…and this is a 
Holiday microscope shopping
Category: Science
Posted on: November 30, 2007 3:23 PM, by PZ Myers
Since Phil has suggestions for holiday telescope shopping, I have to offer some suggestions for microscope shopping. If you really want to get a kid interested in biology, a microscope is a great gift, but I'll give you the price tag right up front: $150 is probably the minimum to get a decent, low-end student scope.
First, a few don'ts. Don't buy a microscope at a toy store, unless you want cheesy, cheap plastic junk. And probably the most important advice: don't judge a microscope by the highest magnification. You'll see lots of ads that shout "1500x!!!", but trust me: you can't get a good 100x objective (they get the 1500 by multiplying the 100x objective lens by a 15x eyepiece) for the prices most people can afford. I do most of my professional microscopy work with a 40x objective and 10x eyepieces — you can see much more with a hiqh quality, low power objective than you can with a high power, low quality objective.
When you're shopping around, most of what you'll see are called compound microscopes. These are the traditional kind of microscope you'll see, and they're often sold with sets of prepared glass slides. You'll need slides in order to set up specimens, the specimens have to be very thin, and you visualize what you're looking at by shining light through the specimen — this is called transmitted light microscopy.
You don't want one of those.
I've owned several compound scopes, and they're wonderful and they give great images…but it takes more prep work (in most cases) to set up the specimens, and you're going to be much more limited in the range of things you can look at. Imagine that your kid catches a fly and wants to look at it; you can put the wings on a compound scope, but anything else, you're going to need to cut thin sections or mount bits and pieces on a slide. It's not fun for most young'uns.
What you want to be able to do is pop the whole animal on the scope and look at it in closeup. You want what is called a stereoscope or a dissecting scope. It's an instrument that looks something like this:
(That's not the $150 model, I'm afraid—it's the several thousand dollar high end model I use in my lab.)
These beauties have several features that make them a perfect scope for the young student. First, note the working distance, the space between the specimen and the lens. It's tens of centimeters, enough space for someone to put their hand under there and look at nifty dermal papillae or scabs or their pet gerbil, without squishing or cutting them into thin sections. On a compound scope, you've got fractions of a millimeter.
It also uses epi-illumination, or light from above, and what you see is light reflected from rather than transmitted through your specimen. Again, this is to the immense benefit of the pet gerbil. It's really that easy to use: put the object you want to examine on the base, turn on an illuminator (a desk lamp will work, even), and focus. No great delicacy required, nor do you need to do any special preparation. If you want to do transmitted light illumination, you can buy elevated stands with a glass plate where the black disk is above, and shine light from underneath.
A Leica Wild M3 stereozoom like the one above is overkill for student use, but you can find lots of good scopes at a range of prices at scientific supply houses. Look for educational microscopes; the student models are usually built to be fairly tough and low maintenance. You can find them at these fine institutions (I get no kickbacks from these referrals).
One other thing I'm sometimes asked is about photomicrography — you see something really cool in the scope, so you want to take a picture of it. There are inexpensive scopes with cameras built in, like the QX-5…which is sold in toy stores and looks it, and I can't really recommend it unless you really want something quick and dirt cheap. You can also get good stereoscopes with built-in digital cameras, but camera technology is improving so quickly that it often means you are paying more than it's worth to get an obsolet camera system.
I recommend getting really cheap at first and just getting a tripod. Take the camera you use for home photography, and just aim it down one of the eyepieces and take a picture. You'd be surprised at how well this often works. It's hard to do well with a hand-held camera, though, which is why I suggest using a tripod.
Alternatively, there is a good market now for camera adapters for microscopes. These typically consist of a metal sleeve that attaches to the lens of your camera, and then slides over the eyepiece tube. Zarf Enterprises is the source for a range of different adapters, or if you're good at shop and know how to mill metal, you can make your own.
Here's one example of a picture I took a while back, of a freshly eclosed white mutant Drosophila. I just happened to find this pretty pale fly as I was working through my stocks, and on a whim, put her on the stereoscope and snapped a picture — it really is fast and easy.
It's also easy to zoom in and look at details, like the bristles on the head. Those microscopes that advertise 1500x magnifications sound impressive, but really, at that mag you'd be staring at a cluster of cells in one small part of a bristle, if you could even get something as large as a fruit fly's head under the objective, and in a cheap scope, it would be a blurry smear.
Go ahead, give a kid a nice little microscope for squidmas (or christmas, if you choose to celebrate it) this year. It's a wonderful way to get the little rascals excited about biology, and you'll be entertained as they scurry about the house looking for the grossest, creepiest things they can find to look at. The joy on a child's face as they look into a spider's eyes for the first time…it's priceless. Oh, and when they discover the parasites living in their eyelashes…!
Life Science
Comments
Thanks, this is great. The Canon recommended a good microscope for the budding young scientist -- and I liked the idea but didn't really know where to begin. Thanks to this post, a certain little girl and arthropod-lover I know will be disappointed when she doesn't get a Wii this squidmas.
