Microscopy

I have an Amscope B340B-LED on order as this year's tech Christmas gift to myself.



I actually found it much more difficult to find good information online for microscopes than I could cameras. When I settled on my Nikon D3300 digital camera (DSLR) a couple years ago, there were some great sites that did two things of great value: 1) Offered reasonable opinions after actually using the camera; 2) Offered actual full-scale samples of photos. And make that: 3) Offered samples in comparison to competing models (such as Canon). At the end of the day, the quality of the image is paramount, or at least an objective measurement of quality. Cameras, of course, have all kinds of other features that one may require. But the quality of the optics is usually a good starting point. If it hasn't got that then all the bells and whistles in the world won't make up for it.

Well, I admit with this Amscope microscope it's a bit of a crap shoot. But I did find one YouTuber online who offered actual photos as well as his brief experience with it. It didn't necessarily sell me on the scope positively. But he showed there were no big negatives. And image quality looked pretty good (although lenses are always upgradable).

My first choice was the Amscope T340B-DK-LED model at $475.00 at Amazon. It had a basic set of at least middling-quality features for the main things (which I'll mention later). That is, it wasn't a beginner's scope and neither was it a high-end one. I usually shoot for the 80/20 rule. I try to get 80% of the features for 20% of the price. That may be an exaggeration in this case. But that's the guiding force.

Well, $475.00 is a lot of money for something that, admittedly, could lay sitting unused on a shelf in a year or two. And I am fully aware of that. Still, the curiosity bug hit me and it's something that I really want to have.

One cost consideration was whether I needed a trinocular microscope (two eyepieces plus a third tube for a camera mount). It's possible that I will want to connect my existing Nikon D3300 to this via a (about) $130.00 adapter. And that is best done with a trinocular microscope because that third tube is at the top and can better handle the weight.

But you can also connect any camera to one of the eyepieces as well. And I think with the use of a bracing tripod, this would be doable. But I don't need or want a (about) $265 digital specially-built 5mp Amscope microscope camera that feeds images directly to a computer (which is indeed a nifty thing). First off, I don't want to spend that much when I already have a camera that would work (nor am I sure that my Windows 10 computer has USB 3.0). And it is generally considered better to have a regular digital camera hooked up via an adapter. You just can get better image quality as well as better frame rates if you're doing video...only so much data can be forced through a USB connection to a computer.

Plus, I don't have a Windows computer conveniently placed where I'd also have room for a microscope station. So in the near term, an iPhone adapter is what I will use. I understand they can be finicky but will take good photos once you get everything lined up properly. I expect it to be a bit of a pain but, again, the iPhone is a very good camera that I have in hand. And the adapter is only about $25.00.

So having decided that the binocular version of the Amscope T340B-DK-LED would be good enough, that takes about $40.00 off the price. Notice the "DK" in the manufacturer's sku number. That represents an extra attachment for what is called "dark field" microscopy. It's basically a way to shoot images with a black background. But the exact same thing can be achieved via buying (or making) a round transparent filter (glass or heat-resistant plastic) with an opaque circle in the middle of it of about the size of a nickel. Truly. So get rid of the need for that and you bring the price down to about $375.00 on Amazon.

And then I discovered that Amscope sold their microscopes directly on eBay for reduced prices. So the scope I wanted that began at the price of $475.00 was now on offer (in the binocular version without the additional and unnecessary dark field condenser) for $258.00 directly from Amscope on eBay. Knock even that down to $211.00 because I went with the "new/open box/tested-and-inspected" version for $211.00. And it comes with a full warranty and can be returned. Add $62.00 for the iPhone adapter, an extension cord (which I think I'll need given where I want to put it), and a box of glass slides w/ cover slips and I'm still under $300.00 for what should be a pretty decent scope.

Now, onto the features that take this above the realm of a toy (or extreme beginner scope) and into the realm of at least intermediate quality:

1) The lenses appear to be at least one step up (if not two) from the most basic lens. Better, so-called, "PLAN" lenses would be the next logical upgrade. Because the 100x lens is "oil immersion" (you put a drop of oil on top of the glass slide and the lens is then immersed in the oil) many switch this out for a non-oil 60x lens. Amscope sells a 60x PLAN lens on Amazon for $75.00. Apparently working with oil lenses can be a bit of a mess with the constant problem of not spreading the oil to the other non-oil lenses which can ruin them. A 60x objective lens (the lens at the bottom of the scope) is generally considered as high magnification as you can get with a non-oil lens which is why it is typical for the 100x oil to be swapped out for a 60x non-oil. The "PLAN" aspect of this generally means it is of higher overall optical quality as well as giving much better edge-to-edge clarity. That is, PLAN lenses do a better job of handling spherical aberration.

