Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Buying first scope/ phase question

Expand Messages
  • rob kr
    Greetings group. I m doing research toward purchasing my first microscope and I m leaning toward going with what seems to be the consensus advice here of
    Message 1 of 30 , Jun 30, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Greetings group.

      I'm doing research toward purchasing my first microscope and I'm leaning toward going with what seems to be the consensus advice here of buying a used scope with a warranty. I've found a lot of useful information culling through the archives of this group and I wonder if I might impose on your collective expertise to ask a few questions? I hope they aren't too inane.

      I think I want an upright, binocular compound, either phase-ready or capable of being adapted to do phase with components that both aren't too hard to find and aren't prohibitively expensive. I notice that most of the cheaper second-hand phase-equipped scopes aren't sold with a high-magnification oil objective. Is there any reason (other than cost) for this practice?

      Also, what is the practical difference between phase and "simple phase", as is offered, for instance, on this BHTU (http://www.microscopesfromnightingale.com/product/Olympus%20BHTU%20-Ph)? Is simple phase significantly inferior to regular phase contrast?

      Thanks

      rob
    • J. G. McHone
      Rob, in this example only the 40x is phase contrast (and not inferior), which uses a sliding annulus plate under the condenser, while the other powers are
      Message 2 of 30 , Jul 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Rob, in this example only the 40x is phase contrast (and not
        inferior), which uses a sliding annulus plate under the condenser,
        while the other powers are normal brightfield. A full set of phase
        contrast condenser and objectives would add a lot to the cost, but
        40x is often used for purposes such as asbestos identification.

        With these accessories, this is a good price for a truly great
        microscope, one of the best. The Olympus BH-2 is not normally very
        portable, but the large case will have a foam cutout insert that
        allows safe transport (also for secure storage in a busy household,
        as I found with one I once had). Greg M.

        --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, rob kr <glaz_tek@...> wrote:
        >
        > Greetings group.
        >
        > I'm doing research toward purchasing my first microscope and I'm
        leaning toward going with what seems to be the consensus advice here
        of buying a used scope with a warranty. I've found a lot of useful
        information culling through the archives of this group and I wonder
        if I might impose on your collective expertise to ask a few
        questions? I hope they aren't too inane.
        >
        > I think I want an upright, binocular compound, either phase-ready
        or capable of being adapted to do phase with components that both
        aren't too hard to find and aren't prohibitively expensive. I notice
        that most of the cheaper second-hand phase-equipped scopes aren't
        sold with a high-magnification oil objective. Is there any reason
        (other than cost) for this practice?
        >
        > Also, what is the practical difference between phase and "simple
        phase", as is offered, for instance, on this BHTU
        (http://www.microscopesfromnightingale.com/product/Olympus%20BHTU%20-
        Ph)? Is simple phase significantly inferior to regular phase
        contrast?
        >
        > Thanks
        >
        > rob
        >
      • J. G. McHone
        Actually, I think the phase ring annulus might be in the little tube, which can slip onto the condenser as needed. 100x objectives usually require oil contacts
        Message 3 of 30 , Jul 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Actually, I think the phase ring annulus might be in the little tube,
          which can slip onto the condenser as needed. 100x objectives usually
          require oil contacts and by most people are rarely used, except perhaps
          for studying bacteria or other extreme objects. Objectives and many
          accessories for the BH-2 are abundant on eBay or from scope dealers,
          which will be true for a long time to come. JGM


          --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, "J. G. McHone" <greg@...> wrote:
          >
          > Rob, in this example only the 40x is phase contrast (and not
          > inferior), which uses a sliding annulus plate under the condenser,
          > while the other powers are normal brightfield. A full set of phase
          > contrast condenser and objectives would add a lot to the cost, but
          > 40x is often used for purposes such as asbestos identification.
          >
          > With these accessories, this is a good price for a truly great
          > microscope, one of the best. The Olympus BH-2 is not normally very
          > portable, but the large case will have a foam cutout insert that
          > allows safe transport (also for secure storage in a busy household,
          > as I found with one I once had). Greg M.
          >
          > --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, rob kr glaz_tek@ wrote:
          > >
          > > Greetings group.
          > >
          > > I'm doing research toward purchasing my first microscope and I'm
          > leaning toward going with what seems to be the consensus advice here
          > of buying a used scope with a warranty. I've found a lot of useful
          > information culling through the archives of this group and I wonder
          > if I might impose on your collective expertise to ask a few
          > questions? I hope they aren't too inane.
          > >
          > > I think I want an upright, binocular compound, either phase-ready
          > or capable of being adapted to do phase with components that both
          > aren't too hard to find and aren't prohibitively expensive. I notice
          > that most of the cheaper second-hand phase-equipped scopes aren't
          > sold with a high-magnification oil objective. Is there any reason
          > (other than cost) for this practice?
          > >
          > > Also, what is the practical difference between phase and "simple
          > phase", as is offered, for instance, on this BHTU
          > (http://www.microscopesfromnightingale.com/product/Olympus%20BHTU%20-
          > Ph)? Is simple phase significantly inferior to regular phase
          > contrast?
          > >
          > > Thanks
          > >
          > > rob
          > >
          >
        • Alan Wood
          ... as is offered, for instance, on this BHTU (http://www.microscopesfromnightingale.com/product/Olympus%20BHTU%20-Ph)? Is simple phase significantly inferior
          Message 4 of 30 , Jul 1, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, rob kr <glaz_tek@...> wrote:

            > what is the practical difference between phase and "simple phase",
            as is offered, for instance, on this BHTU
            (http://www.microscopesfromnightingale.com/product/Olympus%20BHTU%20-Ph)?
            Is simple phase significantly inferior to regular phase contrast?

            A phase condenser normally has annuli for 4 or 5 objectives, for
            example 10x, 20x, 40x, 100x.

            The condenser on the BHTU from Nightingale is a standard (not phase)
            Abbé condenser with an adapter that pushes in from underneath to
            provide a phase annulus for only one objective.

            I don't think it is inferior, it is just restricted to a single objective.

            You can find out more on pages 12-13 of the BH-2 BHS/BHT catalogue
            available via my downloads page:

            <http://www.alanwood.net/photography/olympus/downloads.html>

            --
            Alan Wood
            http://www.alanwood.net (Unicode, special characters, pesticide names)
          • Gordon Couger
            Hi Rob, You have got some good advice and we really appreciate you reading the archives before jumping in with questions. It gives you a much better background
            Message 5 of 30 , Jul 1, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Rob,

              You have got some good advice and we really appreciate you reading the
              archives before jumping in with questions. It gives you a much better
              background to evaluate our answers and you probably realize we all have
              view live and everything about including the microscopes we think are
              best as seen though lenses colored by our experience, preferences,
              access to tools and ability to use them. To me having access to a
              machine shop is normal and I have be careful not to color what I say
              with that. Also I seem to be much more concerned about resale value than
              most new comers.

              The 40x lens is a work horse giving from 240x to 600x magnification with
              6x to 15x eye pieces. A good 40x objective with n.a. of 0.90 can resolve
              all the one can be seen without oil immersion.

              Only a few of us use a 100x oil immersion lens very much unless we are
              working with bacteria, diatoms or trying to achieve the best resolution
              we can with our microscopes.

              I also stress trying to find a dealer near you. They can be a great deal
              of help if they have the time to help you and most will if you don't
              make unreasonable demands on their time. Being able to show you how set
              up a scope is a lot easier to do in person than with instructions.

              Some of the implementations of Zernike phase contrast are great but they
              cost a lot. One way to get a much wider range of phase contrast is to
              use Leitz Heine phase contrast condenser. It is a continuously
              adjustable condenser that works with near phase contrast objectives.
              Possibly not as well as the condenser designed for it but it gives much
              wider range of effects both with and without phase contrast objective
              including Circular Oblique Lighting COL. It is the main condenser I use
              on my portable microscope a Zeiss Jr. set up for Polarized light. I
              carry other accessories with it. I had to make a riser for stand so
              there is room for the condenser.

              If you are going to use a portable microscope very much and you have a
              family along size is a real problem. The new weight and luggugage limit
              on Airlines may be a problem as well.

              I have a page for first time buyers at :
              www.couger.com/microscope/links/gcnewbuy.html
              <http://www.couger.com/microscope/links/gcnewbuy.html>
              I am rethinking my recommendations on stereo microscopes due to feed
              back and changing times. This is a page on those thoughts. it is a work
              in progress.
              www.science-info.net/pages/GordonCouger/Thoughts-on-Paciifc-Rim-Microsco\
              pes.html
              <http://www.science-info.net/pages/GordonCouger/Thoughts-on-Paciifc-Rim-\
              Microscopes.html>

              Welcome to the group.
              Gordon Couger
              www.science-info.net <http://www.science-info.net>
              http://web.mac.com/gcouger/NewLinks/MicroscopeResources.html
              <http://web.mac.com/gcouger/NewLinks/MicroscopeResources.html>

              --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, rob kr <glaz_tek@...> wrote:
              >
              > Greetings group.
              >
              > I'm doing research toward purchasing my first microscope and I'm
              leaning toward going with what seems to be the consensus advice here of
              buying a used scope with a warranty. I've found a lot of useful
              information culling through the archives of this group and I wonder if I
              might impose on your collective expertise to ask a few questions? I hope
              they aren't too inane.
              >
              > I think I want an upright, binocular compound, either phase-ready or
              capable of being adapted to do phase with components that both aren't
              too hard to find and aren't prohibitively expensive. I notice that most
              of the cheaper second-hand phase-equipped scopes aren't sold with a
              high-magnification oil objective. Is there any reason (other than cost)
              for this practice?
              >
              > Also, what is the practical difference between phase and "simple
              phase", as is offered, for instance, on this BHTU
              (http://www.microscopesfromnightingale.com/product/Olympus%20BHTU%20-Ph)\
              ? Is simple phase significantly inferior to regular phase contrast?
              >
              > Thanks
              >
              > rob
              >




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • David L. Jones
              All, In the various discussions of good, bad and better microscopes, I haven t seen anything about how to do an evaluation on a stereo microscope. I m going to
              Message 6 of 30 , Jul 1, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                All,

                In the various discussions of good, bad and better microscopes, I haven't
                seen anything about how to do an evaluation on a stereo microscope.