Posted by: Houdini's Ghost | November 30, 2007 3:36 PM
I had a microscope and a telescope as a child. The former had a far more profound effect on me. The ability to pick something up and then examine it more and more closely is a pretty amazing thing.
Posted by: Galbinus_Caeli | November 30, 2007 3:37 PM
i've been thinking of getting an "EyeClops" for a friend's 6-year-old. it's a 200x and plugs in to show the image on a standard TV. they seem to run $40-50
i'm hoping the "video game" feel will help keep his interest
Posted by: skyotter | November 30, 2007 3:45 PM
I was lucky that a bunch of teaching scopes in the Department were replaced a few years ago and a few were just given away so I got one. My kids love it. A new one of that quality would probably cost in the thousands.
Posted by: Coturnix | November 30, 2007 3:45 PM
Never having studied biology formally, I recently ponied up some money for a decent microscope myself. The best source for subject materials turned out to be my aquarium. Eventually I started removing the excess plant cuttings from my living room pond and tossing them into a separate small well-lit tank that has spawned a great trove of hydras, flatworms, nematodes, snails, and algal mats. Not to mention a couple of small creatures I have not yet identified. I feed it nothing but sunlight and plant waste from the other tank and in turn it has formed a dense invertebrate ecology.
Posted by: John Vreeland | November 30, 2007 3:47 PM
Thanks... my little girl keeps asking for a microscope. I haven't seen Phil's article, but I bet it starts the exact same way - don't judge the 'scope by its magnification. I had figured that was probably going to be true for micro as well as tele.
We're done with our shopping for Yak Shaving Day, but perhaps a microscope will be one of her birthday presents.
Posted by: ShavenYak | November 30, 2007 3:48 PM
Houdini's Ghost #1,
I swear there must be a market for some kind of Wiicroscope. Like a game that involves a functioning microscope that connects to the Wii.
Posted by: Mike P | November 30, 2007 3:49 PM
[Looking to Buy a Microscope?
We certainly are. Maybe not this year but sometime soon and I've read page after page of recommendations to try and educate myself. Then comes PZ over at Pharyngula...]
Thank you! We're going to have to buy a microscope soon for our homeschooling and this post is very much appreciated!
Posted by: Dawn | November 30, 2007 3:50 PM
Awesome, PZ. It's wonderful not only for analysing insects or other small animals, but great to identify and toy with flower parts, if you have a young botanist at home ;)
Posted by: Gabe | November 30, 2007 4:00 PM
Instructions for viewing your own facial Demodex mites are on page 177 of E. O. Wilson's "The Diversity Of Life". However, you'll want a compound microscope instead of a dissecting microscope. Showing off your own facial livestock is one of the great joys of owing a microscope. But somehow the line "Want to come up and see my mites?" never seemed to work with the women.
Posted by: Mike Huben | November 30, 2007 4:01 PM
Yes, I would love a stereo microscope again someday. I had a cheap one as a kid and loved looking at pond scum wildlife and watching brine evaporate and crystalize.
Meanwhile, here's an interesting item:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/9955/
Posted by: Noni Mausa | November 30, 2007 4:01 PM
Any good ones here?
Posted by: Galbinus_Caeli | November 30, 2007 4:02 PM
One thing you can do is put a macro lens on a digital camera, like the one I describe about halfway down this page. I started with a Canon Powershot A95 camera, got an adapter for it that would allow addition of supplementary lenses and filters, and used a "macro coupler" to mount a reversed lens from an old 35 mm SLR camera. On a rigid mount that I scavenged, this is almost a microscope - it can take pictures of things like this mite, which is only a bit over 1 mm in diameter. This rig is of course no match for a real stereomicroscope, but it isn't bad considering that I cobbled it together from stuff I mostly had laying about for about $30. Plus, it gets you pictures. The Canon Powershot A-series cameras have a pretty decent macro mode, and the newer ones will let you do pretty well even without the supplemental lenses, provided you have a solid mount.
Posted by: tceisele | November 30, 2007 4:07 PM
This is the wrong way around - you can look right at whatever it is, but you have to go through pain to get a photograph? When will they sell a $150 dollar microscope that doesn't have an eyepiece but plugs into your PC?
Posted by: Paul Crowley | November 30, 2007 4:12 PM
I wish you would have posted this last year -- We bought a decent compound microscope, but I think this type would have been much more fun for the kids.
Posted by: No One of Consequence | November 30, 2007 4:14 PM
Great, with a microscope like that, the kids can see the irreducible complexity of the fly eye for themselves!
(I'm just kidding, PZ, please don't disemvowel me...)
Posted by: Glenn | November 30, 2007 4:17 PM
My parents got me a cheap microscope when I was little. It must have worked, because now I'm a pathologist. I just got an Olympus BX-41 microscope for 4 grand. It kicks ass.
Posted by: Dwimr | November 30, 2007 4:22 PM
I would recommend one of the several inexpensive ($5-30) plastic microscopes available; both for younger children who might destroy a more expensive model, and as a knock around portable to carry on outings. It matters far less if they get lost or destroyed.
