Kim VonHoffen

Microscope Review: The Big Three When comparing Nikon, Leica, and Olympus Microscopes I find that the costs are about the same when comparing oranges to oranges. The dealers of Nikon Microscopes tend to be more willing to bargain and provide discounts and incentives for their brand. I find Leica less willing to do so, and Olympus is virtually unwilling to accommodate any price discounts unless you are part of a buyers organization or GPO. I understand Olympus is going through some changes and this may contribute to their lack of customer service and delays in delivery of microscope systems for clinical labs. For me it comes down to quality. Optical quality and component quality are extremely important for the laboratory professional in the pathology field. Nikon, Leica, and Olympus microscopy systems all come with standard warranties. While it was once the case that Leica was made in Germany and Olympus and Nikon were built in Japan, this is no longer true. In an effort to cut labor and manufacturing cost the majority of all three microscopes are built throughout Asia, including China and the Philippines. However, don't let the “made in China” moniker fool you. All three companies produce well engineered microscopes of a high caliber. In my labs, I've had problems with the Leica DM series, specifically the DMLB. The power supply PCBs burn out. This is an expensive fix and is not covered by the warranty. Leica's warranty on electrical components is only 1 year. As if that's not bad enough, it takes a long time for the service companies/biomedical engineers to acquire parts from Leica. I've had bad experiences with Leica and I wouldn't be willing to recommend their microscopes with any confidence. Especially when Olympus and Nikon are available. Olympus has a nice line of microscopes called the BX which are good for pathology level users. They've come out with a new microscope called the BX 45. This microscope is intended to be more ergonomic for the end user. This is achieved through the lowering of the stage and stage controls. I like the idea and the effort, but by lowering the stage, all the rest of the controls seem to be out of reach. I've tried to give it time, thinking that it would just take me time to get use to, but to no avail. While some in my labs like the BX 45, others just can't seem to get use to it. I would recommend having a demonstration before you chose the BX 45 to make sure it's in your comfort zone. (Some dealers will leave their demo scope with you for a few days so that you can really put it through the paces.) The Microscope I use on a daily basis is the Nikon 55i with the Ergonomic package. I've been using this microscope for about a year and a half now. Before that I used a BX 41 by Olympus for my daily work. The Nikon 55i microscope comes with a clean white LED illumination system. This DID take a while to get use to, but after about three or four days, the color temperature and whiteness improved my ability to read specimens clearly. Once my eyes adjusted, I found the contrast and resolution to be much better than what I remember from using the BX series. It's like night and day when I go back to the non LED scopes now. Also, the LED illumination system creates less strain on the eyes, thus less fatigue as compared to a halogen light source which emits UV rays. Theoretically it makes sense, and anything that is better for me, I appreciate as an end user. My eyes will probably thank me later in life. I prefer the Nikon 55i over our Olympus BX 41 because the Nikon is more ergonomic, and it's the perfect height for me. I also prefer the stage on the Nikon. I use my fingers to manipulate slides rather than using the stage control arm. For me it's faster. The Nikon I have is equipped with a plain stage so there is no specimen holder to get in my way. These are all things that contribute to my picking the Nikon 55i over the Leica DM series or the Olympus BX series. However, the number one reason I prefer the Nikon over the Leica and the Olympus is the objectives. I've set the microscopes up next to each other and compared the objective quality. It's a slight difference but an important difference, the Nikon CFI objectives seem to allow more light into the field thus giving me better quality images with very sharp resolution. This is also very beneficial for people who capture digital images of their specimens for case studies and tumor boards. I don't think I would be able to tell if I didn't have them side by side, and it's more noticeable on the lower power objectives, which is important in the pathology field. But now that I do know and it's in my head, I don't see how I could go back to using non CFI objectives in the future. I think I'll chose Nikon over Olympus and Leica for the rest of my career unless there is some massive drop off in the quality of the product that Nikon is putting out. No matter which one you chose, you probably will be happy. I think a big part of it will be your relationship with your sales rep. The quality of the microscopes is so high, that the minimal differences wouldn't be noticeable to the untrained eye, but if costs are relatively the same, I prefer the higher quality product. You can find out more about each of the microscopes mentioned in this review by visiting their websites at the following links: Nikon Microscopes Olympus Microscopes Leica Microscopes My advice would be to stick with Nikon, Olympus, or Leica and avoid the knock off brands. If you're on an extreme budget, you might consider Accuscope or Labomed, but other than that, I'd avoid all the rest. If you can afford it, Zeiss is an option, and pray that you don't ever have to replace a part as the waiting time is ridiculous and the repairs are expensive.