                I'm going to have several stereo microscopes in my hands to take a look
                at, including one that is a new pacific rim stereo microscope. I'll be
                looking at it and several older stereo microsopes. I won't be able to look
                at them side by side, I'll have to be in three different locations at
                different times to look at each one seperately.

                How does one go about determining how "good" the scope is? Are there test
                patterns that can be recommended? I've heard about them being adjusted/
                aligned, but what is this adjustment/alignment? How do you know if it
                needs it and how do you know if the adjustment/alignment has been
                successful?

                I'm looking more for quantitative evaluation techniques rather than
                qualitative as I will have to be able to make concise, measurable
                statements as to the "quality" of the instrument.

                Any suggestions?

                dj
              • DonH
                ... You re right, and I ve been thinking about that. I d like to start a list and see if anyone can add to it. Some of these are valid for flatfield scopes
                Message 7 of 30 , Jul 1, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- On Tue, 7/1/08, David L. Jones <dljones@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > In the various discussions of good, bad and better
                  > microscopes, I haven't
                  > seen anything about how to do an evaluation on a stereo
                  > microscope.


                  You're right, and I've been thinking about that. I'd like to start a list and see if anyone can add to it. Some of these are valid for flatfield scopes as well.

                  1. Overall fit and finish: does everything that moves, move smoothly, without grinding, slipping, or backlash? Not too firm nor too tight? For the focus in particular, is there a way to tighten or loosen the focus traction?

                  2. Does at least one of the eyepieces have a diopter adjustment? This is not a necessity, but for someone like me with a 20/25 eye and a 20/40 eye, I can adjust one of the eyepieces and I don't need to wear glasses.

                  3. Interpupillary distance adjustment? Again, this is important for me, since my pupils are 58mm apart.

                  4. Working distance: this is not an issue of quality, just a matter of needs. People who need to work with tools under their scope prefer a long working distance (makes sense).

                  5. Alignment: When looking at an object, it should appear as you expect--a 3D view. There should be no overlap or "double vision." Also there should be no odd color fringes or distortions. Keep in mind, in general, the higher the magnification, the less the depth of field; i.e., the less the whole object will be in the plane of focus.

                  6. Fixed mags, vs. zoom: Some scopes have fixed mags, such as a choice between 10x, 20x, and 30x, or whatever. Others have continuous zoom, such as 7.5x to 50x or whatever. (These numbers assume 10x eyepieces). Zooms are more expensive. In general, the higher number of fixed mags or the higher the range of zoom, the more expensive as well.

                  One thing to do is focus on a specimen, then close one eye, then the other. The image aspect will change, but if the scope is properly adjusted, the image for each eye will be clear and in focus. If not, something is either wrong with the scope, or you don't have the diopters or interpupillary adjustments corrected.

                  I think those are the basics. I would imagine all but the very cheapest scopes have optics with anti-reflective coatings. Most scopes have removable eyepieces so you can switch between 10x and 15x eyepieces, or whatever. Scopes with better and more expensive optics are more likely to offer greater depth of field and more highly corrected optics. I remember once I saw a lecture where the speaker showed slides of his photomicrographs taken through a stereo scope. All the subjects were in focus but had a blue halo around them. I thought it was a religious experience, then I realized he must have had a very cheap scope with poor color correction.

                  Hope this helps. I'm sure others can add to this seed I've planted.

                  best,
                  Don
                • Peter Weedon
                  Hi there, all, I d like to add a word or two about the stage. Some stereo microscopes don# t have a stage as such; the bench-top is the stage. Some have a
                  Message 8 of 30 , Jul 2, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi there, all,

                    I'd like to add a word or two about the stage.

                    Some stereo microscopes don#'t have a stage as such; the bench-top is
                    the stage. Some have a simple plain stage and some have a stage with
                    a central hole which can be closed by either a metal, plain glass or
                    frosted/opal glass stage-plate chosen to suit the work in hand. Then
                    it might have a mechanical stage, either with rack-&-pinion movement
                    or a 'fingertip glider' mechanism. (If the latter, check that the
                    stage locking controls work properly. The stage might have a mirror
                    or it might have a sub-stage lamp. Finally, some stereos have an
                    extra dovetail to allow an increased distance between stage and
                    objectives without the focussing travel having to cover the whole
                    distance.

                    Each of these facilities deserves a tick-box on your survey sheet
                    because for any given application some of them will be very useful,
                    others a bit useful and others inapplicable.

                    Best regards,

                    Pete W.
                    (aka 'Enwode')


                    --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, DonH <djhmis@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > --- On Tue, 7/1/08, David L. Jones <dljones@...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > In the various discussions of good, bad and better
                    > > microscopes, I haven't
                    > > seen anything about how to do an evaluation on a stereo
                    > > microscope.
                    >
                    >
                    > You're right, and I've been thinking about that. I'd like to start
                    a list and see if anyone can add to it. Some of these are valid for
                    flatfield scopes as well.
                    >
                    > 1. Overall fit and finish: does everything that moves, move
                    smoothly, without grinding, slipping, or backlash? Not too firm nor
                    too tight? For the focus in particular, is there a way to tighten or
                    loosen the focus traction?
                    >
                    > 2. Does at least one of the eyepieces have a diopter adjustment?
                    This is not a necessity, but for someone like me with a 20/25 eye and
                    a 20/40 eye, I can adjust one of the eyepieces and I don't need to
                    wear glasses.
                    >
                    > 3. Interpupillary distance adjustment? Again, this is important
                    for me, since my pupils are 58mm apart.
                    >
                    > 4. Working distance: this is not an issue of quality, just a
                    matter of needs. People who need to work with tools under their
                    scope prefer a long working distance (makes sense).
                    >
                    > 5. Alignment: When looking at an object, it should appear as you
                    expect--a 3D view. There should be no overlap or "double vision."
                    Also there should be no odd color fringes or distortions. Keep in
                    mind, in general, the higher the magnification, the less the depth of
                    field; i.e., the less the whole object will be in the plane of
                    focus.
                    >
                    > 6. Fixed mags, vs. zoom: Some scopes have fixed mags, such as a
                    choice between 10x, 20x, and 30x, or whatever. Others have
                    continuous zoom, such as 7.5x to 50x or whatever. (These numbers
                    assume 10x eyepieces). Zooms are more expensive. In general, the
                    higher number of fixed mags or the higher the range of zoom, the more
                    expensive as well.
                    >
                    > One thing to do is focus on a specimen, then close one eye, then
                    the other. The image aspect will change, but if the scope is
                    properly adjusted, the image for each eye will be clear and in
                    focus. If not, something is either wrong with the scope, or you
                    don't have the diopters or interpupillary adjustments corrected.
                    >
                    > I think those are the basics. I would imagine all but the very
                    cheapest scopes have optics with anti-reflective coatings. Most
                    scopes have removable eyepieces so you can switch between 10x and 15x
                    eyepieces, or whatever. Scopes with better and more expensive optics
                    are more likely to offer greater depth of field and more highly
                    corrected optics. I remember once I saw a lecture where the speaker
                    showed slides of his photomicrographs taken through a stereo scope.
                    All the subjects were in focus but had a blue halo around them. I
                    thought it was a religious experience, then I realized he must have
                    had a very cheap scope with poor color correction.
                    >
                    > Hope this helps. I'm sure others can add to this seed I've planted.
                    >
                    > best,
                    > Don
                    >
                  • Norman
                    This website may be helpful http://www.absoluteclarity.com/buy&avoid.htm ... a list and see if anyone can add to it. Some of these are valid for flatfield
                    Message 9 of 30 , Jul 2, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      This website may be helpful

                      http://www.absoluteclarity.com/buy&avoid.htm





                      --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, DonH <djhmis@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > --- On Tue, 7/1/08, David L. Jones <dljones@...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > In the various discussions of good, bad and better
                      > > microscopes, I haven't
                      > > seen anything about how to do an evaluation on a stereo
                      > > microscope.
                      >
                      >
                      > You're right, and I've been thinking about that. I'd like to start
                      a list and see if anyone can add to it. Some of these are valid for
                      flatfield scopes as well.
                      >
                      > 1. Overall fit and finish: does everything that moves, move
                      smoothly, without grinding, slipping, or backlash? Not too firm nor
                      too tight? For the focus in particular, is there a way to tighten or
                      loosen the focus traction?
                      >
                      > 2. Does at least one of the eyepieces have a diopter adjustment?
                      This is not a necessity, but for someone like me with a 20/25 eye and
                      a 20/40 eye, I can adjust one of the eyepieces and I don't need to
                      wear glasses.
                      >
                      > 3. Interpupillary distance adjustment? Again, this is important
                      for me, since my pupils are 58mm apart.
                      >
                      > 4. Working distance: this is not an issue of quality, just a matter
                      of needs. People who need to work with tools under their scope prefer
                      a long working distance (makes sense).
                      >
                      > 5. Alignment: When looking at an object, it should appear as you
                      expect--a 3D view. There should be no overlap or "double vision."
                      Also there should be no odd color fringes or distortions. Keep in
                      mind, in general, the higher the magnification, the less the depth of
                      field; i.e., the less the whole object will be in the plane of focus.
                      >
                      > 6. Fixed mags, vs. zoom: Some scopes have fixed mags, such as a
                      choice between 10x, 20x, and 30x, or whatever. Others have continuous
                      zoom, such as 7.5x to 50x or whatever. (These numbers assume 10x
                      eyepieces). Zooms are more expensive. In general, the higher number
                      of fixed mags or the higher the range of zoom, the more expensive as well.
                      >
                      > One thing to do is focus on a specimen, then close one eye, then the
                      other. The image aspect will change, but if the scope is properly
                      adjusted, the image for each eye will be clear and in focus. If not,
                      something is either wrong with the scope, or you don't have the
                      diopters or interpupillary adjustments corrected.
                      >
                      > I think those are the basics. I would imagine all but the very
                      cheapest scopes have optics with anti-reflective coatings. Most
                      scopes have removable eyepieces so you can switch between 10x and 15x
                      eyepieces, or whatever. Scopes with better and more expensive optics
                      are more likely to offer greater depth of field and more highly
                      corrected optics. I remember once I saw a lecture where the speaker
                      showed slides of his photomicrographs taken through a stereo scope.
                      All the subjects were in focus but had a blue halo around them. I
                      thought it was a religious experience, then I realized he must have
                      had a very cheap scope with poor color correction.
                      >
                      > Hope this helps. I'm sure others can add to this seed I've planted.
                      >
                      > best,
                      > Don
                      >
                    • Glenn Shipley
                      Probably want to add something about lighting / lamps. Above and below? Intensity controls? - Glenn ... From: DonH To: Microscope@yahoogroups.com Sent:
                      Message 10 of 30 , Jul 2, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Probably want to add something about lighting / lamps. Above and below? Intensity controls?

