Would a 35 Year old Olympus microscope be better then a new Amscope?

[darklide]

Would a 34 Year old Olympus microscope be better then a new Amscope?

[insane_alien]

depends on how well the old one has stood the test of time and how good it was to start with as well as how good the new one is

 

impossible to tell without trying.

[darklide]

depends on how well the old one has stood the test of time and how good it was to start with as well as how good the new one is

 

impossible to tell without trying.

 

In 1976, Olympus launched the CH Series, a modular biological microscope for practical laboratory teaching applications, in place of the KHS, KHC, HSB, and HSC.

The CH Series could meet diverse needs because of its excellent performance and modular design. The Series comprised three models: the CHA (6V 10W halogen light source), CHB (20W tungsten light source), and CHC (the mirror CH-MM or the CH-LSK 20W with a simple illumination device). The Series was painted in a warm gray color.

By switching modules, the microscope could be used for simple polarization, drawing, or incident light (metallurgical) microscopy. The CH Series used the same modules as the BH Series.

[insane_alien]

still tells us nothing about the microscope's condition or the microscope you are comparing it to.

[darklide]

still tells us nothing about the microscope's condition or the microscope you are comparing it to.

 

http://store.amscope.com/b100a.html The Amscope

 

The Olympus has,three Olympus objectives 60/0.80/0.17, 40/0.65/0.17 & 10/0.25. Will focus magnify properly when the knob move between 0-200 division. All the knobs work, it needs cleaning as there is dust inside.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Anybody?

[Sayonara]

If lens fabrication for microscopes is anything like it is for cameras, modern glass will be vastly superior to glass from over three decades ago.

[jayhawker]

Today's wide field lens eyepieces are much better than the old pinholes IMO

[Genecks]

I think you will want a 100x objective on any microscope you get.

That will allow you to view bacteria. You'll need to do oil immersion, though

I doubt you'd get decent magnification with a 60x.

You can view eukaryotic cells with the 10x, 40x, and 60x.

 

It also depends on the cost of this olympus you speak of.

If it's like $25, I would get it anyway.

But if it's around $100, then I wouldn't bother.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Genecks

[CharonY]

Magnification is not everything the numerical aperture is even more important if you want to resolve bacteria (this is why you need immersion to begin with). With a decent 60x (either water or oil immersion, though water is more convenient) and a 10x in your ocular you can decently see bacteria. Ideally with phase contrast.

 

That being said, it is hard to judge without actually using it. I always make some slides with specimen of interest and take a look by myself before deciding to shell out 70k or so.

[Genecks]

Well, maybe the person is better off doing a quick bacteria cell staining and using that olympus to see if he/she likes viewing them with a 60x. All the OP needs is a small glass slide (go to a glass retailer), a swab of the mouth, and a couple of drops of blue food dye. Heat fix. Add dye. Dry the glass after dropping the food dye, and observe the slide under the microscope.

[Andrew_Milman]

I have recently bought several Amscope microscopes, including two of the T690 series: one includes phase contrast. I have been very pleased with their performance (as well as

a low-powered microscope of theirs). I don't know where they come from. They say the use the same assembly lines in China as the better-known brands, and it could be true

for all I know. The question that comes to mind is this: will I be able to get them serviced a few years down the road? I don't know how long Amscope has been in business.

 

I also was curious to see how the Amscopes compared with the older Nikon and Olympus microscopes. I bought a Nikon Alphaphot and an Olympus BH on eBay for about $250 each; they

were quite clean (the Nikon looked like it had never been used) but they needed some professional cleaning and maintianance, averaging another $100 each. They both

good microscopes, and I'll keep at least one around as an extra, but the new Amscope microscopes are much better: better made, better optics, newer designs. (Does anyone

want a 35-year-old Nikon or Olympus? They're for sale.)