These can be found in most good (ie. smaller, local, non-chain) toystores as well as some of the big-box chains. Even "cheesy plastic junk" has its uses.
I have bought several for the children in my life (I'm a non-breeder), and kept one (a $30 model which can be used with or without a stand) for myself. While nowhere near the quality of a good lab microscope, it gets a lot more use. They can be simpler to focus, even if the image quality isn't as good.
Personally, I'm not crazy about TV microscopes. Best use comes from something you can carry around and use on the spot.
Posted by: Jaycubed | November 30, 2007 4:23 PM
I'd actually recommend the Proscope rather than a traditional microscope (and this from someone whose actual degree is microbiology!)
Much more portable, rugged (they let cops use it in the field ;-) and you can look at stuff in situ, as well as capture movies (aim it at some bread yeast in a petri dish, and let it go for a while. Cool beans stuff!).
Plus, your kids can play CSI:The Neverending Spinoff.
Works with Macs and PC's (their Mac software, in fact is WAY useful for ANY usb camera attached to the mac...and free to download.)
Posted by: BruceJ | November 30, 2007 4:25 PM
Paul@13:
Can you go $199? Check out:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/923a/
ThinkGeek is generally a great place to browse for geeky squidmas gifts. I have a friend who really needs a capsaicin molecule T-shirt!
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | November 30, 2007 4:27 PM
Now that we've covered telescopes and microscopes, tell us everything you know about the following:
Cinemascope
cystoscope
electroscope
electrotachyscope
endoscope
fibrescope
finderscope
fluoroscope
gastroscope
gonioscope
gyroscope
horoscope
iconoscope
kaleidoscope
kinescope
kinetoscope
laryngoscope
oscilloscope
Otoscope
periscope
phenakistoscope (phenakistiscope)
praxinoscope
Rotoscope
spectroscope
stethoscope
stroboscope
teleidoscope
I've got a sixteen-year-old niece who wants to be a doctor, and I figure early exposure to endoscopy will make or break that career.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 30, 2007 4:51 PM
This is cool. My youngest got a compound microscope from my eldest last year. I haven't been impressed by the commercially availble stuff packaged for kids (even the stuff from the Smith!) I have to agree, it's probably worth the money to go for something with some quality. I grew up with my own microscope, and I always wanted my kids to have one, too.
Posted by: dorid | November 30, 2007 4:55 PM
I've been kind of interested in getting a microscope for some time. A total newb question has ben nagging me though; Why ar'nt all microsocoped directly connected to computers (with their large screens and advanced capabilities for orientation etc) these days? For me it seems like a nobrainer..
/M
Posted by: Jebus | November 30, 2007 5:04 PM
When a young teeanger I bought (with my own money, $150 if I recall correctly) a decent American Optical stereo microscope. I was able to get a good scope, used, through an aunt who worked in a research lab at the time. I used it for examining my rock collection and anything else that was handy.
These days I earn my living as an electrical engineer, that same microscope still has a space on my electronics workbench where it is used for soldering surface mount components and inspection of small assemblies.
Posted by: Andrew Cooper | November 30, 2007 5:08 PM
The QX-5 is $150? I picked it up at a garage sale for $5, and would have never guessed they charged that much for it. If you can find it for under $10, it's probably worth it, but not any more than that.
Posted by: Fatboy | November 30, 2007 5:09 PM
#20 - never mind that, what about Electroscope Galvanascope Hydroscope Polemescope Telescope Microscope Seismoscope Periscope Polariscope Kaleidoscope and Stethoscope?
Posted by: Paul Crowley | November 30, 2007 5:09 PM
Jebus,
A microscope with a camera port is slightly more expensive than most student scopes, but standard with many, if not most, upper end scopes. Combine that with a decent digital camera, connect the camera to the computer, and you have just what you asking about. Hard to find a real lab without such capability on at least a few of their 'scopes. Everyone needs pretty pictures for their publications.
It is also still true that the human eye sees better detail and across a wider range of illumination than a camera does under most situations, without a lot of fuss in the setup. Thus most microscopes are still human vision based; cheaper, faster, easier. Simpler can be better.
Posted by: Andrew Cooper | November 30, 2007 5:19 PM
Thank you very much Andrew.
Now i'm of to the simple task of religiously brainwashing myself into believing I actually need one, instead of just wanting. =)
Posted by: Jebus | November 30, 2007 5:28 PM
Mike @#10: what kind of women you hanging around, then? Sheesh, no accounting for taste. I'd be there in about two seconds.
Posted by: octopod | November 30, 2007 5:33 PM
What about simply using a close-up lens set on a digital camera? Our digital camera is already a 10X zoom. You can buy a close-up lens set with 4 lenses (up to 10X) for under $30. Would you get reasonably good results with something like that?
Posted by: MikeM | November 30, 2007 5:52 PM
Want to see my photomicrographs?
Posted by: Bruce Thompson | November 30, 2007 5:59 PM
That was extremely helpful as I'm looking for something like that for my 12 year old.
