Help Me Decide Which Of These Scopes To Buy!

[XZY]

Hello

I am looking at purchasing a stereoscope, of which I know very little about! I have narrowed it down to these two models, and would like some feedback on which one would be better for viewing / working on fossils. The big difference between the two is 3.5 - 90x zoom vs 2.0 - 90x zoom. ( from what I can tell)

These are Omax brand, probably similar in quality to Amscope. ( I would have chosen Amscope, but seems that there are no distributors in Canada, so costs mount with customs / freight, etc)

Also wondering which lighting is best - fluorescent or LED. These are LED, but fluorescent is less expensive.

Any advise would be greatly appreciated.

Regards.

The two that I have chosen.

http://www.microscopenet.com/35x90x-boom-stand-microscope-30mp-camera144-lig
ht-p-9190.html

http://www.microscopenet.com/30mp-digital-camera-stereo-zoom-microscope-2x90x144-light-p-9263.html

[Ridgehiker]

There's lots of questions to ask .

However, I purchased 2 Omax microscopes from them in 2011 (one as a gift). The service was very good. The quality of the scope was beyond what I expected....the equivalent of an instrument several times its value if purchased 20 years ago.

Anyways, what will you be using it for? Perhaps you can be more specific. Preparing macro fossils? preparing microfossils fossils for mounting? Also, very, very important are your expectations concerning photography.

[XZY]

Hi Northstar. Thanks for replying.

I am just hoping to get a better look at my macrofossils and take some pictures to share and enjoy. I will be using it for some preparation, however, at present, I do not have any air tools. I use a electric dremel, so prep techniques are limited. In that regard, a magnifying lamp may be better suited.....? Hoping to get some better tools in the future.

So my intention for the scope is to get a better view and to take some pictures. I chose the 3MP camera over the 9MP , as the cost goes up considerably. Perhaps this is not wise, but then again, I am still limited by my computer and printer capabilities and resolutions.

May I ask which model you have? I am concerned ( maybe unnecessarily so !) about the 2.0 - 90x vs 3.5 - 90x. Is there a preference when viewing fossils. Would you want to have the lower magnification?

And lighting......florescent vs LED ?

On another note, I see you are in Alberta. I went to Tyrell Museum last summer. What a great place ! You are fortunate to live in a province with so much fossil potential !

Thanks,

D.

[John Hamilton]

LED definitely

[pleecan]

Find that fluorescent lighting is more even in illumination than LED ... I use both... also purchase o.3x or 0.5x aux lens that allows increasing working distance for prep work. A boom stand is a must... there is magnification and there is resolution.. to different things a high magnification does not always mean quality... this type of optics typical around 40X should be sufficient for most thing in general....

have fun.

PL

[XZY]

Thank you all for your replies ! The information was very good. I also searched previous forums for info.

I think that this is the unit I will purchase ....( $654 delivered to anywhere in Canada )

If anyone sees anything really wrong with this set up, please advise. I will be making the purchase in a week or so.

Again, thanks for the help. I have been collecting for years, but now want to take my hobby to the next level..............this website is very inspiring

D.

Specifications:

• Model: W43C1-L144L-C30
• Plug and see, no special knowledge needed
• High quality optical glass elements
• Sturdy boom stand provide extra working space and secure microscope head
• 144 LED cold ring light with 48 mm thread adapter
• USB camera included, capture true color video or image on your computer
• Advanced software applications included
• Compatible with Windows 2000/XP/Vista/Windows 7 32-bit
• Manufacturer in business 30+ years

Microscope Head:

• 45°inclined 360° rotatable trinocular head
• Sharp stereo erect images over a super wide field view
• Two ocular-tube diopter adjustment & plusmn
• Adjustabe interpupillary distance: 1-3/4" ~ 2-3/4"(47~73mm)
• A lever to swap the view between the photo tube and the left ocular tube
• Capable to add auxiliary lenses and ring lights
• Diameter of ring light or auxiliary lens mount: 48mm female thread

Magnifications and Objectives:

• Eyepieces: high eyepoint wide field WF10X/20 and WF20X/10
• Objectives: zoom 0.7x-4.5x
• Auxiliary objective lens: 0.5x
• Mount thread: 48mm in diameter
• Total magnification: 3.5x-90x

