Motic/Meiji vs. Big 4

[Philip G.]

Hallo. Amerikaner hier. Ich spreche kein Deutsch. Ich hoffe, dass Sie mich verstehen können. Ich verwende Bing Übersetzer, also nicht lachen, wenn ich klinge wie ein Idiot...LOL.

Ich möchte ein Mikroskop zu Hause als Hobby (Hellfeld-/Dunkelfeld/schräg/Phasenkontrast) mit Blick auf Mikroorganismen im Teichwasser kaufen. Ich möchte auch Bilder und Filme mit meiner DSLR-Kamera zu nehmen. Mein Budget ist etwa 2.500,00 US-Dollar (1,817.25 Euro).

Neu vs. alt. Ich bin eine neue Mikroskop Motic BA310 oder Meiji-MT4000 vs. gebrauchte Mikroskop wie Olympus BH-2 überlegen. Die Olympus kommt mit SPlan achromatische Ziele. Die Motic kommt mit EF-N Plan achromatische Ziele. Die Olympus ist wahrscheinlich stärker gebaut, aber wie die Optik vergleichen? Sind Motic Achromat Ziele so gut wie Achromat Ziele von die big 4 (Olympus, Nikon, Zeiss, Leica)? Wie funktioniert Meiji im Vergleich zu ihnen? Achromat vs. Achromat nur. Ich kann nicht leisten, Fluor oder Apo Ziele zu kaufen.

[Fahrenheit]

Hi Philip,

welcom to the forum! Thank You for Your efforts to write in German language, but please feel free to write in English. That will be no problem.

Personaly I mostly use brightfield on an used Leica DME, as I am working with plant sections and I do not know the microscopes You mentioned in Your posting. But if You want to use Your camera, You'll need a Trino Tube.
There are Motic BA310 users at the forum as well as BH2 users and I'm sure they will give You further hints for Your decission.

Best regards
Jörg

[JB]

Hi Philip,

If you haven't got much experience in microscopy, you should translate and read this dedicated article: "Advice on buying a microscope, for absolute beginners" http://www.mikroskopie-forum.de/index.php?topic=9026.0

It's very difficult to give general recommendations. For example, it would be good to know how much experience you have in microscopy, and if you would be able to thoroughly check a used microscope that you have bought on Ebay.

There are only two reasons for buying a new microscope:
- you have enough money to afford it
- you don't have enough experience in microscopy and rely on the dealer to provide you with a set-up in good working condition

Otherwise, buying a used microscope from the Big-4 is the smart choice for the hobbyist, as long as it is in good condition. Modern used microscopes cost roughly 10-30% of the price of a new instument. If in good condition, you can get a research-class microscope ($15,000) for the price of a routine instument ($2000). We had a discussion in the Forum recently about the quality of the Motic achromats, and the consensus was that they do not surpass even 30-40 year-old objectives from the big manufacturers. http://www.mikroskopie-forum.de/index.php?topic=18768.msg143385#msg143385

Or to put it the other way around. Buying a new microscope, it looses 80% of its value the moment you take it out of the box. If you have bought a low-quality microscope and after a few years you get more ambitious, you will buy a Big-4 and have lost the money you spent previously. When you buy a good used microscope and after a few years you want to upgrade, you can sell the old instument for almost the same price!

Now your budget: $2500 will buy you a good microscope on Ebay (in the US), 10-20 years old, with infinity optics, phase contrast and trinocular head, from the Big-4 but you need patience (wait 2-3 months, something will come up) and have to find somebody who will check the microscope together with you when it arrives.

For half that price you will get an older, but equally capable, microscope with 160mm optics (even fluorite lenses), phase contrast and trinocular head. But again, you need somebody to check the instrument for mechanical damage and delamination.

My advice would be to get a small but complete instument like the Zeiss Standard 14, 16 or 18 or the Leitz Laborlux 12, with phase contrast and trinocular head. Save the leftover money and use it for an upgrade next year or buy a good microscope camera like the Canon EOS 6xx!

Another good piece of advice is to buy from a dealer of used microscopes in your area. They will be more expensive but you can be confident that you buy an instrument in good working condition.

Regards,

Jon


Science is a liar, sometimes.

[Philip G.]