Another place to look would be on ebay if you know what you are looking for of course.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | November 30, 2007 6:02 PM
I've been telling my non-majors biology students for years that our government should be issuing each citizen at the age of five a microscope. The world would be a better place. A nice binocular would be a good thing too.
Cheers,
Jim
Posted by: Jim | November 30, 2007 6:34 PM
Microscope - crap, the one thing I forgot when I wrote a post about holiday science gifts recently :) No, seriously, I had a microscope as a kid. I think it only went to 100x - this was a long time ago, practically in the days of Leeuwenhoek - but I remember being really impressed by the butterfly wing samples that came with it in the package. Early exposure to stuff like this is really important.
Posted by: Ms. S | November 30, 2007 6:39 PM
Well that's fine and all, if the microscope is meant for a little kid. But what if you're a sophomore in college majoring in biology? Would a 40x-1600x compound microscope being sold at ~$350 be worth it? I wouldn't want the really high powers to be
I used to have a cheap compound microscope, and loved it. I've used stereo microscopes, and frankly I think they're mostly useless. It might have been because the school ones were cheap, but the only thing I liked about them was the fact that I could look at the sweat glands in my hand. For most other things, you can just use a compound microscope in low power and shine a light from above. Works fine in my experience.... or just use a loupe.
Posted by: Mus | November 30, 2007 7:14 PM
I've wanted a microscope for myself from the first moment I looked through an Olympus at school some forty years ago. I realised going cheap would be pointless. So, many years later, I got me a complete Lomo set for the price of a bare Olympus frame. I stopped at the UV option though, that would have doubled the price ;-).
Today, at my astronomy club, we always have two Zeiss stereo microscopes out besides the telescopes themselves. They are a BIG hit with kids and adults alike. Any scrap of dirt becomes worth looking at under a good microscope. We also have a QX5 at hand to take pictures which we then can send to visitors by email. For an impression of an event look here.
@Brucej: Big thanks for the ProScope software tip; I didn't realise it accommodated other devices as well.
Posted by: skblllzzzz | November 30, 2007 7:16 PM
Thanks! I've been thinking lately that my House o' Junk lacks a microscope.
I'm watching a "surgical snakebot" on Discovery Channel's Daily Planet science show do pericardial heart surgery on an experimental subject. They can use the "snake" to slip between the heart and its surrounding membrane to cauterize tissue that triggers irregular heartbeat. If it works, it could be working on my brother-in-law in a few years.
Posted by: Monado | November 30, 2007 7:38 PM
If you really want to get a kid interested in biology, a microscope is a great gift
Nuts to the kids, I want a microscope of my own.
So, any good suggestions for decent bacteriological microscopes? And how hard is it to retrofit one with a darkfield condensor?
As far as taking picture, here's a cheap and easy trick: Get a digital camera, click the "close up pictures" switch (the one used so that you can focus on objects a foot or so away), and stick the camera's lens right up to the eyepiece. I've used this trick to get microscope images before - I suspect it also works for telescopes and the like.
Posted by: SMC | November 30, 2007 7:40 PM
SMC- I haven't tried this myself, but this site might come in helpful: http://tinyurl.com/335xtd
Posted by: Mus | November 30, 2007 7:53 PM
I second that advice. A slim compact camera, like this one, works great when you stick it to a stereoscope's eyepiece. You can even make videos!
Posted by: windy | November 30, 2007 8:10 PM
Driveby post. Has anyone noticed this:
'The evolution debate in Polk County is drawing national attention. A posting on the popular science blog Pharyngula said Polk "may be our next trouble spot. They have a creationist majority on the school board."
http://www.theledger.com/article/20071121/NEWS/711210437/1004
Posted by: Boko999 | November 30, 2007 8:13 PM
My first microscope was something from a Montgomery Wards catalog as an Xmas gift. Got it and a couple boxes of premounted specimens. I was six years old.
A couple decades later I get work as a field industrial hygienist doing airborne fiber counting at asbestos abatement sites. My scope was a Canon set up for phase contrast. I trimmed the plastic lenses from an old pair of polarized sunglasses so I can set it up with cross polars to see some very pretty colors with crystals & minerals. When my company closed my office I was given the scope as a fine parting gift.
A few years later a friend traded a B&L zoom stereoscope for some air montioring services. That unit rocks...I've begun a collection of dead bugs and sands from around the country (and trying to get sands from around the world.)
I also got a couple ancient single mag inspection scopes from LabX.
I'd like to get a hold of an SEM.
Posted by: Willy | November 30, 2007 8:19 PM
A fact which continually annoys the hell out of me, given the discrepancy in contrast, detail, and quality between the epithelial cells I see on the slide, and my photomicrographs of those same cells. Are there any workarounds or tips for improving the photos (as opposed to image manipulation in PhotoShop, which I understand is not kosher for illustrations for publications)? It's a Nikon DXM1200 camera and scope with ACT-1 software, if the specifics matter, but generic info would also be helpful.
