Wich Scope?

Hello,
I'm thinking in buying astereomicroscope.
Between these models
Leica S8 APO, Olympus szx9, Carl Zeiss stemi 2000
wich one is the better choice?

Many thanks,
Pedro Alves

I don`t know those two but I can recommend that one I use, a Wild M8 with planoptics.
Wild is the Rolls Royce under the scopes

I don't know these scopes, but if you can possibly do it, try to view things through the scopes first, if possible. If you do get the chance, realize that you may have to adjust the scope to your eyes first (especially if one eye is different than the other, as in some near-sighted people like me). This may require adjusting the focus between the eyes, as well as adjusting the interpupilary distance.

Years ago I bought a second-hand stereo microscope and my eyes really liked it. Years later I bought another, a different brand, at a yard sale, and I started using that one because it has a little scale in it, and I wanted to measure sizes. My eyes really liked that one too. I went back to the first scope, and found that I liked the second scope better. Or maybe my eyes have changed over time.

I expect that there are a lot of good ones for sale. Try to get one that not only best meets your needs, but also best suits your eyes. Hope all goes well.

Pedro,

The Stemi 2000 is an excellent series of scopes. If you're interested in photomicrography, get the Stemi 2000C, it has a third port. Whatever scope you get, make sure it utilizes the Greenough principle. I am not familiar with the other scopes you mentioned.

Bill



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2011 04:19AM by Bill Lechner.

go to www.microscope.com I bought one from them and a tv camera to go on it and great pictures can see them on the pc monitor don't have to look thru the scope just on the monitor, write me at;;; wwalljr@triad.rr.com and will show you the pictures I been taking, bill wall in NC

I am using olympus szx9 to microphotograph, and very happy
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello,
> I'm thinking in buying astereomicroscope.
> Between these models
> Leica S8 APO, Olympus szx9, Carl Zeiss stemi 2000
> wich one is the better choice?
>
> Many thanks,
> Pedro Alves

You might like to take a look at a Meiji scope also. They are of excellent quality. One website: [www.microscopeworld-professional.com]

Hi Pedro,
I had a Stemi 2000 at work and it was OK. I tested a SZX9 but with a 1.5x objective and it was unconvincing (because of the 1.5x objective: low working distance, big changes in magnification when leaving the focal plane which made it hard to use for mineralogy, where stuff is sometimes inside cavities), with the 1x objective it's fine. I worked with a few Leica scopes occasionally, can't remember the models, but never was very comfortable with them (ergonomics of the zoom knob, design of the eyepieces -> small details that become clear only after half an hour of working with mineral samples). Arrange for trial sessions of at least an hour with a tray of micros, a serious microscope salesman should not object.
Regarding the greenough vs common main objective designs, it never made a significant difference when observing minerals.

There are certain unique possibilities with the infinity system in the CMO design, like using infinity corrected microscope objectives, which can be mounted on an objective revolver, possibly parfocally. See for example Vincent Bourgoin's system.

best regards,
Dominik

I've got the Meiji EMZ-5TR and it's excellent. With Meiji, you need to buy all the components separately (eyepieces, base, etc), but the final product is amazing. Take a look: [www.meijitechno.com]

I've spent about 10% of my life hunched over a stereo-microscope, and about 3% of my life paying for them.

Change the last figure to 10% if I had bought a Wild. Fancy stereo-microscopes are about the same cost as a nice used car.

Keep in mind that the image of a ZOOM scope is compromised at every magnification.

I don't find ZOOM to be a vital feature. I recommend a cheapie fixed objective scope. Bright and clear images if you have enough light.

They cost the same as a pair of designer blue jeans. And on that matter, I recommend buying those at a discount store.

The low end "Amscopes" are good if you replace the automotive overhead illuminator with a 10 watt halogen reflector type. Easy to do.

Plus the Amscopes (Chinese) have a fantastic substage illuminator for looking at bubbles and inclusions.

Last year they were $125 !! Options being 1X, 3X or 2X, 4X dual objectives and 10X or 20X eyepieces. You can modify them to work from your vehicle cigarette lighter or a lightweight portable storage battery. and then take them into the field without worrying about ruining an expensive piece of gear Think of all the rock you wouldn't need to cart home !

