Is this binocular compound microscope good for high school work?

[Halcyon]

We are in the market for a microscope that will last us through high school. My husband is fairly knowledgeable about microscopes and sent me a link to this Amscope one today. Would like to know what others thoughts are. Is this a good one?

Edited January 6, 2012 by Halcyon

[Miss Marple]

The link keeps sending me to The Sports Authority page. IMO, a binocular Amscope will be quite sufficient for high school. Most folks use a monocular - I prefer a binocular myself (probably due to wearing glasses). AmScope seems to have a good reputation.

[Mom22ns]

We're using a binocular Amscope microscope for high school here. I can't tell if it is the same one since your link is bad. It is quite sufficient, but I should tell you both my kids hate using a binocular scope. Dd takes one of the eye pieces out and uses it as a monocular :glare:

[Halcyon]

The link keeps sending me to The Sports Authority page. IMO, a binocular Amscope will be quite sufficient for high school. Most folks use a monocular - I prefer a binocular myself (probably due to wearing glasses). AmScope seems to have a good reputation.

 

 

Oops! Sorry about that! I fixed the link. Thank you-DH wants boys to have binocular.

[Halcyon]

We're using a binocular Amscope microscope for high school here. I can't tell if it is the same one since your link is bad. It is quite sufficient, but I should tell you both my kids hate using a binocular scope. Dd takes one of the eye pieces out and uses it as a monocular :glare:

 

 

Interesting. What do they hate about binocular? Do you have to focus each separately?

[TheHomeScientist]

If two people with different vision are sharing a scope, it can be a pain in the butt to use a binocular scope. The two options are to use it one-eyed or to adjust the eyepiece diopter each time you switch.

 

Incidentally, I see that AmScope has a set of 200 prepared slides on sale for $91.14 that you might want to think about buying with the scope. At about $0.45 each, these are undoubtedly Chinese slides, and some of them may not be very good quality, but the range of specimens is impressive. I'm writing a biology lab book at the moment, and I just did a quick scan through the list. My impression was that anyone should be able to do a full high school biology course with the slides that are included in this set. There are also a lot of slides that would be useful for kids the age of yours. In your situation, I'd grab the slides along with the scope.

[Mom22ns]

If two people with different vision are sharing a scope, it can be a pain in the butt to use a binocular scope. The two options are to use it one-eyed or to adjust the eyepiece diopter each time you switch.

 

It is this. We all have different vision, ds wears glasses but takes them off for microscope use. My eyes don't correct to 20/20 and dd wears contacts and has 20/20 corrected vision. We also have different size heads. There is a lot of adjusting to do on a binocular scope. For my 12 yo it is too much. Ds isn't a fan of microscope use, probably the glasses issue more than anything, but he makes it work. I love the scope! I have a science degree and love science and microscopes. I have a great time with it! :D

[Halcyon]

I appreciate your comments, everyone. So has anyone purchased this one from amscope, and if so, can you share your experience?

[Renaissance Mom]

I appreciate your comments, everyone. So has anyone purchased this one from amscope, and if so, can you share your experience?

 

Wow, that's a great price for what the spec list contains. I'll be :bigear: to see if it is a decent scope. I keep drooling over the National Optical 134-CLED and am waiting for my homeschool money bag to fill back up so I can make purchases for the fall. (My hubby likes me to wait to see what sort of tax refund we might be getting each year and then turns me loose to do my buying.) If this amscope model is good, my money bag won't have to take such a hard hit! Of course, then I could get that jumbo slide set, too....

 

Mr. Thompson?? Any feedback??

Edited January 7, 2012 by Renaissance Mom

[Carrie12345]

We have this Amscope. It's much better than anything *I* used in high school!

I have to agree that the binocular is a pain with multiple users. Otherwise, it's great.

 

http://www.amazon.com/40X-2000X-Biological-Compound-Microscope-Mechanical/dp/B004UMDLAA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1325940393&sr=8-2

[TheHomeScientist]

Wow, that's a great price for what the spec list contains. I'll be :bigear: to see if it is a decent scope. I keep drooling over the National Optical 134-CLED and am waiting for my homeschool money bag to fill back up so I can make purchases for the fall. (My hubby likes me to wait to see what sort of tax refund we might be getting each year and then turns me loose to do my buying.) If this amscope model is good, my money bag won't have to take such a hard hit! Of course, then I could get that jumbo slide set, too....

