0:10 The B and iScope seem like great options with expansion capability. I saw an OMAX M837 and Amscope T490 with phase contrast -- with a set of bright field and phase objectives in the $800 to $850 (USD) range. These are 160mm vs infinity Euromex. There is a lower cost configuration of these with just two phase objectives. So many to choose from. These Euromex seem like a life long investment. Just don't know if the higher cost is justified. If I was a clinician, I would go for the iScope or perhaps Delphi (?) with plan objectives, etc. but as a hobbyist, is an OMAX or Amscope with phase contrast more than enough? Or, is the Euromex simply a joy to use? Meanwhile, I got an Olympus CHA with phase contrast for $350 on ebay, in my state. Waiting to receive it. The seller said everything works fine (to my question about clear optics, smooth mechanics or does it need refurbishment?). Hope this does it for me. If not I will need to find more reviews.
Great that you made a full comparison of all of them. Will for sure help the decision making for amateur microscopists! As Euromex likely provided you these microscopes, would it be possible for you to ask them if you could test the DIC option of the Delphi X? As many amateurs nowadays are looking for a microscope that they can upgrade in the future, it would be cool to see how the optical quality compares to one of the big 4 (As I assume the euromex will overall be cheaper then e.g Zeiss or Olympus)
I want to look at metal coatings and stuff. Is it viable to buy a cheap-ish normal bi/trinocular microscope and try to use it as a metallographic microscope by shining light into one of the eyepieces or the phototube and out the objective? Top illumination outside the objective works for low magnification but eventually the objectives block all the light... There was a video I saw where it seemed to work so I'm wondering why not and why aren't there more videos if it's doable. I'm guessing reflections from the inside of the objectives and other stuff wouldn't be nice?
Thanks for this amazing video and channel. I discovered your channel just 2 weeks ago when I was starting my microscope journey. Learned so much from your videos.
Hello Oliver, how are you doing? I have searched in your channel for a video but i couldn't find anything, can you please make a video about the best settings for DSLR cameras? and also your own tips and tricks because I really liked the home made darkfield filter in your previous videos. I can't figure out what are the best settings for ISO, contrast and others, i even tried auto mode and also tried to use my DSLR without the c-mount adapter but the image/video is still extremely blurry and like a cheap camera, please consider the mirrorless DSLRs, thank you.
Wonderful video! Thanks! I bought an OMAX M8333. Still an entry level microscope, but I didn't want to start out too small and end up with a gazillion different microscopes gathering dust. The Delphi X Observer is tantilizing. But my "dream" microscope at the moment is the Olympus BX-43. I mentioned in one of your other videos that I also would like to get a big chonky rotary microtome someday, but I'm still too soon in the hobby to justify spending $1000 buckazoids on lab equipment, lol
I’ve just bought an Olympus CX43 microscope in “like new” condition for $850. Cannot find too much information about them. Are these considered good microscopes?
Thanks for all your informative videos. I would like to know how to ‘permanently’ mount parasite eggs esp. Trichostrongyle. I inherited some in a collection(over 10yrs old) but I have been unable to replicate long-lasting ones even with glycerine jelly. Can you please offer any advice?
Have you seen or tried the Foldscope? Made of paper and costing £9 it supposedly has a magnification of 50x to 340x. If this thing actually works it would make a great project for kids, they actually make their own scope.