Most of your work on minerals will be done at 10X final mag.

I've owned every low to medium end scope. When I used Richard Thomsen's Bausch and Lomb Stereo-Zoom 7 back in the old Tucson days I was so impressed that I paid good money for one with a photo port.

Then, at a university auction, I noticed a very high end digital microtome with an Olympus SZ series stereo-microscope integrated for sample positioning.

I paid $69 for the unit at the auction for the $12,000 LKB digital microtome.

That scope is better than my StereoZoom 7, but I hate the ZOOM control. The scope is especially good when I use a fiber-optic ring light. My ring light and illuminator cost $175 from a Chinese company that I'm not sure still exists.

If you are looking for the best scope for photography you should skip stereo-microscopes and just go with a single tube microscope such as the ones a company once known as Optem sells. Don't know their current name. They've been purchased and re-purchased.

If your budget is tight, save your scope money for specimens.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2012 11:30PM by Bart Cannon.

Sorry for veering miles off the topic of expensive stereo-microscopes, but the most essential stereo-microscope is the OPTIVISOR.

Don't leave home or visit your mineral collection without one ! ! ! !

I feel naked if one isn't wrapped around my skull.

Bart, I have and use a Unico scope, also Chinese. It sounds just like yours, comes with the same options, and is in the same price class. Mine has 10x WF occulars, and 1x & 3x objectives. I like it. The only thing I could wish for is a doubler lens. I don't use it for mounting, but I keep it on my computer desk for quick looks when cataloging, etc. The above and below stage LEDs give good illumination (if a bit blue) and the AC adapter/charger works at the desk. It has a built in storage battery and is light weight, so taking it in the field is an option, and a couple of my friends do so. They carry when flying to a field collecting site and use it evenings to reduce the weight of finds for the flight home.

I own an Amscope at present 20x, 40x, and 80x magnification with the two sets of eyepieces. It serves me well. I had a LOMO MBS-8 for years until it and my ENTIRE collection were stolen while I was overseas. Drat, that was a nice scope! I'm very happy with the Chinese cheapo scope and the only thing I did was to rip out the darn light and use my desktop 5watt LED lamp. A much clearer image is the result. Without the obnoxious cord I can transport the Amscope quite easily. Also I intend to buy a pair of 5x eyepieces to bring the magnification down a bit for easier use. Nothing wrong with buying an expensive scope, but as for me I'm pleased with mine and I have more money to buy specimens. Go where your gut instinct tells you is all I can suggest.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2012 07:01PM by Ron Layton.

Hi Pedro,

I hate to add more controversy to this forum--since as I read above I see a lot of conflicting and thus not useful information--and I would stay out of it except for I disagree with much of it. I had a nice Unitron scope for years with clean Japanese optics and was quite happy with it. I have used scopes made by Nikon, Zeiss, Wild, Leica, Meiji--have looked through the clunky Russian scopes of years ago, and have seen a number of the Chinese scopes including the very scope Bart mentions--over at Bart's of course. And I have seen the Olympus SZ he mentions as well. All were good and somewhat comparable, although I would put the Wild at the top of those I have used. No, I have not had the pleasure of using a Zeiss Discovery V20.

Recently, though, I purchased a professional quality scope by Olympus, a very clean used SZH. Incredibly bright image, even at 128x. That comes from having an objective lens about the size of a small can. That much glass gathers a lot of light. A brighter image by far than my old scope at 40x. Not as cheap certainly as Bart's Amscope, but it did not break the bank. I watched the surplus markets for 5 years and got an excellent deal. If you can afford a new scope I would recommend the Olympus SZX12 the later cousin of the SZH, with a larger zoom range allowing about another 20x.

So far as getting a stereomicroscope to photograph through: don't. That is, don't photograph micro minerals through your stereo or trinocular microscope. You should buy your scope for the purpose of studying your minerals. I recommend that every mineral collector buy and use a good microscope for the purpose of studying minerals. I do not recommend that every mineral collector should photograph micro minerals. The second activity does not necessarily follow the first. However, if you are set on becoming a micro mineral photographer there are better and easier ways to get good images than though your stereo/trinocular scope.