2) The place where you put the slide (called the "stage") is a mechanical one (as opposed to just holding the glass slide under two clips). That means you can easily move the slide under the lens in small increments. And apparently this scope's mechanism operates very smoothly.
3) It has a proper condenser (the light-focusing apparatus between the light source and the glass slide) which also takes proper filters.
4) The LED is 3 watts instead of the more common (and cheaper) 1 watt you find on scopes, even ones more expensive than this one. More light is better.
5) The coarse/fine focus knobs are, by all accounts, very smooth and precise.
6) The microscope head has all the bells-and-whistles including inter-pupillary adjustment and diopter adjustment.
7) The frame and most of the components are made of metal.

I should have the scope in a week or so and I'll try to post some pictures if I'm able. I'm still pondering about whether to buy an inexpensive set of prepared slides, but I think I just want to collect my own samples to start with.

You have exceeded my very limited knowledge of microscopes. I recall using one in high school biology but it never took my interest. sounds like you have your finger on what you need so when the CCP sends us another KFF you will be able to look at it. 

Microscopy is, of course, a hobby. And sharing a hobby with someone is a lot like trying to share tastes in women or the kind of liquor you prefer. It's a personal thing not easily shared. (And if we're sharing women, then I assume we're really good friends.)

But this will never become a hobby for me...at least I don’t think so. A hobby, technically speaking, is just a creative way to kill time and to spend a little money. And, to be fair, it's also often a way to flex your creative muscles as well. Many people craft or create quite remarkable and useful things in their workshops.

But going into this, I know, via microscopy, I will see nothing that anyone has not seen before. I will make no new and profound discoveries. In fact, what I see will not be half as good or clear as the images you can see, for instance, via the Journey to the Microcosmos and other YouTube channels. That leads many to rightly ask, "Why should I go to the trouble and expense of buying a microscope when I can view all these great images online for free?"

That's a totally legitimate question. But we've all seen a naked girl before. You can find pictures of them online. But wouldn't you want to see one for yourself?

Granted, the appeal of microbes, such as they are, is not quite in the same league. And yet what you (or I) am peering into is not one of a trillion countless and anonymous microbes but the very Mystery of Life. This profound mystery has even withstood (at least for me) the acidic drip, drip, drip of the materialist Darwinian worldview. The typical Modern looks into the microscope (or at the pictures provided by others) and sees the wondrous product of evolution.

As if there was a Mr. or Mrs. Evolution of 29 Park Lane orchestrating all this. But it's scientifically correct to use such terminology in the same way something is politically correct. "Evolution" might as well be Jehovah, for great and magical powers are bestowed to this disembodied force... even if this Darwinian view has not as yet shown in even the most basic way how unguided evolution could produce squat.

These little fellows running around underneath the microscope are sometimes grotesque monsters. Wonder doesn't necessarily equate to warm-fuzzy awe. Life is also terrible...at least terribly complicated. But it is life. And the silence is deafening in regards to how such complicated things could ever come to exist. Even the simplest bacteria are arguably far more complicated than anything mankind has ever built.

For one thing, Bacteria can reproduce using instructions that are stored internally (and that are reproduced along with everything else). It can move about and refuel itself. It can repair many types of damage. All of these things are beyond even a Rolls-Royce Boat Tail, estimated to be the most expensive car in the world at $28 million. It has a champagne cooler. But as far as I know, it has no ability to duplicate, fuel, or repair itself.

We stare into a mystical eternity when we see these miniaturized forms of life. Even the Japanese are not so clever as to miniaturize such tech, although there are initial efforts here and there at nanotechnology that are pretty remarkable.

These works of genius (whose genius, we cannot say) are discounted by the materialist world view. And they may be discounted as well because there are just so many of them. There is just one Hope diamond, but there are literally trillions of microbes. Squish a thousand under your cover slide and they will not be missed.

But the mystery is there for all to see. As much as we do the equivalent of whistling past the graveyard by saying "Evolution did this, and evolution did that," we really have no idea how the equivalent (and easily the superior) of a Rolls-Royce Boat Tail can arise from nothing. We comfort our ignorance (and try to hide it) with scientifically correct views, but even these delicate, small creatures withstand the force of our human prejudices...if one will simply look.

Probably many microbes would be attracted to the sugar in the beer.

It's a Flat World After All. And I don't think most of the microbes know that. When they are underneath a glass slide, the world is very very flat. Still, I've seen groups of those guys move with unchoreographed abandon. As more than one microscopist (microscoper?) has noted, "We didn't speed up the video. This is how fast some of them move." No doubt the beer had something to do with that. I would imagine that the Stentor microbes are leading the band.