9:34 - Microbe Hunter, you said that the magnification can only get to 1000x, but Google says: "The maximum magnification level of a light microscope at the high end of the performance spectrum is 2000x magnification (20x ocular, 100x objective)." I'm confused by this. What kind of microscope would you need to see 2000x? I'll watch your video called _Why a 3000x microscope magnification does not make sense!_ and continue learning about this. Thank you very much for this informative overview of some of the microscopes we can buy. Now I understand the differences between stereoscopic and compound microscopes better. I learned a lot about the differences between these microscopes from this video. 🔬🔬🔬🔬🔬
With a toy microscope (bad optic), 400x is already a chalenge. With ok quality objective, you still have a decent image up to 800-1200x. The more you crank up the magnification, the more and more fuzzy, blurred the image will be. If you have "God level quality perfect lens", you can achieve more, of course, but won't be able to see above around 2000X. Your limitation is the wavelength of the light. UV light is narrower than IR light. So, the more 'blue' you have a light, the more resolution you can get compare to just white light. But even there, you won't get much and it won't be noticeable on a budget scope. Imagine the 100m long waves that sand dune are making in desert VS short 10 cm ripples on a beach. You won't be able to hide a beer can midway in the short ripples, but it might disappear inside a larger wave of sand. Now, if you want to see a penny, even with the best resolution (10 cm ripples) you won't be able to see it. You need shorter ripples to see it. Microscopie use visible light with ripple not fine enough to give proper resolution over around 1600x-2000x. At 1600x it's very bad, at 2000x it's terrible. Hope it help you and other better understand this.
In Terence Allen’s ‘Microscopy: A very short introduction’, he says manufacturers are offering 150x objectives in specialised applications. So, we may see higher magnification coming in the future. But at the moment we have 100x objectives, so with 25x eyepieces we can achieve a magnification of 2500x but the image will appear blurry. The highest magnification, for best results, is 10x X 100x. In theory, you can magnify the objective’s image repeatedly, by adding more lenses to the eyepiece, but the results would be unsatisfying.
@@kevy1967 The problem is not the manufacturing process that can't make 150x objective. The problem is visible light wavelength are too coarse to get better definition at high magnification. So, in complete theory (that include wavelength limitation), we cannot get proper magnification above 1000-1600x. Even with a "3000x God perfect grade apochromatic objective". To solve that, we need a parallel universe with shorter wavelength in visible light or find humain that can see UV light. In that regard, we do have UV microscopy with and without fluorescence. But you cannot make direct observation in the eyepiece when it's UV (invisible light need camera). It's above regular hobbyist (special camera, UV transparent optics, etc). See my explanation on maximum resolution with sand wave above.
@@alexandrevaliquette3883 I wonder if it were possible to create an x-ray microscope that simultaneously captures visible wavelength footage and then uses some fancy algorithm to virtually overlay x-ray and coloured image and interpret the data in such a way that you would get a high definition observation at a significantly higher magnification that looks alike to regular visible light spectrum microscopy. I mean, it would of course be ridiculously expensive and at that point you could probably just start using electron microscopes, even though they have other drawbacks, but still. Would be cool if that were possible.
I have followed you for years and you’re videos are truly amazing however on this clip you have excluded stereo microscopes. You mention a link that doesn’t appear. Look, all good but disappointed. I will have to search now. Kind regards.
THUMBS DOWN FOR ME: I love you a lot, and I would like to use the thumb up/down as a useful tool to help you know what the crowd like or not, with all due respect of course. I feel that this video was a little too 'shallow', even for a noob like me. It's like a car comparison, but without the road test. Something is missing! I would love to see a direct comparison with the same slide at 40x for all of them. This is always the most view part in all your video for a good reason. Otherwise, they are just nice looking white microscope with black eye piece and objectives. Love from Montréal
dont compare microscopes ...build your own i have build my own DIY microscope and can use 160, 170 and infinity. None microscop on maerket can do this In der Entwicklung der heutigen Mikroskopie wird immer mehr Wert auf die technische Ausstattung gelegt und damit auch viel Geld verdient anstatt dass man sich auf die Perfektionierung der Praeparationstechnik konzentriert und seine eigene Beobachtungfaehigkeit verbessert
12:16 Large microscope are more comfy to use because they are taller... Well, sure, but maybe people using small scope should put them on a small box or pile of books to get the proper high? And... for the 'energy saving' of LED vs incandescent light: How much do you save for one full hour? Seriously! You will save about 0.2 cent per hour. Even Greta Thunberg won't care! 20 w X 0.10$/kwh = 0.2 cents per hour for a 20 watt light
I’ve been searching for a video like this exploring the different tiers of “real” microscopes for a while. Thanks Oliver!