I'd welcome any tips or pointers anyone knows about getting better-quality photomicrographs (meaning cutting down on the discrepancy between what I see and what I shoot) on the spot.
Thanks in advance!
Posted by: thalarctos | November 30, 2007 8:21 PM
Oh, 99% of the epithelial cells are Pap-stained, with the occasional Giessen or Giemsa stain, if those specifics would play into any solutions.
Again, thanks--I suspect the only answer, really, is "get better equipment", but still want to check if there's something else I could be doing until then.
Posted by: thalarctos | November 30, 2007 8:28 PM
Nikon DXM1200
the camera is a digital camera.
what you have to realize is that the camera essentially "photoshops" the image before you even see it, unless you bypass the camera's internals entirely.
the only thing I can suggest in an immediate sense is to make sure you are using the highest quality lens possible, with a good contrast ratio (that includes the scope). However, I have always found the most accurate reproductions are done by shooting in RAW format (only stores the raw image pixels, with no in-camera processing), and doing all the processing yourself in photoshop. I know, sounds like too much work, and is certainly not the "on the spot" recommendation you really want, but there it is.
it simply always takes a bit of work to get a photo to match your own eyes' (well, technically brain's) impression of a scene. I'm sure the software you use, along with the camera, automatically tries to give pleasing and consistent results, but there is such variation in contrast, color, lighting, etc., even when taking slide shots, that relying on such will not always give the results you want.
If you think you are at the end of being able to get good images with your current setup, and want to move on to editing the raw data yourself...
If you need help with setups or workflows that ease the process and give you good results, just email me (I left it in the other thread you tried to contact me in).
Personally, I gave up relying on a digital camera's own electronics to give me a pleasing result about a month after I started using digital cameras to begin with. I only shoot in raw any more.
it's more work to do it yourself, but not hard to learn (especially with the raw editing tools around these days) and I am always more pleased with the end result.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 30, 2007 8:46 PM
Nuts to the kids, I want a microscope of my own.
LOL
yeah, I do miss the Zeiss dissecting scope I owned 20 years or so ago (foolishly, I donated it to the biology lab at my old high school).
too damned expensive to get a really good scope any more.
I do occasionally see some good deals on scopes on Ebay.
might try starting here, if nobody has mentioned it already:
http://www.microscopestore.com/
they have a decent used section.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 30, 2007 8:51 PM
"Nuts to the kids, I want a microscope of my own."
Posted by: SMC
That seems to be the general tone of most of these posts. If you want to help educate a child it is necessary to think like a child rather than act like a child.
Little wonder that science education is in such a bad state.
.
Posted by: Jaycubed | November 30, 2007 9:22 PM
Ichthyic, once again you demonstrate that I can always count on you for excellent information.
The info on raw format was very illuminating--clearly, I have some learning to do about what's under the hood of the camera which I had just taken for granted.
Sounds like what I had envisioned just isn't doable--to take an example from the old days, I was expecting to hear something like "make your aperture more narrow to increase your depth of field" to improve the photo as I took it. But it sounds like I was operating under the wrong "paradigm".
If "on the spot" isn't the way it works, then I need to adjust the way I think of it, and I admit that it's daunting to think about reshooting >5000 bear pap smear slides, but if that's what has to be done, then that's what I have to do. But I do have a question if editing raw files in PhotoShop after the fact is going to raise any eyebrows when it comes time to publish? That would be my only concern, after I get over the idea of reshooting that many slides in raw format.
yes, neither the PI nor I are pros at microscopy, and although we suckered^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hrecruited a pro cytotechnologist into helping us, it's clear that we were both learning as we went. But I have gotten to the point that even to my untrained eye, the image looks so much better in the eyepiece than the same one on the screen that I realize I need to do something.
I will--I was already saving it in my surgery plan for an anticipated return to diving, but will be in touch much sooner.
I'm going to get used to the idea of reshooting that many slides, and really, my only concern is that I don't want to be seen as improperly manipulating the images. If this is kosher in publication circles, then I'll commit to learning it and carrying it out.
Thank you, Ichthyic--you are, as always, a generous fount of useful info!
Posted by: thalarctos | November 30, 2007 9:30 PM
http://shopping.discovery.com/product-15101.html?endecaSID=11693939E538
A bit too toyish for adolescents, but a good sturdy microscope for younger kids that does both kinds of lighting.
Posted by: Thanny | November 30, 2007 9:33 PM
Little wonder that science education is in such a bad state.
ummm, what's that now?
You're way off base here.
microscopes are an expensive tool, and many of us miss the ones we had in our labs at various places.
you not only missed the tone, you missed the message, and then made a hugely erroneous statement besides.
yikes.
one thing you COULD salvage out of that morass, is that indeed one of the reasons science education is on ever shakier ground is the lack of funding for things like microscopes to begin with.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 30, 2007 9:33 PM
Good thread.