 

Mr. Thompson?? Any feedback??

 

Well, as you might expect from the fact that this scope costs half what the National Optical 134-CLED costs, the optical and mechanical quality is likely to be inferior. Even more important, the variability between examples is likely to be much, much greater than with NO models.

 

Okay, time to give away some "secrets". Back when I was working with Maker Shed, we were a National Optical dealer, so I know all about dealer prices from NO. Now that I'm selling science kits, I also deal with all the big wholesalers of Chinese and Indian science equipment, so I also know dealer prices on these other Chinese scopes.

 

National Optical typically offers 40% gross margins on scopes and 35% on accessories. That is, a scope whose retail price is $500 actually costs the dealer $300. (Obviously, there are other costs including freight-in, admin costs, and so on, but basically that nominal $500 scope costs the dealer $300.) Other Chinese microscopes typically have 50% to 58% gross margins, so one of them that lists for $500 actually costs the dealer $210 to $250, less shipping and so on. Chinese scopes can be private-labeled, so a big reseller like Home Science Tools or AmScope can get their own name on a scope. In general, though, all those scopes are pretty much the same. Chances are high that they came from the same factory.

 

So, back to those $500 list price scopes. On-line microscope retailing is extremely competitive (which means you're very unlikely ever to get more than you're paying for). Actual gross margins vary slightly depending on many factors, but for NO scopes 25% is typical, with a normal range of 20% to 30%. In other words, whatever the actually selling price of the scope is, the dealer is probably paying roughly three quarters of what he's selling it for. For no-name and house-branded scopes, the actual margin is usually a bit higher, say 25% to 35%.

 

For that National Optical scope that has a list price of $500 and a dealer cost of $300, the selling price will therefore be $400, give or take, with normal variation in the $375 to $425 range. For the no-name or house-branded Chinese scope that has a list price of $500 and a dealer cost of $210 to $250, the selling price (assuming 30% actual gross margin) will be $300 to about $360, again with some variation on either side.

 

My advice to anyone is to go with National Optical. Your chance of getting a bad scope is much smaller than it is with the no-name and house-branded Chinese scopes.

 

And, in case anyone is wondering, I have no financial interest in any of this. I don't sell microscopes nor do I own stock in National Optical or any other company.

[Miss Marple]

I appreciate your comments, everyone. So has anyone purchased this one from amscope, and if so, can you share your experience?

 

If you aren't in a huge hurry you might haunt eBay for a bit. I got an amazing medical laboratory cast-off for $200. It was being sold because the lab was moving and planned to purchase all new equipment. It is an older model but retailed for over $2000. The tech at my dh's hospital said they still use this particular model in many smaller hospitals. I had to protect it from dh who wanted to take it to his office for successful vasectomy verification :tongue_smilie:

 

Ebay is also a great place to go to furnish a lab. I bought lots of beakers, test tubes, flasks, etc for our co-op chemistry courses.

[Teachin'Mine]

Well, as you might expect from the fact that this scope costs half what the National Optical 134-CLED costs, the optical and mechanical quality is likely to be inferior. Even more important, the variability between examples is likely to be much, much greater than with NO models.

 

Okay, time to give away some "secrets". Back when I was working with Maker Shed, we were a National Optical dealer, so I know all about dealer prices from NO. Now that I'm selling science kits, I also deal with all the big wholesalers of Chinese and Indian science equipment, so I also know dealer prices on these other Chinese scopes.

 

National Optical typically offers 40% gross margins on scopes and 35% on accessories. That is, a scope whose retail price is $500 actually costs the dealer $300. (Obviously, there are other costs including freight-in, admin costs, and so on, but basically that nominal $500 scope costs the dealer $300.) Other Chinese microscopes typically have 50% to 58% gross margins, so one of them that lists for $500 actually costs the dealer $210 to $250, less shipping and so on. Chinese scopes can be private-labeled, so a big reseller like Home Science Tools or AmScope can get their own name on a scope. In general, though, all those scopes are pretty much the same. Chances are high that they came from the same factory.