0:10 The B and iScope seem like great options with expansion capability. I saw an OMAX M837 and Amscope T490 with phase contrast -- with a set of bright field and phase objectives in the $800 to $850 (USD) range. These are 160mm vs infinity Euromex. There is a lower cost configuration of these with just two phase objectives.
So many to choose from. These Euromex seem like a life long investment. Just don't know if the higher cost is justified. If I was a clinician, I would go for the iScope or perhaps Delphi (?) with plan objectives, etc. but as a hobbyist, is an OMAX or Amscope with phase contrast more than enough? Or, is the Euromex simply a joy to use?
Meanwhile, I got an Olympus CHA with phase contrast for $350 on ebay, in my state. Waiting to receive it. The seller said everything works fine (to my question about clear optics, smooth mechanics or does it need refurbishment?). Hope this does it for me. If not I will need to find more reviews.
Great that you made a full comparison of all of them. Will for sure help the decision making for amateur microscopists! As Euromex likely provided you these microscopes, would it be possible for you to ask them if you could test the DIC option of the Delphi X? As many amateurs nowadays are looking for a microscope that they can upgrade in the future, it would be cool to see how the optical quality compares to one of the big 4 (As I assume the euromex will overall be cheaper then e.g Zeiss or Olympus)
But why don't you look at the same sample and show a picture in order to us to compare?
I want to look at metal coatings and stuff. Is it viable to buy a cheap-ish normal bi/trinocular microscope and try to use it as a metallographic microscope by shining light into one of the eyepieces or the phototube and out the objective? Top illumination outside the objective works for low magnification but eventually the objectives block all the light... There was a video I saw where it seemed to work so I'm wondering why not and why aren't there more videos if it's doable. I'm guessing reflections from the inside of the objectives and other stuff wouldn't be nice?
Thanks for this amazing video and channel. I discovered your channel just 2 weeks ago when I was starting my microscope journey. Learned so much from your videos.
Hello Oliver, how are you doing?
I have searched in your channel for a video but i couldn't find anything, can you please make a video about the best settings for DSLR cameras? and also your own tips and tricks because I really liked the home made darkfield filter in your previous videos.
I can't figure out what are the best settings for ISO, contrast and others, i even tried auto mode and also tried to use my DSLR without the c-mount adapter but the image/video is still extremely blurry and like a cheap camera, please consider the mirrorless DSLRs, thank you.
Wonderful video! Thanks! I bought an OMAX M8333. Still an entry level microscope, but I didn't want to start out too small and end up with a gazillion different microscopes gathering dust. The Delphi X Observer is tantilizing. But my "dream" microscope at the moment is the Olympus BX-43. I mentioned in one of your other videos that I also would like to get a big chonky rotary microtome someday, but I'm still too soon in the hobby to justify spending $1000 buckazoids on lab equipment, lol
I’ve just bought an Olympus CX43 microscope in “like new” condition for $850. Cannot find too much information about them. Are these considered good microscopes?
Thanks for all your informative videos. I would like to know how to ‘permanently’ mount parasite eggs esp. Trichostrongyle. I inherited some in a collection(over 10yrs old) but I have been unable to replicate long-lasting ones even with glycerine jelly. Can you please offer any advice?
Hi Oliver, I can buy a Olympus CX22LED second hand or Euromex BScope, as you know the Olympus is quite old, which one do you recommend me?
Have you seen or tried the Foldscope? Made of paper and costing £9 it supposedly has a magnification of 50x to 340x. If this thing actually works it would make a great project for kids, they actually make their own scope.
9:34 - Microbe Hunter, you said that the magnification can only get to 1000x, but Google says: "The maximum magnification level of a light microscope at the high end of the performance spectrum is 2000x magnification (20x ocular, 100x objective)." I'm confused by this. What kind of microscope would you need to see 2000x? I'll watch your video called _Why a 3000x microscope magnification does not make sense!_ and continue learning about this.
Thank you very much for this informative overview of some of the microscopes we can buy. Now I understand the differences between stereoscopic and compound microscopes better. I learned a lot about the differences between these microscopes from this video. 🔬🔬🔬🔬🔬
With a toy microscope (bad optic), 400x is already a chalenge.