One note -- it's possible to make an incredibly good magnifier out of scrap, using one of tose little penlight bulbs that have a glass lens at the tip (threaded base, AA-size old penlights). I found this in either Popular Mechanics or SciAm sometime in the 1950s. Take the bulb, put it in cloth, break the tip off, knock the little sharp bits off the lens part with a file, set it in the little hole in a fender washer in a bit of glue.
To adjust it, you mount the the fender washer on a thin springy board or bit of metal, with one end fixed to a board, and the middle part held up on a spring with a screw down through it (or a bolt and wingnut) so you can move the lens up and down. Put a bottle cap on a nail at the end under the lens to drop your sample into.
It's a daylight/bright light tool, quite useful, simple and adjustable. Those tiny little lenses are the same kind the original telescope makers used, just drops of glass allowed to cool. You get close to 100x.
Someone can probably find the original article somewhere. Just a reminder, look for the old burnt out light bulb in a junk drawer. You don't ever throw anything _out_ do you?
Of course a little searching will find a lot of similar ideas, and there's a lot more junk optics around now than when I was a kid with one neighbor and three miles of piney woods to the next house. Scrounge.
Oh, here's something using a similar lens:
http://www.mindspring.com/~alshinn/
"... This microscope looks very much like the one in the museum at Utrecht (circa 1690). It has a lens made of a 2mm dia. glass ball, a power of about 180X, and surprisingly good resolution..."
Posted by: Hank Roberts | November 30, 2007 9:33 PM
Willy, you sound like the guy who traded up from a paper clip to a house! :)
If anyone's interested in photomicrography the easy way, get thee to ebay and pick up a Nikon Coolpix 4500. That was the last one they made that was easily compatible with microscope oculars (using adapters, of course, which you'll also have to scavenge) but they ROCK. Incredibly easy to use and really good pictures.
Posted by: Carlie | November 30, 2007 9:42 PM
But I do have a question if editing raw files in PhotoShop after the fact is going to raise any eyebrows when it comes time to publish?
again, if someone raises a stink, then they haven't a clue how digital cameras work to begin with, as what the electronics in camera do when you take a picture is to essentially run very similar algorithms to what photoshop does in order to process the raw image into one mostly satisfactory to a general consumer.
One could even argue that chemical processing of physical media coming from a film camera does much the same thing. there are many ways to develop a piece of film that can drastically alter its end appearance. Generally speaking, there are accepted "processes" (that are even named and numbered), in order to give standardized results in a film lab. Those processes, as I'm sure you know from any roll of film you've ever taken to be processed, do not always give the most accurate result.
It works analogously inside of a digital camera; it's just that the chemical processing of film images is replaced by software manipulation of digital information stored on an image chip. The digital camera manufacturers program their cameras to give a 'standardized' result that is generally pleasing to the majority of consumers (certainly NOT always the most accurate).
Indeed, I could make a better argument that far more accurate results are obtained by bypassing the generally klunky software routines built into the digital camera in favor of using the far more powerful and precise tools available on a home computer. Again, analagous to film in that developing a roll of film yourself using your own equipment can often render more accurate results.
Now, from a legal standpoint, it could be argued that a fixed processing scheme that produces standardized results, accurate or not, might be preferred. this does help remove the "subjectivity" out of the equation, and allows for easier reproducibility. going even farther, some photo publications, though no journals i have run into yet, actually require submission of raw images to begin with. Likely you should always check with the specific journal you intend to submit to wrt to their image submission rules.
However, if you are intending to make your digital image actually resemble as closely as possible what YOU see when you look through the scope, you really have to do the processing yourself.
you can always get a third party to check your work from time to time, to see if they think your reproductions are accurate from their standpoint.
Moreover, you can standardize your process quite a bit, especially when taking lots of very similar images, and you can even record your actions if others wished to reproduce them for themselves.
er, this is getting a bit more detailed than I wanted to go into here though.
just shoot me an email and we can continue there.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 30, 2007 9:55 PM
maybe you should do a follow-up post after the holidays and see what kind of reactions the recipients involved had.
I just bought my 8 yr old grandson an eyeclops, a "bionic eye" that advertises 200X magnification and hooks up to the TV. It may not qualify as a scientific instrument but it looks like a good combination of fun,learning, and being able to gross out grandma and little sister.
Posted by: Kevin | November 30, 2007 10:36 PM
The past couple of years I've gotten microscopes for my kids, one traditional compound microscope and one dissecting scope, and I have to agree that the dissecting microscope is much more useful and fun for exploring things found around the house and in the yard. And holding a digital camera up to the eyepiece works reasonably well for taking pictures.
This is more or less the same scope. (The particular model I got has since been discontinued, but this one is almost identical.)
Posted by: Kurt | November 30, 2007 11:06 PM
thalarctos, it's okay to manipulate images in Photoshop for publication. It's just not okay to selectively manipulate them -- you can brighten the entire image, for example, but you can't selectively brighten the gel band you like or erase some cells in the field that unfortunately don't fit your hypothesis.
The Journal of Cell Biology has a good basic primer here:
http://www.jcb.org/cgi/content/full/166/1/11
I am not sure if seeing that article requires an institutional login.