 

So, back to those $500 list price scopes. On-line microscope retailing is extremely competitive (which means you're very unlikely ever to get more than you're paying for). Actual gross margins vary slightly depending on many factors, but for NO scopes 25% is typical, with a normal range of 20% to 30%. In other words, whatever the actually selling price of the scope is, the dealer is probably paying roughly three quarters of what he's selling it for. For no-name and house-branded scopes, the actual margin is usually a bit higher, say 25% to 35%.

 

For that National Optical scope that has a list price of $500 and a dealer cost of $300, the selling price will therefore be $400, give or take, with normal variation in the $375 to $425 range. For the no-name or house-branded Chinese scope that has a list price of $500 and a dealer cost of $210 to $250, the selling price (assuming 30% actual gross margin) will be $300 to about $360, again with some variation on either side.

 

My advice to anyone is to go with National Optical. Your chance of getting a bad scope is much smaller than it is with the no-name and house-branded Chinese scopes.

 

And, in case anyone is wondering, I have no financial interest in any of this. I don't sell microscopes nor do I own stock in National Optical or any other company.

 

Good info!

 

Do you know how this one compares? It has the mechanical stage, and iris diaphragm, but a tungsten lamp instead of LED.

It is made of imported components and assembled in China and has a 1yr electrical and 5yr mechanical warranty.

 

http://prod-i.samsclub.com/sams/shop/product.jsp?productId=104721&

Edited January 7, 2012 by Teachin'Mine

[TheHomeScientist]

Good info!

 

Do you know how this one compares? It has the mechanical stage' date=' and iris diaphragm, but a tungsten lamp instead of LED.

It is made of imported components and assembled in China and has a 1yr electrical and 5yr mechanical warranty.

 

http://prod-i.samsclub.com/sams/shop/product.jsp?productId=104721&[/quote']

 

That is *extremely* aggressive pricing. C&A is one of my wholesalers, so I know exactly what the dealer cost on that scope is. I can't say specifically due to non-disclosure obligations, but I think it's safe to say that you won't find a better price on that model.

 

As to the scope itself, I haven't seen that particular model, but C&A sells generic Chinese scopes. They also private-label, so many of the housebrand scopes you see are actually C&A models with different badges on them. My guess would be that it's a decent scope on average, but there's probably a great deal of quality variation between examples. The comparable National Optical model will almost certainly have better optics and mechanicals, but will cost significantly more.

 

Incidentally, I just posted a journal entry about this very subject.

 

http://www.ttgnet.com/journal/?p=385

[Teachin'Mine]

That is *extremely* aggressive pricing. C&A is one of my wholesalers, so I know exactly what the dealer cost on that scope is. I can't say specifically due to non-disclosure obligations, but I think it's safe to say that you won't find a better price on that model.

 

As to the scope itself, I haven't seen that particular model, but C&A sells generic Chinese scopes. They also private-label, so many of the housebrand scopes you see are actually C&A models with different badges on them. My guess would be that it's a decent scope on average, but there's probably a great deal of quality variation between examples. The comparable National Optical model will almost certainly have better optics and mechanicals, but will cost significantly more.

 

Incidentally, I just posted a journal entry about this very subject.

 

http://www.ttgnet.com/journal/?p=385

 

Thank you! That's what I had found too, about the pricing, when I was looking a ways back. What I didn't know is the quality of the scope.

[TheHomeScientist]

Oh, yeah. Don't worry about the tungsten issue. Tungsten is common on inexpensive scopes because it's the least expensive form of illumination. Its main drawbacks are that it requires AC power, that it produces a lot of heat (which can dry out and kill live specimens), and that the color is always yellowish and warms significantly when you dim the bulb.

 

Most experienced microscopists prefer quartz-halogen illumination, which is the most expensive form. It's extremely bright and white, and can be dimmed without changing the color of the light significantly. It's also the hottest form of illumination. In my primary scope (which uses quartz-halogen), I can actually watch the heat evaporating the water from a hanging-drop mount.

 

The other two types are LED and fluorescent, both of which are cool and white, but neither of which is full-spectrum like tungsten or QH. The other advantage is that many LED models and some fluorescent ones can be powered by batteries, which is nice if you want to take the scope out in the field.

