Home PageAbout MindatThe Mindat ManualHistory of MindatCopyright StatusWho We AreContact UsAdvertise on Mindat
Donate to MindatCorporate SponsorshipSponsor a PageSponsored PagesMindat AdvertisersAdvertise on Mindat
Learning CenterWhat is a mineral?The most common minerals on earthInformation for EducatorsMindat ArticlesThe ElementsThe Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryGeologic Time
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryAdvanced Locality SearchRandom MineralRandom LocalitySearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch ArticlesSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
Mining CompaniesStatisticsUsersMineral MuseumsClubs & OrganizationsMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryDevice SettingsThe Mineral Quiz
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesSearch by ColorNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day GalleryPhotography
╳Discussions
💬 Home🔎 Search📅 LatestGroups
EducationOpen discussion area.Fakes & FraudsOpen discussion area.Field CollectingOpen discussion area.FossilsOpen discussion area.Gems and GemologyOpen discussion area.GeneralOpen discussion area.How to ContributeOpen discussion area.Identity HelpOpen discussion area.Improving Mindat.orgOpen discussion area.LocalitiesOpen discussion area.Lost and Stolen SpecimensOpen discussion area.MarketplaceOpen discussion area.MeteoritesOpen discussion area.Mindat ProductsOpen discussion area.Mineral ExchangesOpen discussion area.Mineral PhotographyOpen discussion area.Mineral ShowsOpen discussion area.Mineralogical ClassificationOpen discussion area.Mineralogy CourseOpen discussion area.MineralsOpen discussion area.Minerals and MuseumsOpen discussion area.PhotosOpen discussion area.Techniques for CollectorsOpen discussion area.The Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryOpen discussion area.UV MineralsOpen discussion area.Recent Images in Discussions
Techniques for Collectorsnext question in a long series of stupid questions; Microscopes
22nd Jul 2011 13:05 UTCLiam Schofield
I'm in the market for a 'scope however, I'm not sure what the right one is for me. I've always assumed that a Stereo microscope is best for studying mineral specimens (Triocular for the attachment of my DSLR) however, I've recently found the higher magnification Metallurgical 'scopes and have been considering the possibility of going for one of these rather than the standard Stereo scope. However, I'm concerned about the suitability of such a device for the study of mineral specimens. Most seem to start at 40x magnification, which is about average for a Stereo microscope but the additional option of up to 400 and even 600x is quite appealing for those tiny, tiny crystals.
So, I'm hoping someone would be able to advise on this subject. Can anyone tell me, first and foremost, what the functional difference is between a 'metallurgical' 'scope and a standard Stereo 'scope, besides the increased magnification?
I don't have a fortune to spend and as much as I'd love to look at the really swish Zeiss equipment, it's just not feasible with my budget. However, if anyone has any recommendations, I'd also be appreciative of the help.
Many thanks in advance.
22nd Jul 2011 14:06 UTCRalph S Bottrill 🌟 Manager
22nd Jul 2011 14:25 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager
22nd Jul 2011 14:35 UTCLiam Schofield
22nd Jul 2011 14:40 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager
(Incidentally, with regard to the title of your thread, I've been told many times that there is no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid answers :)
... and I hope I don't give those toooooo often. Nice to meet you in person at the Mindat party (sorry, conference) in Poland... may we have many happy returns!)
22nd Jul 2011 16:17 UTCRobert Rothenberg
I wish to differ with Alfredo. I collect at places where the crystals are very small (e.g. Varennes). I do most of my quick looking at 30x and often go quickly to 45 or 60. Much of my photography is at higher magnifications. So, I guess what you need will be based partly on what you are going to be looking at.
Bob
22nd Jul 2011 16:33 UTCLiam Schofield
22nd Jul 2011 21:50 UTCJim Robison
Gene Cisneros, who really knows scopes, gave some advice yesterday on another thread. An easy and relatively inexpensive way to increase your magnification range is to get something like a rougnly 7-55X zoom, (using a 10X occular eyepiece,) and then order a set of 20X eyepieces to double the range of your scope when you need to. As noted above, depth of field gets smaller and smaller, as does field of veiw, as you increase magnification.
You definitely do not want a flat field reflected light microscope.
Biggest hint I could give is to look carefully at the vertical focus range of the scope stand. Some chearper models only have a range of an inch or two. If you handle large size specimens, you will probably want more range. And consider, if your budget will support it, a two knob focus setup, with one for coarse adjustment, and the second for very fine adjustment, especially if you plan on spending much time looking at the little tiny stuff.