                        - Glenn


                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: DonH
                        To: Microscope@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 11:16 PM
                        Subject: Re: [Microscope] Evaluating a stereo microscope


                        --- On Tue, 7/1/08, David L. Jones <dljones@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > In the various discussions of good, bad and better
                        > microscopes, I haven't
                        > seen anything about how to do an evaluation on a stereo
                        > microscope.

                        You're right, and I've been thinking about that. I'd like to start a list and see if anyone can add to it. Some of these are valid for flatfield scopes as well.

                        1. Overall fit and finish: does everything that moves, move smoothly, without grinding, slipping, or backlash? Not too firm nor too tight? For the focus in particular, is there a way to tighten or loosen the focus traction?

                        2. Does at least one of the eyepieces have a diopter adjustment? This is not a necessity, but for someone like me with a 20/25 eye and a 20/40 eye, I can adjust one of the eyepieces and I don't need to wear glasses.

                        3. Interpupillary distance adjustment? Again, this is important for me, since my pupils are 58mm apart.

                        4. Working distance: this is not an issue of quality, just a matter of needs. People who need to work with tools under their scope prefer a long working distance (makes sense).

                        5. Alignment: When looking at an object, it should appear as you expect--a 3D view. There should be no overlap or "double vision." Also there should be no odd color fringes or distortions. Keep in mind, in general, the higher the magnification, the less the depth of field; i.e., the less the whole object will be in the plane of focus.

                        6. Fixed mags, vs. zoom: Some scopes have fixed mags, such as a choice between 10x, 20x, and 30x, or whatever. Others have continuous zoom, such as 7.5x to 50x or whatever. (These numbers assume 10x eyepieces). Zooms are more expensive. In general, the higher number of fixed mags or the higher the range of zoom, the more expensive as well.

                        One thing to do is focus on a specimen, then close one eye, then the other. The image aspect will change, but if the scope is properly adjusted, the image for each eye will be clear and in focus. If not, something is either wrong with the scope, or you don't have the diopters or interpupillary adjustments corrected.

                        I think those are the basics. I would imagine all but the very cheapest scopes have optics with anti-reflective coatings. Most scopes have removable eyepieces so you can switch between 10x and 15x eyepieces, or whatever. Scopes with better and more expensive optics are more likely to offer greater depth of field and more highly corrected optics. I remember once I saw a lecture where the speaker showed slides of his photomicrographs taken through a stereo scope. All the subjects were in focus but had a blue halo around them. I thought it was a religious experience, then I realized he must have had a very cheap scope with poor color correction.

                        Hope this helps. I'm sure others can add to this seed I've planted.

                        best,
                        Don





                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • DonH
                        ... Good point. I would avoid the built-in upper incident lights altogether, and here is why. They are usually under-powered and have limited positioning.
                        Message 11 of 30 , Jul 2, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- On Wed, 7/2/08, Glenn Shipley <glennshipley@...> wrote:


                          > Probably want to add something about lighting / lamps. Above
                          > and below? Intensity controls?


                          Good point. I would avoid the built-in upper incident lights altogether, and here is why. They are usually under-powered and have limited positioning. They also tend to get in the way. Much better is an external light source. Of course I would recommend a dual-pipe fiber optic light, but these can be expensive, even when used. However, a microscope illuminator or even a halogen desk lamp can be used. My only regret when buying my first stereo scope was buying the more expensive stand with incident and transmitted illumination.

                          For transmitted illumination, in my experience I find that the light from the Meiji base was adequate. The user always has the option to rig up their own illumination base, but this requires some tinkering and I can imagine some buyers don't want to bother with that. The main question is whether the user expects to need transmitted illumination at all. If not, you can save money by purchasing a base without trasmitted light.

                          best,
                          Don
                        • Glenn Shipley
                          You might want to check this item: http://store.amscope.com/sm-2ty.html - 7x-90x trinocular stereo zoom microscope with dual halogen lights, Amscope, Model
                          Message 12 of 30 , Jul 2, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            You might want to check this item:

                            http://store.amscope.com/sm-2ty.html - 7x-90x trinocular stereo zoom microscope with dual halogen lights, Amscope, Model SM2TY, regularly $499, on sale for $399.

                            Here is their claim: " It is made by the same technicians and on the same production line as optical instruments for Leica, Zeiss, Nikon and Olympus."

                            I have heard this from several sources. Can anybody verify if this is true or not?

                            - Glenn (Chicago, USA)


                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: David L. Jones
                            To: Microscope@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10:58 PM
                            Subject: [Microscope] Evaluating a stereo microscope


                            All,

                            In the various discussions of good, bad and better microscopes, I haven't
                            seen anything about how to do an evaluation on a stereo microscope.

                            I'm going to have several stereo microscopes in my hands to take a look
                            at, including one that is a new pacific rim stereo microscope. I'll be
                            looking at it and several older stereo microsopes. I won't be able to look
                            at them side by side, I'll have to be in three different locations at
                            different times to look at each one seperately.

                            How does one go about determining how "good" the scope is? Are there test
                            patterns that can be recommended? I've heard about them being adjusted/
                            aligned, but what is this adjustment/alignment? How do you know if it
                            needs it and how do you know if the adjustment/alignment has been
                            successful?

                            I'm looking more for quantitative evaluation techniques rather than
                            qualitative as I will have to be able to make concise, measurable
                            statements as to the "quality" of the instrument.

                            Any suggestions?

                            dj





                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Peter G Werner
                            If you haven t seen it already, have a look at the blog post and accompanying article wrote a few months back, and a followup article I wrote:
                            Message 13 of 30 , Jul 2, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              If you haven't seen it already, have a look at the blog post and
                              accompanying article wrote a few months back, and a followup article I
                              wrote:

                              http://germpore.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-on-microscopes.html
                              http://www.geocities.com/germpore/buyersguide2.pdf

                              I think you might find these quite useful.

                              My advice as far as phase contrast goes is that you shouldn't worry
                              about having phase contrast on the scope you initially purchase
                              (because that's going to restrict your purchasing options a great
                              deal), but just be sure to buy a scope that has lots of parts
                              available and is highly expandable. The edge here is definitely with
                              Zeiss Standard scopes and older Olympus scopes, followed by Leitz,
                              Nikon, and American Optical models. (My own bias is toward Zeiss, but
                              there are some great scopes from other companies.)

                              (I think there was some mention about portability concerns – Zeiss
                              Standard scopes have a definite edge here – just get a good carrying
                              case, and your set – these scopes are very lightweight, yet solid.
                              Olympus BH scopes are a lot bulkier.)

                              Once you have your core scope, you can start expanding – for phase
                              contrast, you'll need both a phase contrast condenser and phase
                              contrast objectives for whatever magnifications you want to have phase
                              contrast capability. Note that phase contrast condensers and phase
                              objectives come with a variety of degrees of correction just like
                              other condensers and objectives do, so you might want to figure out
                              what your needs are in terms of lens quality before upgrading. There
                              are different sizes of phase ring, which must be matched between
                              the condenser and objective, so make sure there's a range of phase
                              ring settings on the condenser. (Some Zeiss condensers eliminate the
                              Ph1 stop – this isn't a problem unless you want to match it with a 10X
                              objective. Zeiss made a 16X objective with a Ph2 ring, though.) Also,
                              many phase condensers come with a dark-field setting, a feature you
                              might want to consider.
                            • David L. Jones
                              I like their use of a cross hair to work with. I will have to see where I can get one. dj
                              Message 14 of 30 , Jul 2, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I like their use of a cross hair to work with. I will have to see where I
                                can get one.

                                dj

                                On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Norman wrote:

                                > This website may be helpful
                                >
                                > http://www.absoluteclarity.com/buy&avoid.htm
                                >
                              • David L. Jones
                                I guess as a general evaluation this and stages could be included. I m more interested in evaluating the actual optics and functioning of the optical head
                                Message 15 of 30 , Jul 2, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I guess as a general evaluation this and stages could be included. I'm
                                  more interested in evaluating the actual optics and functioning of the
                                  optical head itself.

                                  Lighting and stages seem important, but could be subjects unto themselves.

