microscope power

[sanfranciscian]

Hi all, looking to buy a new microscope from amscope and they seem to be fairly well reviewed, i see i can get a 20x 40x stereo with lights for $105. question is do you scope users feel that is adequate power for what we need, or maybe better put would you feel that adding 60x or 80x would have any really practical advantage other than more detail? i really just want to be able to assess the condition of bevel and hopefully be able to track progression on the stones.

Ian

 

[LarryAndro]

Since I am not familiar with all the features of the scope mentioned, my comments might not be applicable. Take with grain of salt...

I use the Radio Shack 60x and 100x microscope, but never switch to the 100x power. I use it on the 60x power exclusively. Based on that, I suspect the 40x power would be adequate.

Another factor is how often you will use the microscope. I used mine constantly while learning to hone. Now, I use it once every 2 or 3 weeks, and even then could easily live without it. If the same proved true for you, then $105 for something you use for several months might be a little high.

My wife brought two microscopes home from Salvation Army. But, they were bottom lit, and so useless. The Radio Shack scope is top lit. I would think the microscope you buy has to have a light above shining down on the blade. Might be something to check.

But, on the other hand, I don't even use the light on my microscope! I use the light from a goose neck lamp, shining on the blade from above and to the side.

So, how's the above for some random thoughts! I'll leave it to you to sort them out and apply them to your situation.

 

[johnmrson]

Thanks for the information LarryAndro. I'm looking at learning to hone my own razors and thought that a second hand microscope might be a good investment. I seem to be able to get a blade to be plenty sharp enough, it's just not a smooth as it should be. I've now got a good idea of what type of microscope to look out for.

 

[SiBurning]

Is this a stereo microscope? Assuming it is, and you really do want a stereo for blades...

What else might you want to use it for? If you want to upgrade, extra parts are going to cost a lot more to add on later.

There's two ways to add magnification. A Barlow (auxiliary) lens sits below the objective, adding additional magnification and lowering the focal length (working distance). Higher power eyepieces magnify the image projected by the objectives, warts and all, without adding resolution. You want to be careful of the working distance, which can get pretty small (below 1") with a 3X Barlow lens. Pick your scope and accessories accordingly.

 

[johnmrson]

I think that's too complicated for what I'm after. This is the one I'm looking at. It goes up to 640x which should be enough.

I was a bit concerned about it being bottom lit via a mirror but after reading LarryAndros post, I should be OK to light it from above with a stalk light.

 

[DavyRay]

I think that's too complicated for what I'm after. This is the one I'm looking at. It goes up to 640x which should be enough.

I was a bit concerned about it being bottom lit via a mirror but after reading LarryAndros post, I should be OK to light it from above with a stalk light.

I think you will be more than happy with the magnification of that one. The lighting will be your challenge. I find that using a jeweler's loupe can be difficult due to the short focal length (25mm), and the difficulty of getting even lighting that close to my face. The microscope would be much better. A pair of movable lamps may work, one on each side.

 

[LarryAndro]

The two microscopes I tried looked almost identical in construction to the Precision microscope in the preceding picture. I didn't keep them. But, with my gooseneck lamp and a 100W light bulb I was able to image a straight razor blade edge.

As odd as it sounds, I highly recommend the use of play dough...

If it were me I would discard the clips (for slides) to get a totally flat surface. After putting a blade on the surface, if the blade moves in the least bit you will totally lose focus and view of the blade, or both. If you put the blade in place, then press a lump of dough on both sides of the blade, it dampens motion. But, allows movement of the blade when needed.

With my Radio Shack microscope, I put the blade in the top of a Tootsie Roll shaped lump and it works wonderfully.

 

[lightnin]

I didn't try and make a copy of this critter, but it seemed like what I would be looking for to look at blades. Amazon.com has several different models and the one in the link is around $50.00 with free shipping. If the link doesn't work just go to Amazon.com and search on digital microscope. You can view pictures on your computer or make pictures, etc.


http://www.amazon.com/Celestron-443...TF8&s=electronics&qid=1277857905&sr=1-1-spell

 

[Seraphim]

Another important part, and why I am also a play dough advocate, is to angle the cutting edge of the razor UP from horizontal, so you will be able to look at the cutting edge, not just how shiny you ate making the bevel. Take a look at Tim Zowada's site, he's got a good pic of his setup, as well as some awesome edge pics!