Happy hunting.
4th Feb 2012 00:50 UTCJonathan Zvonko Levinger Expert
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p3984.m570.l1313&_nkw=stereo+zoom+microscope&_sacat=See-All-Categories
or:
http://stores.ebay.com/Jonathans-Mineral-Exchange/_i.html?_nkw=microscope&submit=Search&_sid=16666534
4th Feb 2012 15:34 UTCRobert Simonoff
Some scopes have a zoom range 0.7x - 4.5x, but then you can attach a magnifier underneath, just above the specimen. So, with 10x eyepieces, a 2x underneath magnifier, and 0.7x-4.5x zoom you get up to 90x magnification. Then, at least with our scope, you must place a lens inline, in the trinocular tube to make it so that what your eye sees is roughly what your camera will see. Our inline trinocular lens is 1.9x. So one path of optics is: 10x -> 0.7-4.5 -> 2x and the other path is 1.9x -> 0.7-4.5 -> 2x
As for the amount of magnification, as long as you can back it off to a low zoom, I prefer to have a good amount available to me. So a 20x magnifier just above the specimen is a bad idea for all of the reasons the other have mentioned above, but I am finding 2x to be just fine (and it can be removed if necessary). I just shot a whole series of pictures at 90x for a presentation I hope will be given at the Rochester Mineralogical Symposium - and for 3-4 shots I wished I could go higher. But at that magnification, light becomes a problem as do vibrations. There is NO free lunch!
Bob
4th Feb 2012 18:23 UTCJason Evans
My friend has a microscope from Brunel, although its a different type for examining mushroom spores so much higher magnification but he thinks its a good scope.
Now I have a few stupid questions of my own, I see a lot of people say its best to use lower magnification like 10x, I already have a 10x loupe so would it really be worth getting a microscope if i can get the same magnification from my loupe, what are the advantages of the scope? and also many of my specimens which have small crystals are matrix specimens, so is there enough space between the lens part and the base to put a matrix specimen in and to be able to focus in on the area where small crystals are?
4th Feb 2012 18:33 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager
4th Feb 2012 19:10 UTCRobert Simonoff
1) Working distance. Most loupes have a smaller working distance than a scope. Working distance is the distance between the specimen and the bottom lens of the scope. Our scope has a working distance of about 9 cm. So if the specimen surface is not even you can still look around.
2) Photography. While it is possible to photograph through a loupe it is much easier to do it through a scope - even if the scope doesn't have a trinocular tube. Of course it depends on your camera and set up.
3) Magnification. While 10x is a good magnification, it simply is not enough for everything, in my opinion. We have a 20x loupe that works nicely, but it still is not enough for everything we want to use it for. I have the utmost respect for people who say 10x is enough - I have no problem with that at all, so consider it preference that it is not nearly enough for our household.
Bob
5th Feb 2012 19:30 UTCDonald Peck
In any case, a scope beats a loupe hands-down. Incidently, I prefer fixed magnification to zoom.
5th Feb 2012 20:54 UTCD Mike Reinke
23rd Feb 2012 04:05 UTCRon Layton
23rd Feb 2012 11:05 UTCOwen Lewis
I also have a pair of x20 eye-pieces but would not care much if these left home. The extra magnification they afford is what is called 'empty magnification' i.e. you can see bigger but without seeing any more detail. To see more detail one needs to up the resolution of and/or the magnification of the objective lens. IMHO, x20 eyepieces should be used only by those whose 'scope will not accept an x1.5/2/3 auxiliary objective lens. If the latter facility is not built into your stereo 'scope, you can probably make an adapter to hold one if you are good with your hands and have the tools.
Don't forget your lighting. The light gathered by your 'scope reduces as an inverse square as magnification is doubled. This basic rule means that, even with the wonderful sensitivity range of our eyes, unless you have powerful and adjustable output lighting, you will see the field of view start to get appreciably dimmer with most subjects when working at about x40 or above. At x65 and above the effect becomes pronounced and, without auxiliary lighting, can make much useful work impossible. If one is going to want to work much above x40, something like a 150W source with cold light delivered directionally via fibreoptics (one or two) is a great help and should be budgeted for, I think.
Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: April 25, 2024 17:46:47
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: April 25, 2024 17:46:47