Best regards and good luck,
Bob

Hi Bob - your post is timely, and, if I may say, surprising. Timely in that we are about to replace our old scope with photography in mind. Surprising, that is, to me, for I have assumed that all micro-photography shots require magnification through a microscope. Perhaps I haven't been paying attention to all of the threads that discuss micro-photography?

If you could indulge me, and if it's easy enough to do, please expand on your statement "...there are better and easier ways to get good images than though your stereo/trinocular scope." That is, how?

thanks
Maggie

Bellows setups
[www.mindat.org]
[www.mindat.org]
[www.mindat.org]

Where the field of view is down to a couple of mm, or for the imaging of most inclusions in transparent minerals, I'll still stick with a camera mounted on my 'scope.

thanks, David! Learned something (a whole bunch of somethings!) new today!

(wrong Bob I know, but...)

Maggie the answer to your question is pretty wide. And will depend on a lot of things, an important one of which is the magnification you need.

You can use a bellows (looks like an accordion) to move the lens away from the camera. This has the effect of magnifying. A variant on this approach uses extension tubes (hollow tubes that sit between your lens and your camera). There is often a little trickery needed to work with these since your camera "lens" will be much longer than you are used to.

There are special mounts (reversing rings) you can put on lenses to turn them around so that the front of the lens is against the camera and the back of your lens is sticking out. Some lenses, when turned around go from zooming to magnifying.

You can even combine the bellows (extension tubes) and reverse mount to increase the magnification effect.

There are also close-up filters you can add to the front of your lenses. I have worked with these quite a bit and you get some magnification. But adding too many of these filters can tend to distort the picture. I have worked with a stack of 6 and it still seems alright.

Then there are macro lenses. The true definition of macro is 1:1 imaging. As I understand it this means the subject being photographed will be imaged with exact size on your camera's sensor. So if the mineral is 1 cm and your camera sensor is 2 cm, the mineral will occupy half the resulting image. (Yes I know we can discuss the details of this a length but consider it an approximation).

From there you start to get into microphotography, though the next option is somewhat of a borderline case I think

Magnifying camera lenses. One example is the Canon MP 65-E. I have been working with one since Christmas and am pretty happy with it. As you move to 5x obviously the depth of field gets pretty narrow and the light requirements are pretty high, but it works. But to be clear, this goes up to 5x and no more. You can get the illusion of more by cropping and image manipulation, but you won't get to 20x - at least not in any way I have found thus far. There has been discussion and sample images I took in this discussion: [www.mindat.org]

Now to revisit extension tubes and reversing lenses. You can actually stack as long as you want (though image quality will degrade). If you stack enough, you will bridge from macrophotography to microphotography. The more you stack them, the clumsier your imaging system will be, but the better the magnification.

From there, as far as I know, you need to get into microscopes or microscope objective lenses.

One technique is to buy a used microscope objective (the lens that sits closest to the object you are viewing). Then get a lens cap and make a hole in it. Place the objective lens in the hole and secure it carefully. You may need to do something to block any light leakage around objective. Then you can place this contraption on to the front of certain normal camera lenses - and the camera will image through the microscope objective. This apparently gives very clear pictures at great magnification. There are a large number of different types of these objectives on the market. Some will work, some won't Some work well some don't. There is extensive discussion on this approach in microphotography website . This is a great resource for microphotography of all kinds (but I do mean micro only).

Finally we get to microscopes. There are a number of ways to do this too! I have seen people mount small cameras into PVC pipes and stick them on the eyepiece of their scope. Then there is a the trinocular option you mentioned. There are probably dozens of variants here to be honest.

I hope that helps as a starter list - and yes, it is only a starter list. I will be curious to see what Bob was referring to: one of the above or something else still.

Bob

Hi Maggie,

I wrote an article on the subject for the PNWFM Microprobe. I plan to convert it over on Mindat, but if you would like a copy, send me a PM with your e-mail address and I'll send it to you.

Essentially, I recommend using a machine vision lens.

Cheers,
Bob