Posted by: Mollie | November 30, 2007 11:17 PM
I am not sure if seeing that article requires an institutional login.
nope.
it's available in pdf format too.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 30, 2007 11:25 PM
thanks for the pointer, Mollie--that looks like a very good place for me to start.
Posted by: thalarctos | November 30, 2007 11:35 PM
"Little wonder that science education is in such a bad state.
ummm, what's that now?
You're way off base here.
microscopes are an expensive tool, and many of us miss the ones we had in our labs at various places.
you not only missed the tone, you missed the message, and then made a hugely erroneous statement besides."
Posted by: Ichthyic
I do not think I am offbase and stand by my comments. This thread is about buying a microscope for kids. The vast majority of the comments have to do with the fantasies of adults. By ignoring the practical needs of children for their own fantasies, I think this is counterproductive to the education of children. Just because one is a scientist, or even an educator of adults in science, it doesn't mean they understand the educational needs of children.
Posted by: Jaycubed | November 30, 2007 11:39 PM
I do not think I am offbase and stand by my comments.
oh by all means, continue to stand by a pointless and egregious interpretation of harmless off color commentary.
By ignoring the practical needs of children for their own fantasies, I think this is counterproductive to the education of children.
LOL
you're a complete ignoramus if you think that's what those comments meant.
it's an off color remark meant as a joke, fool. hardly intended to imply we should short change kids in favor of our own fantasies.
perhaps there is a cultural divide here, but if not, I think you should stop before you embarrass yourself further.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 1, 2007 12:00 AM
Pssst, jaycubed - Adults need education too. Science isn't just for children, and it's not just children who can benefit from some homebrew education. (Why is it that even after all these years, any invocation of "for the children" automatically makes so many people forget that adults are people too?) There's really no rational reason to keep the thread limited to child-safe equipment, and indeed would argue that trying to exclude eager adults who can pass along their interest in science is itself extremely counterproductive to the science education of children.
If you have somehow genuinely missed the desperate need for adults with an eagerness for and interest in science right now, try reading the news sometime.
Besides, while very few people have the combination of wealth and foolishness required to buy very expensive scientific equipment for children who are likely too young to really appreciate it (such as a good bacteriological microscope - I know what kind of a mess *I* would have made of trying to use an oil objective when I was younger...), having interested adults with such tools makes it a lot more likely that one will be around to provide access and supervision should a child become genuinely interested. That's kind of important when your local 8-year-old wants to look at something that needs to be heat-fixed (for example), unless you feel comfortable with 8-year-olds playing with Bunsen burners unsupervised.
How this "ignores the practical needs of children" and is "counterproductive to the education of children" I really don't see. Or were you just assuming that any adult who expresses an interest in the thread is going to sit on their porch with their stuff all day, yelling at the kids to get off of their lawn?
P.S. Thanks, Mus - I was wondering if it could possibly be as easy as that...
Posted by: SMC | December 1, 2007 12:32 AM
Thalarctos, one of the reasons I've found why the image you see through your eyes and the pictures are different is that the focal length for the camera tube and the eyepieces are not the same. When working at any sort of magnification even a few mm will result in an out of focus image. If you have live image capability it is often better to do your fine focus "on-screen". You might check the camera mount it might be adjustable or you might need to mill a new one. That said, I agree ith the earlier comments - try take pictures in RAW format, or, if that isn't available, in tiff. If you're forced to use jpeg use the lowest possible compression and highest quality setting.
Posted by: DrYak | December 1, 2007 1:16 AM
Thanks for this. I have a quick question:
For camera adapters, what is the typical eyepiece barrel outside diameter?
I have all the necessary adapters to attach two of my cameras to my large selection of telescopes... was wondering whether eyepiece diameters would be the same...
Posted by: Brain Hertz | December 1, 2007 1:26 AM
You can get decent stuff on ebay if you're patient. I bought a demo Oly SZX-9 system for ... well, I don't want to say. But before that I bought a minty Bausch & Lomb Stereozoom for $300. Used B&L Stereozooms are ubiquitous on ebay (they are widely used in the electronics industry) and solid gear. You'll also find them rebranded as Leicas. They are much better than the Chinese junk they peddle at Ward's, Microscope store, etc. Cheaper, too.
Posted by: ~!@# | December 1, 2007 1:31 AM
If you DO want a transmitted light compound microscope for looking at blood cells and the like, the cheapest basic cytology-quality microscope I've found new is the LW Scientific "Revelation III", available for $455 from labessentials.com, and microscopesusa.com and greatscopes.com will price-match. Mechanical stage (ESSENTIAL for any sort of prolonged use), achromatic optics, critical (Abbe) illumination with adjustable iris, coaxial focus with infinite fine focis. Has a nice coarse focus stop that lets you rack down the stage, change the slide, and pull it right back into focus.
It comes with a couple of condenser filters; I leave the blue filter in all the time to compensate for the reddish light from the dimmed bulb.
