Can you recommend me a good microscope to buy? What is it that

What kind of samples do you plan on observing?

>>8488893
Get one with a camera attachment is all I can say. Also you can go for a monocular instead. There is polarized light features for some stuff, lighting is important. I dicked around with a refurbished high end thing for a couple years before giving it to a school and that's all I know. You might wanna look at the refurb market, there are some real nice units for 1/3 cost.

>>8488895
Once, they observed osmosis in onion cells, if i remember correctly. They also looked at the cells of their own skin. I can't remember any other things she might have told me about.

Tomorrow they are going to dissect a cow's eye, but I don't know if a microscope is used to observe anything when you do that.

>>8488893
>What is it that separates microscopes used in education from "toy" microscopes you can get for little?
quality of the optics, light source, and internals

you can get hundred dollar scopes on ebay, sure, but the optics on those things are absolute garbage, the optics aren't worth shit and the eyepieces are terrible

objectives are very much a "you get what you pay for" item.

>>8488911
>but the objectives on those things are absolute garbage, the light sources aren't worth shit and the eyepieces are terrible
fixed

>>8488899
>Get one with a camera attachment is all I can say
Thanks, that's a good idea. And I will definitely look for used ones. If the cost isn't too high I would love one for myself as well.

>>8488917
don't though. the cameras on those things are shit. they're painfully low resolution and only capture half the field of view. you literally will get better quality from holding a cellphone camera up to the eyepiece.

>>8488911
>>8488915
Do you have any brands to recommend? I could try Ebay or my country's version of it

>>8488920
That was an alternative I had in mind. Thanks for the heads up.

File: 2013-09-26 18.46.20.jpg (1MB, 3264x1952px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x1952px

>>8488922
nikon, olympus, zeiss, leica are the top tier brands and what we generally have around the lab. we've got scopes ranging from basic benchtop dissecting scopes to hundred-K-plus fluorescent scopes

>>8488924
i mean, it is a pain in the fucking ass to line up the phone's camera with the eyepiece so it's all centered and in focus, but i'm not kidding, my experience with those ebay beginner-tier in-eyepiece cameras is that they're not much better than old flip camera phone cameras. however, pic related is a cellphone pic i took of some fluorescent bacillus subtilis a couple years ago. it's a garbage pic but it's an order of magnitude at least better than the camera that came with my cheapshit dissecting scope at home.

here's an example of something i'd actually consider getting:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-SMZ-1-Stereozoom-Dissection-Microscope-7-30X-Missing-Stage-/291935861654?hash=item43f8bbbb96:g:gEsAAOSwCGVX9ScE

it's a stereo dissecting scope. we have a couple of these around the lab. the magnification isn't great (tops out at 30x) but since it's a dissecting scope it has a huge distance you can focus in if you want to see something that's not on a slide.

if i wanted something slide-based, then i would save up for something like this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Optiphot-2-Dual-Head-Microscope-W-4-Objectives-Pointer-/282184230120?hash=item41b37da4e8:g:OxsAAOSwOyJX4GXa

if you want a good microscope that's not the entry-level garbage, i think you're gonna spend about a grand. this isn't quite what i'd want, i don't usually ever need dual heads, but it has room for multiple objectives, it has a built in proper lightsource, and it has what looks like a decent stage.

>>8488946
and i mean, i should caveat that heavily with: those are scopes i wouldn't look askance at if i saw someone doing research with them. if all you want is something to fuck around with once a month or so, don't listen to my advice, just get one of the cheapshit ebay ones for a hundred bucks.

but like, if you want to use a scope more than occasionally, you'll appreciate having the next tier up from the basic stuff in the long run.

>>8488946
>>8488951
Thanks a lot. I didn't think about the fact that some microscopes might not be able to focus on things that are not in slides. Though I think that will be the main use case.

I forgot to specify my budget. I don't think I'll buy anything over 150 USD, and I'd prefer to be closer to 100.

Are there characteristics or features to look for? Like for example when you buy binoculars I believe its considered good when they're filled with Nitrogen.

>>8488967
If that's your budget and use case, pretty much all the scopes available will have similar features. Check eBay or amazon, you'll probably end up with an Amscope or something like it. There's not much variation in the models at that price point. However, if you're patient you might be able to score some lab surplus equipment that might be a bit better quality than a brand new entry level scope. That's a long shot rhough.

If you want a scope with a camera attachment, that will probably add 25-50 bucks to the cost.

Features I'd look for in general: really the objective is what does the heavy lifting, so an immersion lense would be nice. I don't know if you can get those in cheap models though. I'd also want an integrated light source rather than have to rely on a light ring attachment. Coarse and fine focus knobs on both sides of the instrument arw nicw, and so is the ability to adjust light intensity.

>>8488893
Magnification is only half of the microscope's power. Image resolution is the second half. 1000x magnification has no purpose if the resolution is low.

Cheap microscopes have either a crappy condenser or no condenser at all. Also the objectives in cheap microscopes may be lower quality.

>My younger sister has taken an interest to biology
> would like to encourage her
Wouldn't it be better to encourage her to consider some actual science?

>>8489950
I'll take it up with her, thanks for the advice.