Thanks for the advice.  My experience with microscopes is basically zero.  That's why I'm a little hesitant about buying a used microscope from Ebay, especially when I see sellers claim the microscope is in "great condition" and then look at the photos and see it is filthy or has parts missing....*sigh*. 

I didn't expect the Motic achromatics to be better, but are they at least on par with the big 4's achromatic lens?  If I knew they were at least as good, I would feel ok about buying the cheaper Motic.  But if they aren't even as good, I'd hold out for a good deal on a big 4.

Also, I've read that phase contrast objectives don't work well for Brightfield.  How bad are they when used for Brightfield? 

Do I need a turret style condenser for Oblique illumination? 

Is 20 watt halogen enough for phase contrast with a dslr camera attached, or do I need 30 watts or more? 

I noticed the Motic BA310 is available in 30 watt halogen or 3 watt LED.  Which is better, halogen or LED? 

They also offer a choice of 6000K or 4500K LED.  Which color temperature is preferred?

[reblaus]

I am equipped with old Zeiss models but certainly new Motic achromatics are not worse than older ones from Zeiss. The cheapest microscope of Zeiss is made by Motic - of course Zeiss claims that they use only selected material. I suppose there is not much difference between the big 4.

Most phase contrast objectives work very well for brightfield. In many cases only an expert can see the differences which depend on the type of the objective and the company. However, since you want to look for little beings in ponds and puddles phase contrast equipment is strongly recommended and you certainly won't need extra brightfield equipment.

Oblique illumination can be achieved by different do it youself methods, however switching easily between different contrast methods and objectives  might be frustrating without a turret condensor with different phase annuli and darkfield.

It is true that halogen (still) yields better colors than LEDs, but that is only important for stained histological or plant anatomical cuttings and less so for bacteria, protozoans and algae. The 3W LED might even yield a more intense light than the 30 W halogen.

6000K LEDs are much brighter than 4500K types and personally I feel they produce better colours. For me the 4500K LED-light seems to have a "dirty" touch. I started with different LED colors but I have replaced all 4500K.

Most other aspects have been mentionned already. The most important fact seems to be that the M microscope and similar ones cannot be scaled up to more sophisticated (and of course much more expensive) contrast methods in case you get addicted to microscopy 

[Wilfred Mott]

Hi Philip,

from what I've read in this board a Motic BA310 seems to be a good choice if it has to be a new device. Though I absolutely understand your concerns about the ebay offers I would like to second Jon's suggestion to look for a dealer of used microscopes in your area.
On the one hand you could get a new Motic which ranges in the class of routine microscopes and probably is worth less once you opened the package, on the other hand you could probably get a used Big4 microscope which ranges in the research lab class and you probably can sell for almost the same price in 10 years. Also I think it is more likely to get spare parts for a used Big4 microscope in a decade, than for a Motic.

Regarding LED illumination there are a few advantages:
1. Long life time - you probably will never have to change the LED
2. Less warmth, also on the specimen. May be a big advantage if you want to study certain live specimen since they don't die so fast ;-)
3. Probably brighter illumination, although a 30W halogen lamp should be bright enough for most uses

The big disadvantage is the lower color rendering index (CRI) - it means you have a bit of an error in the colors you see. Halogen bulbs typically have a CRI of almost 100 (which means they render every color you could potentially see though the intensity should be adjusted through a filter, e.g. a blue filter for standard uses), LEDs typically range somewhere between 80 and 95. Whether it is critical or not one must decide for himself. Personally I do not think it is a big problem for most hobbyists - even in the field of histology. I would take a different approach if lives would depend on absolutely correct diagnosis, so e.g. for a professional pathologist halogen illumination may be a wiser choice though one has to exchange the bulb from time to time. For what you expect to see look into the datasheet of the specific LED for the emission spectrum. Typically you will have kind of a gap in the area of green.

Regarding the color temperature (4500K vs. 6000K) it means the higher(!) the value, the "colder" the color - "colder" colors are more into the blue, "warmer" colors are more into the red. It also is a subjective question, some people (including myself) prefer the colder colors because the white is more like a clear white. Others prefer the warmer colors because they are more comfortable to look at, I don't like them too much because the white is a bit into the yellow. If you are easily annoyed by cold-white illumination e.g. in a factory, you probably should go for the warm-white LEDs.

Kind regards,
WM.