                                  dj

                                  On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Glenn Shipley wrote:

                                  > Probably want to add something about lighting / lamps. Above and below? Intensity controls?
                                  >
                                  > - Glenn
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ----- Original Message -----
                                  > From: DonH
                                  > To: Microscope@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 11:16 PM
                                  > Subject: Re: [Microscope] Evaluating a stereo microscope
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --- On Tue, 7/1/08, David L. Jones <dljones@...> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > In the various discussions of good, bad and better
                                  > > microscopes, I haven't
                                  > > seen anything about how to do an evaluation on a stereo
                                  > > microscope.
                                  >
                                  > You're right, and I've been thinking about that. I'd like to start a list and see if anyone can add to it. Some of these are valid for flatfield scopes as well.
                                  >
                                  > 1. Overall fit and finish: does everything that moves, move smoothly, without grinding, slipping, or backlash? Not too firm nor too tight? For the focus in particular, is there a way to tighten or loosen the focus traction?
                                  >
                                  > 2. Does at least one of the eyepieces have a diopter adjustment? This is not a necessity, but for someone like me with a 20/25 eye and a 20/40 eye, I can adjust one of the eyepieces and I don't need to wear glasses.
                                  >
                                  > 3. Interpupillary distance adjustment? Again, this is important for me, since my pupils are 58mm apart.
                                  >
                                  > 4. Working distance: this is not an issue of quality, just a matter of needs. People who need to work with tools under their scope prefer a long working distance (makes sense).
                                  >
                                  > 5. Alignment: When looking at an object, it should appear as you expect--a 3D view. There should be no overlap or "double vision." Also there should be no odd color fringes or distortions. Keep in mind, in general, the higher the magnification, the less the depth of field; i.e., the less the whole object will be in the plane of focus.
                                  >
                                  > 6. Fixed mags, vs. zoom: Some scopes have fixed mags, such as a choice between 10x, 20x, and 30x, or whatever. Others have continuous zoom, such as 7.5x to 50x or whatever. (These numbers assume 10x eyepieces). Zooms are more expensive. In general, the higher number of fixed mags or the higher the range of zoom, the more expensive as well.
                                  >
                                  > One thing to do is focus on a specimen, then close one eye, then the other. The image aspect will change, but if the scope is properly adjusted, the image for each eye will be clear and in focus. If not, something is either wrong with the scope, or you don't have the diopters or interpupillary adjustments corrected.
                                  >
                                  > I think those are the basics. I would imagine all but the very cheapest scopes have optics with anti-reflective coatings. Most scopes have removable eyepieces so you can switch between 10x and 15x eyepieces, or whatever. Scopes with better and more expensive optics are more likely to offer greater depth of field and more highly corrected optics. I remember once I saw a lecture where the speaker showed slides of his photomicrographs taken through a stereo scope. All the subjects were in focus but had a blue halo around them. I thought it was a religious experience, then I realized he must have had a very cheap scope with poor color correction.
                                  >
                                  > Hope this helps. I'm sure others can add to this seed I've planted.
                                  >
                                  > best,
                                  > Don
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ------------------------------------
                                  >
                                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                • David L. Jones
                                  It turns out, I will likely be evaluating an amscope as one of the stereo microscopes in the group.... dj
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Jul 2, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    It turns out, I will likely be evaluating an amscope as one of the stereo
                                    microscopes in the group....

                                    dj

                                    On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Glenn Shipley wrote:

                                    > You might want to check this item:
                                    >
                                    > http://store.amscope.com/sm-2ty.html - 7x-90x trinocular stereo zoom microscope with dual halogen lights, Amscope, Model SM2TY, regularly $499, on sale for $399.
                                    >
                                    > Here is their claim: " It is made by the same technicians and on the same production line as optical instruments for Leica, Zeiss, Nikon and Olympus."
                                    >
                                    > I have heard this from several sources. Can anybody verify if this is true or not?
                                    >
                                    > - Glenn (Chicago, USA)
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ----- Original Message -----
                                    > From: David L. Jones
                                    > To: Microscope@yahoogroups.com
                                    > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10:58 PM
                                    > Subject: [Microscope] Evaluating a stereo microscope
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > All,
                                    >
                                    > In the various discussions of good, bad and better microscopes, I haven't
                                    > seen anything about how to do an evaluation on a stereo microscope.
                                    >
                                    > I'm going to have several stereo microscopes in my hands to take a look
                                    > at, including one that is a new pacific rim stereo microscope. I'll be
                                    > looking at it and several older stereo microsopes. I won't be able to look
                                    > at them side by side, I'll have to be in three different locations at
                                    > different times to look at each one seperately.
                                    >
                                    > How does one go about determining how "good" the scope is? Are there test
                                    > patterns that can be recommended? I've heard about them being adjusted/
                                    > aligned, but what is this adjustment/alignment? How do you know if it
                                    > needs it and how do you know if the adjustment/alignment has been
                                    > successful?
                                    >
                                    > I'm looking more for quantitative evaluation techniques rather than
                                    > qualitative as I will have to be able to make concise, measurable
                                    > statements as to the "quality" of the instrument.
                                    >
                                    > Any suggestions?
                                    >
                                    > dj
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ------------------------------------
                                    >
                                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                  • rob kr
                                    Thanks for your suggestions, links, and advice. Alan and Greg, you cleared some of the confusions I had about phase and the BHTU/BH-2 BHS/BHT(?) and your
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Jul 3, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Thanks for your suggestions, links, and advice.

                                      Alan and Greg, you cleared some of the confusions I had about phase and the BHTU/BH-2 BHS/BHT(?) and your endorsements have me leaning toward this model.

                                      Gordon, your page was very helpful and one of the first I googled upon  in my pursuit to educate myself about microscopy. I have parts of it printed out in a folder. 

                                      Peter, I found the info on your blog and your buyer's guide useful, concise, well-written.  You, as well as Gordon I believe, mention the Zeiss Standard, which is a scope whose performance I obviously have no way of evaluating, but which I've had my eye out for, if for only quasi-aesthetic reasons -- it just "looks" like a scope I ought to own, if that makes any sense -- so I'd like to direct a couple of Zeiss questions toward you guys (or to anyone else who wants to answer), if I may: 

                                      What is the difference between the Standard, the "Jr.," and the KF2?  Is the Standard (14, 16, etc.) a lab scope and the KF2 a "student" scope?  There are 2 relatively inexpensive KF2's here:
                                       http://www.microscopestore.com/B2_Zeiss_KF2_101622.html 

                                      and here:
                                       http://www.microscopesfromnightingale.com/product/Zeiss%20KF2%20Serial%20%20000907

                                      Are these two "upgradeable" ?  Could you fit one, for example, with a phase condenser (without machining), or are you stuck with what you got?  And is the light source (5w and 10w respectively) a very limiting factor for options?

                                      Sorry if it sounds like I'm thanking the Academy for my award, but I am grateful for you taking the time to answer what must be dumb questions.  I've been wrestling with a not-entirely-healthy obsession for over-researching anything which entails a monetary expenditure, and the itch to get just a hold of a microscope and start looking at stuff.  While I suspect that there's a lot you can learn only through practice, I keep discovering some seemingly fatal gap in my knowledge base that prevents me from taking the plunge.

                                      Much appreciation,

                                      rob


                                      --- On Wed, 7/2/08, Gordon Couger <gcouger@...> wrote:
                                      From: Gordon Couger <gcouger@...>
                                      Subject: [Microscope] Re: Buying first scope/ phase question
                                      To: Microscope@yahoogroups.com
                                      Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 2:37 AM











                                      Hi Rob,



                                      You have got some good advice and we really appreciate you reading the

                                      archives before jumping in with questions. It gives you a much better

                                      background to evaluate our answers and you probably realize we all have

                                      view live and everything about including the microscopes we think are

                                      best as seen though lenses colored by our experience, preferences,

                                      access to tools and ability to use them. To me having access to a

                                      machine shop is normal and I have be careful not to color what I say

                                      with that. Also I seem to be much more concerned about resale value than

                                      most new comers.



                                      The 40x lens is a work horse giving from 240x to 600x magnification with

                                      6x to 15x eye pieces. A good 40x objective with n.a. of 0.90 can resolve

                                      all the one can be seen without oil immersion.



                                      Only a few of us use a 100x oil immersion lens very much unless we are

                                      working with bacteria, diatoms or trying to achieve the best resolution

                                      we can with our microscopes.



                                      I also stress trying to find a dealer near you. They can be a great deal

                                      of help if they have the time to help you and most will if you don't

                                      make unreasonable demands on their time. Being able to show you how set

                                      up a scope is a lot easier to do in person than with instructions.



                                      Some of the implementations of Zernike phase contrast are great but they

                                      cost a lot. One way to get a much wider range of phase contrast is to

                                      use Leitz Heine phase contrast condenser. It is a continuously

                                      adjustable condenser that works with near phase contrast objectives.

                                      Possibly not as well as the condenser designed for it but it gives much

                                      wider range of effects both with and without phase contrast objective

                                      including Circular Oblique Lighting COL. It is the main condenser I use

                                      on my portable microscope a Zeiss Jr. set up for Polarized light. I

                                      carry other accessories with it. I had to make a riser for stand so

                                      there is room for the condenser.



                                      If you are going to use a portable microscope very much and you have a

                                      family along size is a real problem. The new weight and luggugage limit

                                      on Airlines may be a problem as well.



                                      I have a page for first time buyers at :

                                      www.couger.com/ microscope/ links/gcnewbuy. html

                                      <http://www.couger. com/microscope/ links/gcnewbuy. html>

                                      I am rethinking my recommendations on stereo microscopes due to feed

                                      back and changing times. This is a page on those thoughts. it is a work

                                      in progress.

                                      www.science- info.net/ pages/GordonCoug er/Thoughts- on-Paciifc- Rim-Microsco\

                                      pes.html

                                      <http://www.science- info.net/ pages/GordonCoug er/Thoughts- on-Paciifc- Rim-\

                                      Microscopes. html>



                                      Welcome to the group.

                                      Gordon Couger

                                      www.science- info.net <http://www.science- info.net>

                                      http://web.mac. com/gcouger/ NewLinks/ MicroscopeResour ces.html

                                      <http://web.mac. com/gcouger/ NewLinks/ MicroscopeResour ces.html>



                                      --- In Microscope@yahoogro ups.com, rob kr <glaz_tek@.. .> wrote:

                                      >

                                      > Greetings group.

                                      >

                                      > I'm doing research toward purchasing my first microscope and I'm

                                      leaning toward going with what seems to be the consensus advice here of

                                      buying a used scope with a warranty. I've found a lot of useful

                                      information culling through the archives of this group and I wonder if I

                                      might impose on your collective expertise to ask a few questions? I hope

                                      they aren't too inane.