Focusing:

• Long working distance: 100mm (3-15/16") without 0.5x auxiliary lens and 165mm (6-1/2") with 0.5x auxiliary lens
• Field of view: max 30mm (1-3/16") without 0.5x auxiliary lens and max 60mm (2-3/8") with 0.5x auxiliary lens
• Focusing adjustment range: 50mm (2")
• Metal rack and pinion mechanism

[Ridgehiker]

This should be purchased as a microscope setup and not as a camera set up, especially if you are thinking of photography. As a microscope set up it is good for doing intricate prep work.

My 2 cents. You might want to look at a $150 Omax microscope which will be way more than needed for looking at macro fossils. Greater power and resolution doesn't help with most fossils...no sense viewing below a calcite or silicate crystal ( like having a car that can do 200 mph when the speed limit is 70mph). Microphotography is good for conodonts, foramss, ostracods.

An independent camera is better for most photography, plus it is more versatile. you can use it in the field. And, very important...it is independent of the software needs of matching the scope to your computer(can be more complicated than stated in ad). Will your microscope camera ( probably made a few years ago)be compatible with next years software system?

Anyways, it is a nice set up and these are well made. But do you need it? It takes on added value if you are using it for other natural history, such as insects, plants, etc. but even these are often equally served by a simpler set up and, again, photographs better via a independent camera unless you are down to the real micro level.

An aside...for anyone living in a larger urban center. Check local on line ads for microscopes or place a wanted ad. You might luck in .

Edited November 7, 2013 by Ridgehiker

[XZY]

Hi Northstar.

I appreciate and value your advise........you have more experience here than I !

I will not be photographing at the micro level.......

So, if I go with an independent camera ( which I already own ), are you suggesting that I would just use the zoom feature on the camera, or is there some way of taking a photo of what is being displayed on the stereoscope? Please excuse my ignorance here.......I really don't know.

Good point on future software issues. That could prove to be a problem for sure.

Thanks for your help.

D.

[Ridgehiker]

I'll defer to others on photography. Im treading outside of my comfort zone. A microscope has a narrow field of vision. However, once you expand the field, a camera is better and then you can crop.

Again, microscope cameras are a great tool but they have a purpose. Even a smartphone with an inexpensive ad on can give you the fine detail of most specimens.

[MarcoSr]

I take a lot of pictures each week of micro fossil specimens using a digital microscope. However when I have macro specimens I switch to a camera because of both the depth of view and field of view issues with a microscope. However, you can use stacking software to solve depth of view issues with microscopes.

Marco Sr.

[XZY]

Thanks Macro Sr ! I don't see myself doing any micro fossil photography. After the feedback I have received here, I think I will stick to a conventional camera for macro photography. As well, I am not that computer friendly to consider stacking software, etc

I think I will still get a "tri-ocular" stereocope in the event my interests change - I can add a scope camera later if I think I would use one .........Again, thanks for your input.

Regards

D.

[XZY]

Marco Sr......

Just a question......when you say that you use a regular camera for macro photography, do you mean that you do it through the microscope, or independent of the microscope. ( ie just using zoom features on the camera)

Just wondering - I am new to all this technology

Thanks

D.

[MarcoSr]

Marco Sr......

Just a question......when you say that you use a regular camera for macro photography, do you mean that you do it through the microscope, or independent of the microscope. ( ie just using zoom features on the camera)

Just wondering - I am new to all this technology

Thanks

D.

I couldn't use a regular camera through my microscopes. My microscopes are designed to use my computer screen as the viewing area. They do not have eyepieces. My microscopes have built in cameras which I use for all my micros. I don't typically use my microscope for macros. I just use my regular camera. Some specimens are in between the size of true micros and true macros. If they are really flat I can use my microscope on a long flexible stand to get more field of view and if really flat I don't have depth of view issues. If the specimen has a lot of depth and related features I'll use just my regular camera.

Marco Sr.

Edited November 9, 2013 by MarcoSr

[XZY]

Thanks Marco Sr

The information is helpful.

Take care

D.