MicroScope

[Freddy0144]

I have never thought of getting a Microscope to look at the coral, or other things in the tank. I decided that it is worth having, and they are rather inexpensive these days.

I ended up getting

The reason I like this one is that I can place a frag on a plug in a small jar saltwater and examine it. My wanted me to get one with slides like a traditional scope, but the one I ordered already showed up.

I am curious to read your thoughts.

 

[DaJMasta]

What most people think of as a standard microscope is going to be too much magnification for most corals - the field of view of my lowest power objective is only a few mm across. What's probably a better choice for looking at things you can still see with your eye is something more akin to a stereo microscope, or a usb microscope with a long working distance. Think in the range of 5-50x magnification total, whereas a traditional compound microscope may have a 5x objective but then also gets 10x from the eyepieces, so it's lowest magnification is on the high side for things you can still see normally.

You can get a decent one for relatively cheap, especially if you consider a used one, so looking at plankton is surprisingly accessible.

 

[JNalley]

I have never thought of getting a Microscope to look at the coral, or other things in the tank. I decided that it is worth having, and they are rather inexpensive these days.

I ended up getting

The reason I like this one is that I can place a frag on a plug in a small jar saltwater and examine it. My wanted me to get one with slides like a traditional scope, but the one I ordered already showed up.

I am curious to read your thoughts.

It's a bit sad that that imager is only 10 Megapixels on that unit. There are cellphones with 100 Megapixel cameras now, and while Megapixels is not the way to shop for a camera, because optics and other features should come first... If you wanted to print whatever you're looking at on a huge poster or mural-sized painting so you can really see the detail... 10Mp just isn't going to cut it... However, I suppose for something like that, a DSLR with a MacroLens is a much better solution ;-D

 

[DaJMasta]

10MP is quite a bit of detail, and larger pixel counts either demand larger optics or have physically smaller pixels, which capture less light and will either need more gain (more noise) or more exposure time to get the same dynamic range. It's also worth mentioning that at high magnification, pixel count is basically a non-issue. Top end cooled microscope cameras are only in the 5MP range right now, because if you're looking at a tiny specimen with a very high NA objective (which will give you the best resolving power), you're still looking at in many cases a 10um pixel size or more where you're diffraction limited (i.e. where the image cannot be any clearer because of the limits of physics), which in a relatively standard C mount microscope camera, is something like a 2MP square sensor. Much better for the scientific imaging side is cooling the sensor for very low dark noise, and high quantum efficiency for maximizing the number of photons hitting the sensor that actually register in the image.


Long, sciencey story short, megapixel count doesn't count for much in microscope cameras, and with good modern sensors and setups, doubling your pixel count rarely even gives you significantly more fidelity.

 

[JNalley]

10MP is quite a bit of detail, and larger pixel counts either demand larger optics or have physically smaller pixels, which capture less light and will either need more gain (more noise) or more exposure time to get the same dynamic range. It's also worth mentioning that at high magnification, pixel count is basically a non-issue. Top end cooled microscope cameras are only in the 5MP range right now, because if you're looking at a tiny specimen with a very high NA objective (which will give you the best resolving power), you're still looking at in many cases a 10um pixel size or more where you're diffraction limited (i.e. where the image cannot be any clearer because of the limits of physics), which in a relatively standard C mount microscope camera, is something like a 2MP square sensor. Much better for the scientific imaging side is cooling the sensor for very low dark noise, and high quantum efficiency for maximizing the number of photons hitting the sensor that actually register in the image.


Long, sciencey story short, megapixel count doesn't count for much in microscope cameras, and with good modern sensors and setups, doubling your pixel count rarely even gives you significantly more fidelity.

Notice I used a "For print" scenario. Blowing up a 5 or 10MP print to poster size yields some questionable results. I also indicated that it was a poor way to shop for a camera/image sensor and that optics and other things should be looked at well before the Megapixel count. I'm probably a part of the 1% here, but, if I magnified something extremely beautiful and wanted to capture that image, I'd be doing so not so I could share it in a Facebook post, but so I could print it, frame it, and hang it in my house ;-)

At 3648 x 2736 pixels (10MP) printed at 300ppi (a decent print, but I do most printing at 600ppi) gives you just over an 8x10 (12x9)... so if I wanted it 24 x 18, we're at 150ppi which is definitely noticeable and that is probably the smallest I'd want to go when considering a print...

 

[TangerineSpeedo]

Tons of great microscopes on ebay for cheap! I picked up a Nikon for 100 bucks shipped. When schools or labs upgrade, they sell out to lot wholesalers. Microscopes are one of those things that aren’t really abused. So most are VGC at the least. just look at the pics closely for signs of being dropped or mis-handled.
I also own one of those WiFi hand held microscopes that go to your phone, that was the best $20 I spent

 

[Freddy0144]

This Thread was not started to have a debate between MegaPixles and Senor sizes. There is a Photography discussion place for that debate. The purpose was to get a feel for the number of people using Microscopes as part of the hobby.

 

[Breadman03]

Yes, purchased to ID dinoflagellates for treatment. Looking back, I may have spent a little more for one with provisions for easier pictures. I’m also going to look into some sort of jewelers loupe or magnifying glass for frag inspection.

 

[Freddy0144]

Yes, purchased to ID dinoflagellates for treatment. Looking back, I may have spent a little more for one with provisions for easier pictures. I’m also going to look into some sort of jewelers loupe or magnifying glass for frag inspection.

That is one of the parts I liked about the one I purchased is that I can take a frag on a plug and inspect it. I was able to see pods and aptasita on one of the frags. I thought it was pretty cool since I could not see it with my bare eyes, but that is not saying much for these eyes.

 

[TWYOUNG]

That is one of the parts I liked about the one I purchased is that I can take a frag on a plug and inspect it. I was able to see pods and aptasita on one of the frags. I thought it was pretty cool since I could not see it with my bare eyes, but that is not saying much for these eyes.

What scope did you get and how much should I expect to pay for one which would be used for the same purpose as yours?

 

[Dkmoo]

The only use for me is for Dino ID and to check to purity of my phyto culture. So, since both of these organisms are only microns wide, I would make sure the magnification is large enough to see them clearly

 

[Freddy0144]

What scope did you get and how much should I expect to pay for one which would be used for the same purpose as yours?

The Amazon link is at the top of the Thread, it was 69.99, actually I got it on sale for 54.00 or something like that

 

[gbru316]

I have never thought of getting a Microscope to look at the coral, or other things in the tank. I decided that it is worth having, and they are rather inexpensive these days.

I ended up getting

The reason I like this one is that I can place a frag on a plug in a small jar saltwater and examine it. My wanted me to get one with slides like a traditional scope, but the one I ordered already showed up.

I am curious to read your thoughts.

you should have a traditional one, too.

useful for algae/dino/diatom/cyano ID and just general curiosity. I originally bought one for dino ID, but I found myself looking at my red blood cells the other day because I got a cut and I’m a nerd.

also, there’s so much life in your tank that you don’t see unless you zoom way in. Sponge cells look really cool, for instance. Totally not what you’d expect.

 

[Freddy0144]

you should have a traditional one, too.

useful for algae/dino/diatom/cyano ID and just general curiosity. I originally bought one for dino ID, but I found myself looking at my red blood cells the other day because I got a cut and I’m a nerd.

also, there’s so much life in your tank that you don’t see unless you zoom way in. Sponge cells look really cool, for instance. Totally not what you’d expect.

My wife wants a traditional scope, so we will add that to the collection of stuff. LOL