                                      >

                                      > I think I want an upright, binocular compound, either phase-ready or

                                      capable of being adapted to do phase with components that both aren't

                                      too hard to find and aren't prohibitively expensive. I notice that most

                                      of the cheaper second-hand phase-equipped scopes aren't sold with a

                                      high-magnification oil objective. Is there any reason (other than cost)

                                      for this practice?

                                      >

                                      > Also, what is the practical difference between phase and "simple

                                      phase", as is offered, for instance, on this BHTU

                                      (http://www.microsco pesfromnightinga le.com/product/ Olympus%20BHTU% 20-Ph)\

                                      ? Is simple phase significantly inferior to regular phase contrast?

                                      >

                                      > Thanks

                                      >

                                      > rob

                                      >



                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





























                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Peter G Werner
                                      ... 0907 ... (without machining), or are you stuck with what you got?  And is the light source (5w and 10w respectively) a very limiting factor for options?
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Jul 3, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        rob kr <glaz_tek@...> wrote:

                                        > Peter, I found the info on your blog and your buyer's guide useful, concise, well-written.
                                        > You, as well as Gordon I believe, mention the Zeiss Standard, which is a scope whose
                                        > performance I obviously have no way of evaluating, but which I've had my eye out for, if
                                        > for only quasi-aesthetic reasons -- it just "looks" like a scope I ought to own, if that
                                        > makes any sense -- so I'd like to direct a couple of Zeiss questions toward you guys (or
                                        > to anyone else who wants to answer), if I may:
                                        >
                                        > What is the difference between the Standard, the "Jr.," and the KF2?  Is the Standard (14,
                                        > 16, etc.) a lab scope and the KF2 a "student" scope?  There are 2 relatively inexpensive
                                        > KF2's here:
                                        >
                                        >  http://www.microscopestore.com/B2_Zeiss_KF2_101622.html%c2%a0
                                        >
                                        > and here:
                                        >
                                        http://www.microscopesfromnightingale.com/product/Zeiss%20KF2%20Serial%20%2000
                                        0907
                                        >
                                        > Are these two "upgradeable" ?  Could you fit one, for example, with a phase condenser
                                        (without machining), or are you stuck with what you got?  And is the light source (5w and
                                        10w respectively) a very limiting factor for options?

                                        The Zeiss Jr was basically a student scope without Koehler illumination features, such as
                                        an adjustable field stop on the illuminator. The KH2 comes with a fixed condenser, and
                                        possibly also no field stop. Those are not features you'd want and I'm not sure how
                                        replaceable they are on those models. Spare field diaphragms in particular are not a
                                        terribly common item on the used market as far as I can tell. Also, the KF2 at
                                        Microscopestore.com looks like it has a third-party (probably Chinese-made) head on it
                                        rather than the original.

                                        If you decide to go with Zeiss, I'd go with a Standard, which are all very upgradable. The
                                        number (Standard 14, 16, 20, etc) have to do with the features initially installed on the
                                        scope, but to the best of my knowledge, all of these things are upgradable. (For example,
                                        a Standard 14 comes with a 4-objective nosepiece, while some other models hold 5
                                        objectives, but you can still add a 5-objective nosepiece to a 14.)

                                        When evaluating scopes, generally its a better value to buy a scope with as many of the
                                        features as you want already installed, but if a "loaded" scope isn't available or is
                                        excessively expensive compared to slightly less loaded models, get what's available
                                        knowing that an upgrade path is there if you've bought an upgradable model to begin
                                        with.
                                      • rhamvossen
                                        Hi, Wasn t the KF2 the modern version of the black standard junior? I ve seen a white and gray version of the KF2, don t know the difference. I played with a
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Jul 3, 2008
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Hi,

                                          Wasn't the KF2 the modern version of the black standard junior? I've
                                          seen a white and gray version of the KF2, don't know the difference.
                                          I played with a gray KF2 lately and I was surprised how cheaply it
                                          was made compared to the old black standard junior which was rock
                                          solid. The KF2 I've been playing with had a fixed condenser and a 5 W
                                          lightbulb that was barely enough for the 40x objective. Placing a
                                          blue filter in the holder in the base (there was no filter holder
                                          underneath the condenser) reduced the amount of light that it was
                                          insufficient for the 40x objective. Also, it had a 1.25x tube
                                          magnification, something that I would not want. The KF2 really isn't
                                          a scope to go for if you ask me.

                                          Rolf


                                          --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, "Peter G Werner" <germpore@...>
                                          wrote:
                                          >
                                          > rob kr <glaz_tek@> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > > Peter, I found the info on your blog and your buyer's guide
                                          useful, concise, well-written.
                                          > > You, as well as Gordon I believe, mention the Zeiss Standard,
                                          which is a scope whose
                                          > > performance I obviously have no way of evaluating, but which I've
                                          had my eye out for, if
                                          > > for only quasi-aesthetic reasons -- it just "looks" like a scope
                                          I ought to own, if that
                                          > > makes any sense -- so I'd like to direct a couple of Zeiss
                                          questions toward you guys (or
                                          > > to anyone else who wants to answer), if I may:
                                          > >
                                          > > What is the difference between the Standard, the "Jr.," and the
                                          KF2?  Is the Standard (14,
                                          > > 16, etc.) a lab scope and the KF2 a "student" scope?  There are 2
                                          relatively inexpensive
                                          > > KF2's here:
                                          > >
                                          > >  http://www.microscopestore.com/B2_Zeiss_KF2_101622.html 
                                          > >
                                          > > and here:
                                          > >
                                          > > http://www.microscopesfromnightingale.com/product/Zeiss%20KF2%
                                          20Serial%20%2000
                                          > 0907
                                          > >
                                          > > Are these two "upgradeable" ?  Could you fit one, for example,
                                          with a phase condenser
                                          > (without machining), or are you stuck with what you got?  And is
                                          the light source (5w and
                                          > 10w respectively) a very limiting factor for options?
                                          >
                                          > The Zeiss Jr was basically a student scope without Koehler
                                          illumination features, such as
                                          > an adjustable field stop on the illuminator. The KH2 comes with a
                                          fixed condenser, and
                                          > possibly also no field stop. Those are not features you'd want and
                                          I'm not sure how
                                          > replaceable they are on those models. Spare field diaphragms in
                                          particular are not a
                                          > terribly common item on the used market as far as I can tell. Also,
                                          the KF2 at
                                          > Microscopestore.com looks like it has a third-party (probably
                                          Chinese-made) head on it
                                          > rather than the original.
                                          >
                                          > If you decide to go with Zeiss, I'd go with a Standard, which are
                                          all very upgradable. The
                                          > number (Standard 14, 16, 20, etc) have to do with the features
                                          initially installed on the
                                          > scope, but to the best of my knowledge, all of these things are
                                          upgradable. (For example,
                                          > a Standard 14 comes with a 4-objective nosepiece, while some other
                                          models hold 5
                                          > objectives, but you can still add a 5-objective nosepiece to a 14.)
                                          >
                                          > When evaluating scopes, generally its a better value to buy a scope
                                          with as many of the
                                          > features as you want already installed, but if a "loaded" scope
                                          isn't available or is
                                          > excessively expensive compared to slightly less loaded models, get
                                          what's available
                                          > knowing that an upgrade path is there if you've bought an
                                          upgradable model to begin
                                          > with.
                                          >
                                        • Gordon Couger
                                          Hi Peter, Your right about buying a scope that is mostly what you want and adding attachments. But always ask for exactly what you want first. Now and then you
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Jul 3, 2008
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Hi Peter,

                                            Your right about buying a scope that is mostly what you want and adding attachments. But always ask for exactly what you want first. Now and then you get it. Ebay is a good place for finding parts and attachment that you can�t find here or from a dealer. The most expensive to buy on eBay is one part at time. The lest expensive way to buy attachments has been to buy incomplete microscopes on ebay that have what you want and sell back the parts you don�t need. I don�t know if that will continue to be true. Ebay�s new rules, the changing times, the knowledge and actions of buyer & sellers, the amount of extra money we have to spend and what�s being offered on eBay are a constantly changing and evolving system that seems to me to have changed a lot in the last year.

                                            If looking at Zeiss stands don't over look the GFL if you are using a portable scope. It smaller than standard and will take all the attachments a standard will. The condser carrier can be modifed to use outer brands of condesers more easily than later Zeiss Scopes. It takes a while to find one with that has a intergagable objective holder but their are some if you want the fleibilty that comes with being able to change to reflected ligth and other attachments.

                                            A GFL has limb with binouclar head and objective holder than moves up and down letting you look at a bit thicker objects on the stage and if it properly cleaned at lubricated can be used in a clincal setting to lift up the objectve to change sides and come back down and the scope be in focus. That may be a custom feature as I don't see it on all GFLs.

                                            The moving limb on the corse focus is one of its draw backs as well. In spite of the adjustble break on it's movement using it for Photmicrophotogrpy wiht trincular head piece and dSLR on on it the brake has to be set very tigth to keep the objectve from creeping down under the weight of the load. If the brake is set tight enough it will hold up a camera Pol insert and reflected light nose piece but you will need to make a wrench to tighten he brake as I have never seen one available.

                                            The GFL is a lighter weight stand with a smaller foot print then any of the Standards and all are really to light to mount a dSLR on the trinocular head. In fact only a few peole are able to mount a dSLR on a trinoular head and not have problems the vibration transmited to the microscope from the camera and magnifed by the microscope when the sutter curtian opens.

                                            The Jr. is not a scope for full time use. But I does make a nice portable scope because of it size and using the Zeiss head peices The Jr. with a mirror can be set up for Kolher if you have lamp with a diapham and focusing lens. It's main draw backs are the lack of condenser that can be centered, the lack of brake on the course focus and over all use of inexpensive materials. A Jr. was the only Zeiss stand I ever bought that didn't work or I couldn't fix that I got on ebay.