 

The iris diaphragm is nice to have, but not essential. A disc diaphragm with five or six settings doesn't offer as fine control as an iris, but for all practical purposes for high school work, it's fine.

 

The mechanical stage is, in my opinion, essential. I wouldn't even consider trying to use a scope that didn't have one.

[TheHomeScientist]

Thank you! That's what I had found too' date=' about the pricing, when I was looking a ways back. What I didn't know is the quality of the scope.[/quote']

 

As I said, quality will be variable between units. The National Optical 134 is a better scope, optically and mechanically and in terms of quality control, but I suspect you'd be perfectly happy with this model, and it does cost half what the NO model does.

 

For anyone who buys a generic Chinese scope, I would strongly suggest that you check it carefully when it arrives. If possible, get an experienced microscopist to help you do the check. If possible, examine a prepared slide that has very fine detail (like the onion root tip mitosis slide I mentioned in my journal entry).

 

Also, inexpensive scopes (actually, every scope I've seen that sells for less than $1,500 or $2,000) do not offer adjustments for parcentering and parfocality. To check the first, center a tiny object in the field of view at low magnification (40X) and then change to 100X, 400X, and 1000X. That object should remain centered (or nearly so) in the field of view. If it doesn't, return the scope. To check the second, focus critically at low magnification on a thin, flat object with a lot of detail (for example a prepared slide of a protist section). Then change to 100X, 400X, and 1000X. At each magnification, the object should remain very close to focus. At most, it should require a partial turn of the fine-focus knob to bring it back into critical focus.

 

Be aware that the "thin, flat" part is important. Even very thin objects have depth, and as you increase magnification the depth of field decreases. For example, the onion root tip slide I mentioned in my journal entry was extremely thin, but at 1000X and even 400X, it was obvious that it had depth. I could focus at 1000X on the tip of a chromosome and have the rest of it out of focus, and vice versa.

[Teachin'Mine]

More good info - thanks again! :)

 

That's interesting about how to check a scope and about the centering. I remember in high school bio how frustrating it was when you had something centered and focused in low magnification and then lost it in higher magnification. Then again, we didn't have the benefit of a mechanical stage, so any adjustments usually shot the whole thing right out of view. :tongue_smilie:

[TheHomeScientist]

Oh, yeah. I've seen Chinese microscopes that were so far off centered between objectives that you could have a small object centered at 40X and when you switched to 100X it'd be completely outside the field of view.

 

Incidentally, one other check is worth doing, and that's checking the focus over the whole field of view. I have seen inexpensive scopes in which one or more of the objectives was misaligned, tilted to put them out of line with the rest of the optical system. The symptom of that problem is that when an object in the center of the field of view is in critical focus, opposite edges of the FOV are out of focus in different directions. That is, to focus the opposite edges from a point where the center is focused, you have to open focus to focus one edge and close focus to focus the other.

 

Don't confuse this with what happens with non-planar objectives (which are the type used in all but expensive scopes). With a standard (non-planar) objective, about 50% to 60% of the field around the center will be sharp, with spherical aberration making the focus softer and softer as you near the edges of the FOV. That's normal, and you can differentiate that from the misalignment problem because the entire perimeter of the FOV is out of focus in the same direction.

 

In a scope with semi-planar (semi-plan) objectives, the center 2/3 to 3/4 of the FOV should be in acceptable focus, and with planar (plan) objectives, 90% or more. Few homeschoolers will have scopes with even semi-plan objectives, let alone plan objectives because they cost considerably more than standard non-plan objectives.

[TheHomeScientist]

Oops. Forgot to say how to check focus across the field. You need something very flat with fine, consistent detail. I'd recommend you use top illumination (a high-intensity desk lamp, book-reading light, or something similar). For your specimen, use a full-color print image from a magazine or book cover, ideally a section that's all light to medium gray. Four-color printing puts down a matrix of tiny, regularly-spaced dots in cyan, magenta, yellow, and black, and this is an ideal target for checking flatness of focus across the field.

[TheHomeScientist]

Wow. I really didn't intend to make this into a microscope tutorial, so I guess I should shut up now.