Usage notes:
- Adjusting the condenser is essential, and most people don't know how. First, focus it; it should be very close to the slide, and the ground glass pattern should be almost in focus; blur it just enough to not be distracting. Never touch that condenser focus again unless you start using microscope slides of different thickness. Second, adjust the iris for the desired contrast. You will need to re-adjust every time you change magnification. (If you take out the eyepiece, you can see the iris. The iris should be between fully open and halfway closed, as seen through the eye-tube.) Third, use the dimmer to adjust the brightness. Adjusting the first changes the other two, but do NOT use it for that purpose! Repeat: adjust image contrast using the little hidden iris lever. Do NOT use the large obvious condenser focus knob for the purpose!
- On mine, the condenser was not well centered. I adjusted the setscrews holding it in place to center it in the field of view. (Again, take out the eyepiece and look down the tube to see the iris.)
- Learn how to parfocalize the microscope, so things stay in focus when you change magnification. To do that, focus on something at high power (100x or 400x) using the main focus knob, then go down to 40x, and adjust each eyepiece focus to bring it into focus. If you had to make a large adjustment, repeat the process.
Also remember that while slides can be washed and re-used, and cover slips too if you're careful, they are basically disposable. Get lots. And don't break yourself on the microscope; it's MOST of the cost, but leave enough for a few extras like stain. (A basic three-component "diff-quick" type stain is all you need to start. But neat housekeepers beware: it's called "stain" for a very very good reason! It can leave permanent marks on stainless steel and porcelain.)
Posted by: Peeper | December 1, 2007 2:34 AM
How old is old enough? My 8 yo nephew is old enough, but show no particular interest in small things (he's into building things and hates bugs). My 4 yo nephew loves bugs and art, but he's has trouble standing still for more than a few minutes. I'd like to get the older one a scope now, but I'm tempted to wait until the younger is old enough to enjoy it himself. Any ideas?
Posted by: Diane | December 1, 2007 2:55 AM
It's on the pricy side for a toy or even for most classrooms, but at about $1000 the Motic K400 is a pretty good Chinese knockoff of the classic Wild M5A stereomicroscope.
I don't know how sturdy it is in the long run (I use a twenty year old Wild daily, and suspect the Motic won't make it that far), but it's much better than a cheap plastic Zeiss dissecting scope I saw.
Posted by: Warren Terra | December 1, 2007 4:02 AM
Hello Ichthyic,
Man is there anything you don't have expertise in? Sheesh! that is really good information you gave thalarctos re image editing, especially with regards using RAW format. I spent a decade in the 90's working as a digital graphics consultant, went on to other things then a few years back spent 2 years working for ACD Systems Ltd., when I joined the company they had just purchased Deneba Software who had developed a high end scientific graphics package called Canvas. ACD See is more geared to mass market photo editing but their software is pretty decent and cost effective even for that. The current version of Canvas is Canvas 11 unfortunate ly they have discontinued their support for the Mac platform but their Windows version now includes their scientific module add on right out of the box. Don't know if you've ever heard of this app but it has some really fabulous features. I fear that since the science market is a very small niche for ACD See they haven't been keeping it up to speed as much as they should. Too bad cause this product is the swiss army knife of scientific image editing and creation. I did a year of tech support on it so I got to learn it in depth. I do not work for ACD See any longer but highly recommend it despite some quirks and a very very steep learning curve which is really because it does so many different things.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | December 1, 2007 6:30 AM
Brian - 23 mm for compound microscopes, 30 mm for dissecting scopes is the standard size. Slightly smaller adapters can usually be accommodated with enough label tape, but you do lose some field of view that way.
Kodak put out a nice little book a few years ago called "Photography through the microscope". It was before the digital revolution so is film-centric, but it has step-by-step illustrated instructions on how to align the scope properly, Kohler illumination, what's wrong if your pictures look like "x", etc. Great thing to have around.
Posted by: Carlie | December 1, 2007 7:50 AM
#18-
Personally, I'm not crazy about TV microscopes. Best use comes from something you can carry around and use on the spot.
My thoughts exactly. I had a very inexpensive compound microscope as a kid, and I would have used it rarely, had it been attached to or dependent on something indoors. There was a small battery-powered lamp, but outdoors I could get decent trans- or epi-illumination with sunlight and the mirror, or with a freebie penlight. Worked great for pond/bayou invertebrates, insects, feathers, and plant pieces. I kept the microscope throughout grad school and postdoc, and recently cleaned up the objectives and eyepieces, and gave it to a friend's kid. I've got two Zeiss stereomicroscopes, and a Zeiss Axiovert with a digital camera, to count neurons and score comets in my lab all day now, so it was time to pass on the little compound 'scope.
$150 is "dirt cheap"??? That's well out of range of many people I know...never mind the $300+ "inexpensive" stereomicroscopes in the links.
Posted by: Barn Owl | December 1, 2007 7:59 AM
I will never forget seeing cells and their nuclei in my first scope as a kid, and then later learning what the hell I was looking at.
Posted by: Jon | December 1, 2007 8:03 AM