                                            Gordon

                                            ----- Original Message ----
                                            From: Peter G Werner <germpore@...>
                                            To: Microscope@yahoogroups.com
                                            Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2008 9:57:54 AM
                                            Subject: [Microscope] Re: thanks and a couple more questions

                                            rob kr <glaz_tek@...> wrote:

                                            > Peter, I found the info on your blog and your buyer's guide useful, concise, well-written.
                                            > You, as well as Gordon I believe, mention the Zeiss Standard, which is a scope whose
                                            > performance I obviously have no way of evaluating, but which I've had my eye out for, if
                                            > for only quasi-aesthetic reasons -- it just "looks" like a scope I ought to own, if that
                                            > makes any sense -- so I'd like to direct a couple of Zeiss questions toward you guys (or
                                            > to anyone else who wants to answer), if I may:
                                            >
                                            > What is the difference between the Standard, the "Jr.," and the KF2? Is the Standard (14,
                                            > 16, etc.) a lab scope and the KF2 a "student" scope? There are 2 relatively inexpensive
                                            > KF2's here:
                                            >
                                            > http://www.microscopestore.com/B2_Zeiss_KF2_101622.html
                                            >
                                            > and here:
                                            >
                                            > http://www.microscopesfromnightingale.com/product/Zeiss%20KF2%20Serial%20%2000
                                            0907
                                            >
                                            > Are these two "upgradeable" ? Could you fit one, for example, with a phase condenser
                                            (without machining), or are you stuck with what you got? And is the light source (5w and
                                            10w respectively) a very limiting factor for options?

                                            The Zeiss Jr was basically a student scope without Koehler illumination features, such as
                                            an adjustable field stop on the illuminator. The KH2 comes with a fixed condenser, and
                                            possibly also no field stop. Those are not features you'd want and I'm not sure how
                                            replaceable they are on those models. Spare field diaphragms in particular are not a
                                            terribly common item on the used market as far as I can tell. Also, the KF2 at
                                            Microscopestore.com looks like it has a third-party (probably Chinese-made) head on it
                                            rather than the original.

                                            If you decide to go with Zeiss, I'd go with a Standard, which are all very upgradable. The
                                            number (Standard 14, 16, 20, etc) have to do with the features initially installed on the
                                            scope, but to the best of my knowledge, all of these things are upgradable. (For example,
                                            a Standard 14 comes with a 4-objective nosepiece, while some other models hold 5
                                            objectives, but you can still add a 5-objective nosepiece to a 14.)

                                            When evaluating scopes, generally its a better value to buy a scope with as many of the
                                            features as you want already installed, but if a "loaded" scope isn't available or is
                                            excessively expensive compared to slightly less loaded models, get what's available
                                            knowing that an upgrade path is there if you've bought an upgradable model to begin
                                            with.

                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • DonH
                                            ... I can add some current information to that. I think this is important to anyone who is planning to buy or sell a scope soon. It is not just about eBay.
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Jul 3, 2008
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- On Thu, 7/3/08, Gordon Couger <gcouger@...> wrote:

                                              > The lest expensive way to buy
                                              > attachments has been to buy incomplete microscopes on ebay
                                              > that have what you want and sell back the parts you don¢t
                                              > need. I don¢t know if that will continue to be true.
                                              > Ebay¢s new rules, the changing times, the knowledge and
                                              > actions of buyer & sellers, the amount of extra money
                                              > we have to spend and what¢s being offered on eBay are a
                                              > constantly changing and evolving system that seems to me to
                                              > have changed a lot in the last year.


                                              I can add some current information to that. I think this is important to anyone who is planning to buy or sell a scope soon. It is not just about eBay.

                                              As you know I have offered some items to list members and sold most of them. Just recently I began selling on eBay for the first time, after 10 years of buying. The results have been interesting.

                                              In the past 5 years, the used microscope business was insane. It was like the dot-com boom: insane prices were being paid due to irrational exuberance, prices that could not possibly be sustained. If you wanted an Ortholux Pol, or any parts for it, you nearly had to re-mortgage your house. Dealers were using eBay to buy their stock and add their own markup--which in most cases is an unwise thing to do, since by logic no one else was willing to pay what the dealer paid to win it--but the items were still being re-sold at the higher markup by the incidental middleman. People who had items sitting on shelves and in drawers brought them out of the woodwork and you would see a flurry of the same item over a several-week period. If a pol stage started at 19.99 and sold for 250, then next one listed would have a starting bid of 240, and if that sold for 350, the next one would start at 340, etc.

                                              Back to the present: About a year ago I bought a rare item for about 1850. I found out, too late, that I couldn't really use it for its intended purpose, but I figured some other microscopist or collector would want it. The seller offered to buy it back for only 1250, because his business was down. At the time I declined, because I at least wanted my money back out of it. A few weeks ago I contacted the same dealer willing to accept his offer, but this time he declined outright, saying business was even worse and there was no market for it. Fortuately I was able to sell it for about 1250 on eBay, and have made up the shortfall by selling other misc. items.

                                              Most of the items I have sold have been relative bargains, though I at least got my money back out of them. However, I put up some items at prices far less than they've sold in the past, and in fact you don't see them much on eBay any more, but they haven't sold. Two years ago I would have had people fighting over them. On the other hand, I see people putting up similar items and listing the minimum bid at the last auction price, and they don't move. Times are tough.

                                              Of course this applies to my experiences; others may differ... I can imagine someone will respond "you're wrong, I just saw Item X sell for N dollars..." Indeed, this is a GENERAL OBSERVATION about what is going on in the market, now that I am in it. I know several dealers and high-end collectors, and at least in my circle, everyone agrees that sales are down and prices are lower in general.

                                              Bottom line: if someone plans to buy a scope and sell off the unused parts, do some homework. Look for similar parts on the Internet, eBay, and LabX, see what they sell for; or if they sell at all.

                                              Business goes in cycles, and I'm sure there will be a microscope parts boom again. But if you are looking to make a quick turn-around and get your money back, it may not happen soon. Be cautious.

                                              best,
                                              Don
                                            • Steven Born
                                              I ve purchased several scopes over the last few years I have between twenty and thirty microscopes, most in good, to excellent, working condition. Some are
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Jul 3, 2008
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                I've purchased several scopes over the last few years
                                                I have between twenty and thirty microscopes, most in good, to
                                                excellent, working condition. Some are "parts" microscopes, purchased
                                                to fix up other scopes.
                                                I have a lot of searches on ebay, but only look seriously at the
                                                results for a few categories I'm interested in- Nikon, Spencer, and
                                                antique nineteenth century scopes (which I can't afford).

                                                My observation is that microscope prices have gone down over the last
                                                two years.
                                                When I first started buying, four years ago, prices were crazy. This
                                                did not affect my own purchases, because I carefully watched the
                                                market, and waited for deals.

                                                Even the prices for nineteenth century scopes have dropped, as have
                                                specialty collector items such as the Nikon Model H portable (a
                                                microscope built into an SLR body)

                                                I'd advise anyone who has a really collectable scope to wait to sell
                                                it, until prices rise again.
                                                This is a very good time to buy user scopes; people are watching their
                                                money. The market is not being driven up by the one time buyer who
                                                want a "cool" antique scope to sit on a shelf in their study.

                                                Steve Born
                                                StevenBorn@...






                                                On Jul 3, 2008, at 10:57 AM, DonH wrote:

                                                > --- On Thu, 7/3/08, Gordon Couger <gcouger@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > > The lest expensive way to buy
                                                > > attachments has been to buy incomplete microscopes on ebay
                                                > > that have what you want and sell back the parts you don¢t
                                                > > need. I don¢t know if that will continue to be true.
                                                > > Ebay¢s new rules, the changing times, the knowledge and
                                                > > actions of buyer & sellers, the amount of extra money
                                                > > we have to spend and what¢s being offered on eBay are a
                                                > > constantly changing and evolving system that seems to me to
                                                > > have changed a lot in the last year.
                                                >
                                                > I can add some current information to that. I think this is
                                                > important to anyone who is planning to buy or sell a scope soon. It
                                                > is not just about eBay.
                                                >
                                                > As you know I have offered some items to list members and sold most
                                                > of them. Just recently I began selling on eBay for the first time,
                                                > after 10 years of buying. The results have been interesting.
                                                >
                                                > In the past 5 years, the used microscope business was insane. It was
                                                > like the dot-com boom: insane prices were being paid due to
                                                > irrational exuberance, prices that could not possibly be sustained.
                                                > If you wanted an Ortholux Pol, or any parts for it, you nearly had
                                                > to re-mortgage your house. Dealers were using eBay to buy their
                                                > stock and add their own markup--which in most cases is an unwise
                                                > thing to do, since by logic no one else was willing to pay what the
                                                > dealer paid to win it--but the items were still being re-sold at the
                                                > higher markup by the incidental middleman. People who had items
                                                > sitting on shelves and in drawers brought them out of the woodwork
                                                > and you would see a flurry of the same item over a several-week
                                                > period. If a pol stage started at 19.99 and sold for 250, then next
                                                > one listed would have a starting bid of 240, and if that sold for
                                                > 350, the next one would start at 340, etc.
                                                >
                                                > Back to the present: About a year ago I bought a rare item for about
                                                > 1850. I found out, too late, that I couldn't really use it for its
                                                > intended purpose, but I figured some other microscopist or collector
                                                > would want it. The seller offered to buy it back for only 1250,
                                                > because his business was down. At the time I declined, because I at
                                                > least wanted my money back out of it. A few weeks ago I contacted
                                                > the same dealer willing to accept his offer, but this time he
                                                > declined outright, saying business was even worse and there was no
                                                > market for it. Fortuately I was able to sell it for about 1250 on
                                                > eBay, and have made up the shortfall by selling other misc. items.
                                                >
                                                > Most of the items I have sold have been relative bargains, though I
                                                > at least got my money back out of them. However, I put up some items
                                                > at prices far less than they've sold in the past, and in fact you
                                                > don't see them much on eBay any more, but they haven't sold. Two
                                                > years ago I would have had people fighting over them. On the other
                                                > hand, I see people putting up similar items and listing the minimum
                                                > bid at the last auction price, and they don't move. Times are tough.
                                                >
                                                > Of course this applies to my experiences; others may differ... I can
                                                > imagine someone will respond "you're wrong, I just saw Item X sell
                                                > for N dollars..." Indeed, this is a GENERAL OBSERVATION about what
                                                > is going on in the market, now that I am in it. I know several
                                                > dealers and high-end collectors, and at least in my circle, everyone
                                                > agrees that sales are down and prices are lower in general.
                                                >
                                                > Bottom line: if someone plans to buy a scope and sell off the unused
                                                > parts, do some homework. Look for similar parts on the Internet,
                                                > eBay, and LabX, see what they sell for; or if they sell at all.
                                                >
                                                > Business goes in cycles, and I'm sure there will be a microscope
                                                > parts boom again. But if you are looking to make a quick turn-around
                                                > and get your money back, it may not happen soon. Be cautious.
                                                >
                                                > best,
                                                > Don
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >


                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • blekenbleu
                                                ... I read about using USB-powered gooseneck LEDs and fabricated some. Started with Targus PA014U light + fan pair, sliced thru their metal crimps and soldered
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Jul 4, 2008
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  > I would avoid the built-in upper incident lights altogether,
                                                  > and here is why.
                                                  > They are usually under-powered and have limited positioning.
                                                  > They also tend to get in the way.
                                                  > Much better is an external light source.
                                                  > Of course I would recommend a dual-pipe fiber optic light,
                                                  > but these can be expensive, even when used.
                                                  > However, a microscope illuminator
                                                  > or even a halogen desk lamp can be used.
                                                  > My only regret when buying my first stereo scope was buying the
                                                  > more expensive stand with incident and transmitted illumination.
                                                  ...
                                                  > The user always has the option to rig up their own illumination
                                                  > base, but this requires some tinkering and I can imagine
                                                  > some buyers don't want to bother with that.

                                                  I read about using USB-powered gooseneck LEDs and fabricated some.
                                                  Started with Targus PA014U light + fan pair, sliced thru their metal
                                                  crimps and soldered appropriately focussed LEDs in series with 22 Ohm
                                                  1/4 watt resistors for about 30mA, then heat shrink from LED bases
                                                  to gooseneck arms. These are thinner than fiber light pipes in
                                                  my experience and flexible enough to locate quite close to objectives
                                                  and objects of interest.

                                                  This $10 SYBA pair appear to have shorter goosenecks than Targus'
                                                  but come with a base, avoiding the need come up with a USB hub.
                                                  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16800998040
                                                • Glenn Shipley
                                                  Check out American Science and Surplus: http://www.sciplus.com/search.cfm - #93295 SMALL OFFICE LAMPS - USB Gooseneck 4 LEDs US $15 I have not tried it, but it
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Jul 4, 2008
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Check out American Science and Surplus:
                                                    http://www.sciplus.com/search.cfm - #93295 SMALL OFFICE LAMPS - USB Gooseneck 4 LEDs US $15

                                                    I have not tried it, but it might come in handy for additional incident lighting. I have several of their #92977 LED TABLE LAMPs @ $7 ea, which use 3 AAA batteries, but it is "temporarily" out of stock. Great for field microscope work

                                                    - Glenn (Chicago, USA)


                                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  • blekenbleu
                                                    ... We also have one similar to this; with a 5 gooseneck and multiple LEDs, it can work for 10x or lower objectives with substantial working distances, but
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , Jul 4, 2008
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      > Check out American Science and Surplus:
                                                      > http://www.sciplus.com/search.cfm - #93295
                                                      > SMALL OFFICE LAMPS - USB Gooseneck 4 LEDs US $15
                                                      >
                                                      > I have not tried it,
                                                      > but it might come in handy for additional incident lighting.

                                                      We also have one similar to this;
                                                      with a 5" gooseneck and multiple LEDs, it can work
                                                      for 10x or lower objectives with substantial working distances,
                                                      but intensity for higher magnifications and short working distances
                                                      from low-power LEDs wants something small and more focussed.
                                                    • rob kr
                                                      Thanks again, all. This is just the sort of specific information I wanted. A dealer not too far from me has a Standard I plan to go take a look at, though I
                                                      Message 26 of 30 , Jul 4, 2008
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Thanks again, all. This is just the sort of specific information I wanted. A dealer not too far from me has a Standard I plan to go take a look at, though I have no clue yet how to evaluate it.

                                                        rob

                                                        --- On Thu, 7/3/08, Peter G Werner <germpore@...> wrote:


                                                        >
                                                        > The Zeiss Jr was basically a student scope without Koehler
                                                        > illumination features, such as
                                                        > an adjustable field stop on the illuminator. The KH2 comes
                                                        > with a fixed condenser, and
                                                        > possibly also no field stop. Those are not features
                                                        > you'd want and I'm not sure how
                                                        > replaceable they are on those models. Spare field
                                                        > diaphragms in particular are not a
                                                        > terribly common item on the used market as far as I can
                                                        > tell. Also, the KF2 at
                                                        > Microscopestore.com looks like it has a third-party
                                                        > (probably Chinese-made) head on it
                                                        > rather than the original.
                                                        >
                                                        > If you decide to go with Zeiss, I'd go with a Standard,
                                                        > which are all very upgradable. The
                                                        > number (Standard 14, 16, 20, etc) have to do with the
                                                        > features initially installed on the
                                                        > scope, but to the best of my knowledge, all of these things
                                                        > are upgradable. (For example,
                                                        > a Standard 14 comes with a 4-objective nosepiece, while
                                                        > some other models hold 5
                                                        > objectives, but you can still add a 5-objective nosepiece
                                                        > to a 14.)
                                                        >
                                                        > When evaluating scopes, generally its a better value to buy
                                                        > a scope with as many of the
                                                        > features as you want already installed, but if a
                                                        > "loaded" scope isn't available or is
                                                        > excessively expensive compared to slightly less loaded
                                                        > models, get what's available
                                                        > knowing that an upgrade path is there if you've bought
                                                        > an upgradable model to begin
                                                        > with.
                                                      • Gordon Couger
                                                        I should have been clearer, Don. I should have said if you buy and sell in the same market at simular prices. Your right about the market being off. There are
                                                        Message 27 of 30 , Jul 4, 2008
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          I should have been clearer, Don.

                                                          I should have said if you buy and sell in the same market at simular
                                                          prices. Your right about the market being off. There are less active
                                                          buyers and less microscopes like I am interested in offered for sale.
                                                          What I call the wreckers will buy a scope and part it out and have the
                                                          parts back on ebay as soon as they get them. No matter what we think
                                                          of tem many of us enable them by buying form them.

                                                          What we pay for gasoline come out of the toy and hobby money. What we
                                                          are willing to spend also depends on our outlook for the future. Right
                                                          now neither one is good and it summer to boot. As I see thing there is
                                                          nearly always less for sale and less eyeballs looking at it in summer
                                                          time.

                                                          Auctions are always a risk and take advantage of human nature. You
                                                          should really work the ring for a good auctioneer selling something
                                                          that's hot and selling high enough it takes an hour or two to sell and
                                                          watch the buyers sweat as they bid over their limit and huddle up with
                                                          their bankers between bids.

                                                          Or better yet see the look on an insincere bidder's face when he was
                                                          trying to make sure a piece of land brought enough to cover the
                                                          mortgage for man who had to take it on a debt when he releases he went
                                                          one bid to far and and ended up bidding and even $300,000 dollars and
                                                          the guy that wanted it had enough and gets in his pick up and drives
                                                          off. Leaving him stuck with $300,000 dollar bid on $200,000 dollar
                                                          piece of land. The auctioneer was laughing about it for years as he
                                                          got paid twice to sell it. Not a much for the first time but enough
                                                          they didn't play games the next time.

                                                          Gordon

                                                          --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, DonH <djhmis@...> wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          > --- On Thu, 7/3/08, Gordon Couger <gcouger@...> wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          > > The lest expensive way to buy
                                                          > > attachments has been to buy incomplete microscopes on ebay
                                                          > > that have what you want and sell back the parts you don¢t
                                                          > > need. I don¢t know if that will continue to be true.
                                                          > > Ebay¢s new rules, the changing times, the knowledge and
                                                          > > actions of buyer & sellers, the amount of extra money
                                                          > > we have to spend and what¢s being offered on eBay are a
                                                          > > constantly changing and evolving system that seems to me to
                                                          > > have changed a lot in the last year.
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          > I can add some current information to that. I think this is
                                                          important to anyone who is planning to buy or sell a scope soon. It
                                                          is not just about eBay.
                                                          >
                                                          > As you know I have offered some items to list members and sold most
                                                          of them. Just recently I began selling on eBay for the first time,
                                                          after 10 years of buying. The results have been interesting.
                                                          >
                                                          > In the past 5 years, the used microscope business was insane. It
                                                          was like the dot-com boom: insane prices were being paid due to
                                                          irrational exuberance, prices that could not possibly be sustained.
                                                          If you wanted an Ortholux Pol, or any parts for it, you nearly had to
                                                          re-mortgage your house. Dealers were using eBay to buy their stock
                                                          and add their own markup--which in most cases is an unwise thing to
                                                          do, since by logic no one else was willing to pay what the dealer paid
                                                          to win it--but the items were still being re-sold at the higher markup
                                                          by the incidental middleman. People who had items sitting on shelves
                                                          and in drawers brought them out of the woodwork and you would see a
                                                          flurry of the same item over a several-week period. If a pol stage
                                                          started at 19.99 and sold for 250, then next one listed would have a
                                                          starting bid of 240, and if that sold for 350, the next one would
                                                          start at 340, etc.
                                                          >
                                                          > Back to the present: About a year ago I bought a rare item for about
                                                          1850. I found out, too late, that I couldn't really use it for its
                                                          intended purpose, but I figured some other microscopist or collector
                                                          would want it. The seller offered to buy it back for only 1250,
                                                          because his business was down. At the time I declined, because I at
                                                          least wanted my money back out of it. A few weeks ago I contacted the
                                                          same dealer willing to accept his offer, but this time he declined
                                                          outright, saying business was even worse and there was no market for
                                                          it. Fortuately I was able to sell it for about 1250 on eBay, and have
                                                          made up the shortfall by selling other misc. items.
                                                          >
                                                          > Most of the items I have sold have been relative bargains, though I
                                                          at least got my money back out of them. However, I put up some items
                                                          at prices far less than they've sold in the past, and in fact you
                                                          don't see them much on eBay any more, but they haven't sold. Two
                                                          years ago I would have had people fighting over them. On the other
                                                          hand, I see people putting up similar items and listing the minimum
                                                          bid at the last auction price, and they don't move. Times are tough.
                                                          >
                                                          > Of course this applies to my experiences; others may differ... I can
                                                          imagine someone will respond "you're wrong, I just saw Item X sell for
                                                          N dollars..." Indeed, this is a GENERAL OBSERVATION about what is
                                                          going on in the market, now that I am in it. I know several dealers
                                                          and high-end collectors, and at least in my circle, everyone agrees
                                                          that sales are down and prices are lower in general.
                                                          >
                                                          > Bottom line: if someone plans to buy a scope and sell off the unused
                                                          parts, do some homework. Look for similar parts on the Internet,
                                                          eBay, and LabX, see what they sell for; or if they sell at all.
                                                          >
                                                          > Business goes in cycles, and I'm sure there will be a microscope
                                                          parts boom again. But if you are looking to make a quick turn-around
                                                          and get your money back, it may not happen soon. Be cautious.
                                                          >
                                                          > best,
                                                          > Don
                                                          >
                                                        • Gordon Couger
                                                          Hi Rob, Here is a link to a manual on a Zeiss Standard and Zeiss WL http://www.zeiss.com/C1256F8500454979/0/8AB2FED1BB0B43A5C1257057004FE6E8
                                                          Message 28 of 30 , Jul 4, 2008
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            Hi Rob,