I'm on my iPhone right now, so I can't post pics of my setup, but I use a 100x benchscope, that along with the CCD camera I have results in about 400x magnification. But at 100x optical it also has great resolution, which is really what is important. High power but blurry is useless.

 

[sanfranciscian]

hi folks, thanks, here is the link for the one i am looking athttp://store.amscope.com/se306r-p.html

My problem up until now has been that i have a loupe but it does not do it for me so i bought one of those radio shack ones and that has not been too usable either but maybe with larrys tip i can get it to work. i agree that it is a lot of money for something to use for razors only but at this point i think i have about 30$ in to the loupe and shack scope but i guess i am not telling you anything you have not experienced with chasing the dream. thanks for the imput on the magnification and if i pull the trigger on a regular scope i will let you all know how it works out!

 

[SliceOfLife]

I get crystal clear image at 400x, it's a beast to tune in though. But it's very useful for looking at edge condition. However, that isn't the whole story. The edge looks GREAT coming off my DMT 1200, better than off any of my finishers, but it certainly doesn't shave better. A very smooth, even, but thick edge is useless as a shaver. However, once you get past a certain point, edge condition is very telling. There's a whole world of experimentation at 400x if you have a lot of hones, razors, and time. There are things I could tell you from my study that would get me laughed at because they fly so thoroughly in the face of the accepted "facts" of razor honing. But because they'd be so controversial, and really useless unless you had an understanding only gained through learning them yourselves, it's best if you pick them up on your own. A really nice microscope is an investment, and absolutely unnecessary to become a great honer, but it will let you APPRECIATE honing on a completely different level than you would if you were only interested in getting the best edge through imitation of proven methods.

 

[Hemlock]

We bought an Amscope stereo scope at work. Not the same model, but I like it for the most part. Their tech service was worthless getting an issue with the drivers for the USB camera attachment straightened out. We have the 5 mega pixel cam, and it's hard to get a great picture with it. Mostly I think this is due to the fact that you loose the depth of field when using the camera instead of both eyes. This is more a comment on the usability of the stereo scope than a negative comment on camera.

Also, the two eyepieces are geared together so that both move when adjusting for the distance between different users eyes. This feature has failed in out scope, we have not yet returned it for service (had it less than a year). Despite these negatives, I like the scope. It is a great help, and with the LED light right they offer makes getting a good view of things a snap. Both the scope and the stand are solid and feel pretty well made. I hope our eyepiece issue is an isolated event.

I have yet to bring in a razor to check out with it, but some day I'll take a few in on a weekend along with some hones.

 

[SiBurning]

We bought an Amscope stereo scope at work. Not the same model, but I like it for the most part. Their tech service was worthless getting an issue with the drivers for the USB camera attachment straightened out. We have the 5 mega pixel cam, and it's hard to get a great picture with it. Mostly I think this is due to the fact that you loose the depth of field when using the camera instead of both eyes. This is more a comment on the usability of the stereo scope than a negative comment on camera.

Also, the two eyepieces are geared together so that both move when adjusting for the distance between different users eyes. This feature has failed in out scope, we have not yet returned it for service (had it less than a year). Despite these negatives, I like the scope. It is a great help, and with the LED light right they offer makes getting a good view of things a snap. Both the scope and the stand are solid and feel pretty well made. I hope our eyepiece issue is an isolated event.

I have yet to bring in a razor to check out with it, but some day I'll take a few in on a weekend along with some hones.

Amscope isn't exactly known for quality.

What kind of problems do you have with the camera? My understanding is that usb cameras use a really cheap type of sensor that limits their usefulness. I couldn't get a decent picture with mine. Then I tried a real camera and the pictures came out just fine. Aside from setting up the camera properly, other issues are distortion and depth of field. With a camera, you lose the depth of focus, which means you can only get a thin layer in focus--this is exactly what happens with a compound microscope. The typical stereo scope is a Greenbough (two complete optical systems at different angles) which means you need to tilt the subject about 6 degrees to keep it flat within the optical train. If you have a CMO (shared optics), which is unlikely, you'd end up with a curved image no matter what.

 

[Thebigspendur]

With any optical instrument it's all about the resolution not the magnification. That's a mistake most make. You can see more with a quality 40x than with a poor 400x. I've found a quality 10x shows me all I need for razor work. Most people get carried away with this stuff.