With ok quality objective, you still have a decent image up to 800-1200x. The more you crank up the magnification, the more and more fuzzy, blurred the image will be.
If you have "God level quality perfect lens", you can achieve more, of course, but won't be able to see above around 2000X. Your limitation is the wavelength of the light.
UV light is narrower than IR light. So, the more 'blue' you have a light, the more resolution you can get compare to just white light. But even there, you won't get much and it won't be noticeable on a budget scope.
Imagine the 100m long waves that sand dune are making in desert VS short 10 cm ripples on a beach. You won't be able to hide a beer can midway in the short ripples, but it might disappear inside a larger wave of sand. Now, if you want to see a penny, even with the best resolution (10 cm ripples) you won't be able to see it. You need shorter ripples to see it. Microscopie use visible light with ripple not fine enough to give proper resolution over around 1600x-2000x. At 1600x it's very bad, at 2000x it's terrible.
Hope it help you and other better understand this.
@@alexandrevaliquette3883 Thank you. I appreciate all that info.
In Terence Allen’s ‘Microscopy: A very short introduction’, he says manufacturers are offering 150x objectives in specialised applications. So, we may see higher magnification coming in the future. But at the moment we have 100x objectives, so with 25x eyepieces we can achieve a magnification of 2500x but the image will appear blurry. The highest magnification, for best results, is 10x X 100x. In theory, you can magnify the objective’s image repeatedly, by adding more lenses to the eyepiece, but the results would be unsatisfying.
@@kevy1967 The problem is not the manufacturing process that can't make 150x objective. The problem is visible light wavelength are too coarse to get better definition at high magnification. So, in complete theory (that include wavelength limitation), we cannot get proper magnification above 1000-1600x. Even with a "3000x God perfect grade apochromatic objective".
To solve that, we need a parallel universe with shorter wavelength in visible light or find humain that can see UV light.
In that regard, we do have UV microscopy with and without fluorescence. But you cannot make direct observation in the eyepiece when it's UV (invisible light need camera). It's above regular hobbyist (special camera, UV transparent optics, etc).
See my explanation on maximum resolution with sand wave above.
@@alexandrevaliquette3883 I wonder if it were possible to create an x-ray microscope that simultaneously captures visible wavelength footage and then uses some fancy algorithm to virtually overlay x-ray and coloured image and interpret the data in such a way that you would get a high definition observation at a significantly higher magnification that looks alike to regular visible light spectrum microscopy. I mean, it would of course be ridiculously expensive and at that point you could probably just start using electron microscopes, even though they have other drawbacks, but still. Would be cool if that were possible.
thank you for not being an AI a hole...nice vid
I have followed you for years and you’re videos are truly amazing however on this clip you have excluded stereo microscopes. You mention a link that doesn’t appear.
Look, all good but disappointed. I will have to search now.
Kind regards.
THUMBS DOWN FOR ME:
I love you a lot, and I would like to use the thumb up/down as a useful tool to help you know what the crowd like or not, with all due respect of course.
I feel that this video was a little too 'shallow', even for a noob like me.
It's like a car comparison, but without the road test. Something is missing!
I would love to see a direct comparison with the same slide at 40x for all of them. This is always the most view part in all your video for a good reason.
Otherwise, they are just nice looking white microscope with black eye piece and objectives.
Love from Montréal
dont compare microscopes ...build your own
i have build my own DIY microscope and can use 160, 170 and infinity. None microscop on maerket can do this
In der Entwicklung der heutigen Mikroskopie wird immer mehr Wert auf die technische
Ausstattung gelegt und damit auch viel Geld verdient
anstatt dass man sich auf die Perfektionierung der Praeparationstechnik konzentriert
und seine eigene Beobachtungfaehigkeit verbessert
12:16 Large microscope are more comfy to use because they are taller...
Well, sure, but maybe people using small scope should put them on a small box or pile of books to get the proper high?
And... for the 'energy saving' of LED vs incandescent light:
How much do you save for one full hour? Seriously! You will save about 0.2 cent per hour. Even Greta Thunberg won't care!
20 w X 0.10$/kwh = 0.2 cents per hour for a 20 watt light