                                                            Here is a link to a manual on a Zeiss Standard and Zeiss WL
                                                            http://www.zeiss.com/C1256F8500454979/0/8AB2FED1BB0B43A5C1257057004FE6E8\
                                                            /$file/standard_for_transmitted_light.pdf
                                                            <http://www.zeiss.com/C1256F8500454979/0/8AB2FED1BB0B43A5C1257057004FE6E\
                                                            8/$file/standard_for_transmitted_light.pdf>
                                                            I try not to duplicate the documentation on company web sites. like
                                                            www.zeiss.com.

                                                            It should give you an idea what you will be looking at.

                                                            Gordon
                                                            --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, rob kr <glaz_tek@...> wrote:
                                                            >
                                                            > Thanks again, all. This is just the sort of specific information I
                                                            wanted. A dealer not too far from me has a Standard I plan to go take a
                                                            look at, though I have no clue yet how to evaluate it.
                                                            >
                                                            > rob
                                                            >
                                                            > --- On Thu, 7/3/08, Peter G Werner germpore@... wrote:
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            > >
                                                            > > The Zeiss Jr was basically a student scope without Koehler
                                                            > > illumination features, such as
                                                            > > an adjustable field stop on the illuminator. The KH2 comes
                                                            > > with a fixed condenser, and
                                                            > > possibly also no field stop. Those are not features
                                                            > > you'd want and I'm not sure how
                                                            > > replaceable they are on those models. Spare field
                                                            > > diaphragms in particular are not a
                                                            > > terribly common item on the used market as far as I can
                                                            > > tell. Also, the KF2 at
                                                            > > Microscopestore.com looks like it has a third-party
                                                            > > (probably Chinese-made) head on it
                                                            > > rather than the original.
                                                            > >
                                                            > > If you decide to go with Zeiss, I'd go with a Standard,
                                                            > > which are all very upgradable. The
                                                            > > number (Standard 14, 16, 20, etc) have to do with the
                                                            > > features initially installed on the
                                                            > > scope, but to the best of my knowledge, all of these things
                                                            > > are upgradable. (For example,
                                                            > > a Standard 14 comes with a 4-objective nosepiece, while
                                                            > > some other models hold 5
                                                            > > objectives, but you can still add a 5-objective nosepiece
                                                            > > to a 14.)
                                                            > >
                                                            > > When evaluating scopes, generally its a better value to buy
                                                            > > a scope with as many of the
                                                            > > features as you want already installed, but if a
                                                            > > "loaded" scope isn't available or is
                                                            > > excessively expensive compared to slightly less loaded
                                                            > > models, get what's available
                                                            > > knowing that an upgrade path is there if you've bought
                                                            > > an upgradable model to begin
                                                            > > with.
                                                            >



                                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                          • rob kr
                                                            Thanks, Gordon. I looked for this or similar at the Zeiss and somehow missed it.
                                                            Message 29 of 30 , Jul 5, 2008
                                                            • 0 Attachment
                                                              Thanks, Gordon. I looked for this or similar at the Zeiss and somehow missed it.

                                                              --- On Fri, 7/4/08, Gordon Couger <gcouger@...> wrote:

                                                              > From: Gordon Couger <gcouger@...>
                                                              > Subject: [Microscope] Re: thanks and a couple more questions
                                                              > To: Microscope@yahoogroups.com
                                                              > Date: Friday, July 4, 2008, 11:00 PM
                                                              > Hi Rob,
                                                              >
                                                              > Here is a link to a manual on a Zeiss Standard and Zeiss WL
                                                              > http://www.zeiss.com/C1256F8500454979/0/8AB2FED1BB0B43A5C1257057004FE6E8\
                                                              > /$file/standard_for_transmitted_light.pdf
                                                              > <http://www.zeiss.com/C1256F8500454979/0/8AB2FED1BB0B43A5C1257057004FE6E\
                                                              > 8/$file/standard_for_transmitted_light.pdf>
                                                              > I try not to duplicate the documentation on company web
                                                              > sites. like
                                                              > www.zeiss.com.
                                                              >
                                                              > It should give you an idea what you will be looking at.
                                                              >
                                                              > Gordon
                                                              > --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, rob kr
                                                              > <glaz_tek@...> wrote:
                                                              > >
                                                              > > Thanks again, all. This is just the sort of specific
                                                              > information I
                                                              > wanted. A dealer not too far from me has a Standard I plan
                                                              > to go take a
                                                              > look at, though I have no clue yet how to evaluate it.
                                                              > >
                                                              > > rob
                                                              > >
                                                              > > --- On Thu, 7/3/08, Peter G Werner germpore@... wrote:
                                                              > >
                                                              > >
                                                              > > >
                                                              > > > The Zeiss Jr was basically a student scope
                                                              > without Koehler
                                                              > > > illumination features, such as
                                                              > > > an adjustable field stop on the illuminator. The
                                                              > KH2 comes
                                                              > > > with a fixed condenser, and
                                                              > > > possibly also no field stop. Those are not
                                                              > features
                                                              > > > you'd want and I'm not sure how
                                                              > > > replaceable they are on those models. Spare field
                                                              > > > diaphragms in particular are not a
                                                              > > > terribly common item on the used market as far as
                                                              > I can
                                                              > > > tell. Also, the KF2 at
                                                              > > > Microscopestore.com looks like it has a
                                                              > third-party
                                                              > > > (probably Chinese-made) head on it
                                                              > > > rather than the original.
                                                              > > >
                                                              > > > If you decide to go with Zeiss, I'd go with a
                                                              > Standard,
                                                              > > > which are all very upgradable. The
                                                              > > > number (Standard 14, 16, 20, etc) have to do with
                                                              > the
                                                              > > > features initially installed on the
                                                              > > > scope, but to the best of my knowledge, all of
                                                              > these things
                                                              > > > are upgradable. (For example,
                                                              > > > a Standard 14 comes with a 4-objective nosepiece,
                                                              > while
                                                              > > > some other models hold 5
                                                              > > > objectives, but you can still add a 5-objective
                                                              > nosepiece
                                                              > > > to a 14.)
                                                              > > >
                                                              > > > When evaluating scopes, generally its a better
                                                              > value to buy
                                                              > > > a scope with as many of the
                                                              > > > features as you want already installed, but if a
                                                              > > > "loaded" scope isn't available or
                                                              > is
                                                              > > > excessively expensive compared to slightly less
                                                              > loaded
                                                              > > > models, get what's available
                                                              > > > knowing that an upgrade path is there if
                                                              > you've bought
                                                              > > > an upgradable model to begin
                                                              > > > with.
                                                              > >
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                            • gpeyton42
                                                              Here is a similar product: Search Amazom.com for the Mighty Bright Xtraflex Duet2 Music light (the copy/paste URL is 5 lines long) This is a 2-flex-necked
                                                              Message 30 of 30 , Nov 8, 2008
                                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                                Here is a similar product: Search Amazom.com for the Mighty Bright
                                                                Xtraflex Duet2 Music light (the copy/paste URL is 5 lines long)

                                                                This is a 2-flex-necked 4-LED music stand light that runs on
                                                                rechargable batteries, but a power supply is also available for it
                                                                (purchased separately)(take batteries out before using PS). I've used
                                                                it for my B&L stereo w/wo the incandescent illuminator, which is too
                                                                orange, while the LED light is blue-white. It's not super-bright but
                                                                you can use 1-4 LEDs selectable.

                                                                More details on the Shoreline Music website
                                                                http://www.shorelinemusic.com/ (strangely enough)

                                                                Musicians Friend http://accessories.musiciansfriend.com also has
                                                                them sometimes.

                                                                Gary

                                                                --- In Microscope@yahoogroups.com, "Glenn Shipley" <glennshipley@...>
                                                                wrote:
                                                                >
                                                                > Check out American Science and Surplus:
                                                                > http://www.sciplus.com/search.cfm - #93295 SMALL OFFICE LAMPS - USB
                                                                Gooseneck 4 LEDs US $15
                                                                >
                                                                > I have not tried it, but it might come in handy for additional
                                                                incident lighting. I have several of their #92977 LED TABLE LAMPs @
                                                                $7 ea, which use 3 AAA batteries, but it is "temporarily" out of
                                                                stock. Great for field microscope work
                                                                >
                                                                > - Glenn (Chicago, USA)
                                                                >
                                                                >
                                                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                                >
                                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.