the same time you add "...Now it may be a 160mm
instrument but the objectives were well made and you can get things
like 60X objectives, super wide field eyepieces and high performance
objectives if you look carefully". Do you know for sure that the
"Correct Tokyo" objectives are "poor quality"?

Thank you very much for your time.

Stjepo

Stjepo, I have made my living fixing and selling microscopes since 1977.
In that period I have never seen any of the brand names you were kind
enough
to give. There hasn't been a serious maker of 160mm tube length 'scopes
since 1992. Prior to that most instruments were of a fixed tube length,
either 210 (industrial) or 160mm, biological. The objectives were
corrected
for the 14 or so things that they have to be corrected for, now some
makers
do some of this at the eyepiece and some at the objective (think of
chrome
free Nikons) so you would only use the one makers objectives. This is
why
older, cheaper 160mm tube length microscopes are a good buy for an
amateur.
There are microscopes and optics dating back to Abbe's invention of
modern
optics in 1872. Modern instruments are so different from an amateurs
that
its not funny. Motor drive, confocal, multi-photon, telecenterism, auto
focus are all modern catch words plus now Dr. Hell, Max Plank Inst., is
having a 'scope he designed using a new theory of microscopy built by
Leica,
an American company.

Industrial use accounts for probably 65% to 70% of microscope sales. New
amateur sales isn't a blip on the meter. If I had your microscope I'd
leave
it alone and enjoy the heck out of it. Then I'd start looking for an
older
instrument to add phase, nomarski, fluoresecence, etc. to for even more
fun.
I'd wouldn't buy DF ever, but that's just me.

Decades ago I had a customer who informed me that his group had just
bought
a Swift and he'd show me! This cheap 'scope could do
everything....except
last. A couple of years later they threw it out. Good stuff lasts, bad
stuff doesn't. Its sad to say but I bet I know 99% of the good
instruments
ever made.

Thank you for your reply,

Kevin Cunningham
SMS- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -




.

Loading