Here's a shot via the iPhone adapter of a commercially-prepared slide. I shot it using the ProCamera app in tiff format in order to bypass any of the iPhone's (and Google's) jpg compression/artifacting.

I think a DSLR will obviously do better. But for 25 bucks...well, it's a way to at least share a photo.


Larger View

Looks like you're off to a great start with your new almost a hobby. 

Here's a sample using the highest magnification 100x objective lens (the lens at the bottom of the scope). When paired with the 10x eyepiece, that gives you 1000x. And as I generally understand it, 1000x is the practical limit of a microscope below (I'm guessing) about the $10,000 or $15,000 level.

Yes, most scopes come with a set of 20x or 25x ocular eyepieces, but that is apparently merely for marketing purposes. You can technically enlarge to 2000x or 2500x, but you'll not be seeing more detail. You'll just be enlarging the blur.

This higher magnification requires physically putting a drop or two of oil on the slide and then immersing the 100x objective lens into it. The 100x lens on most scopes is an "oil" lens that is specifically made to be immersed in a drop of oil. The rest of them are not. As you can guess, this can be somewhat messy. And if you forget and rotate one of the non-oil lenses into the oil, it can ruin them.

You can also use those oil lenses without oil, of course. And you will see something. But what is the difference? Well, here is a test. All photos were taken via an iPhone adapter using the ProCamera app to capture as a tiff file (thus avoiding any jpg compression degradation, either by the camera software and/or by Google Photo's conversion process):

No Oil Used



Larger View

Immersion Oil Used



Larger View

It's difficult to tell how much extra detail is captured unless you look at it in 100% pixel-for-pixel view. And there is more detail in the lower photos. It's not just a matter of better contrast and brighter colors, although you could certainly make that upper photo look better via Photoshop. But it would just be superficial. You couldn't gain more inherent.

A section of (presumably) human spinal cord from a prepared slide. No, I did not cut open my little brother for a sample.


Larger View

I realize these are nothing exciting to look at. Like I said, I doubt I'll discover anything that someone hasn't discovered before. But playing around with the technology is ¾ of the fun.

This is a 400x shot via my iPhone adapter. And I will say this is as good as I can expect that to get. I shot it in RAW mode via the ProCamera app and then edited the RAW file in Affinity Photo on my Mac.

You're seeing about as much detail as I see in the eyepieces, although the iPhone adapter crops and uses (I'm guessing) only about 80% of what I see. And it's a little fuzzier. But, for the most part, most of the detail is there. So this is kind of the maximum that this iPhone adapter will do.

I was thinking of buying and trying out Amscope's Nikon camera adapter. It's $130.00. Reviews on it are a bit mixed.

Then I found this helpful review at Amazon:



Well, duh. I never thought of that. I wouldn't have offhand considered it possible. But, sure enough, I mounted my Nikon D3300 on my tripod with the lens probably 1/8" from the left eyepiece. I put the camera in "Live View" (which also locks the mirror, which is a good thing for sharp photos at magnification). "Live View" not only locks up the mirror (so that it doesn't jiggle the shot) but puts the image of the lens on the LCD screen on the back of the camera. You can then easily focus via that.

However, I first focused via the microscope on the slide and then I focused the camera manually as it was peering through the left eyepiece. I put the camera on manual (there's just no way the meter could handle automatic metering in this situation) and through trial and error found a good exposure: F8, 1/16 second, 100 ISO. The image was shot using the 10x objective through the 10x ocular (100x overall).

I cropped off the dark corners. You don't quite get full frame, but nearly so. And you get a much better image than I could get off the iPhone adapter. (I didn't bother to post the comparison photo...but it's clearly and significantly less detailed and sharp.) And this is, really, a function more of the adapter than of the iPhone being any worse of a camera. In fact, when I stack up the Nikon and iPhone for comparison (which I've done), the iPhone holds its own.

The below was shot with the Nikon D3300 in RAW and then processed in Affinity Photo. It was saved out to tiff and uploaded to Google Photos. It's a large file, but from what I can see, Google Photos leaves alone a tiff file. It doesn't try to downsample it or re-jpg it. But if you upload a jpg, all bets are off. I think it does some processing to it.



Larger View

If I had some kind of YouTube channel or was an Instagram exhibitionist (thus had lots of throughput), I would need a better way to take high quality photos. But for what I'm doing, this will work great for the occasional. This isn't quite as sharp as what you see in the eyepieces of the microscope, but it's pretty damn close. And it's just not worth paying for the Nikon adapter when, from all reports, the quality can be a little iffy.