Microscope recommendation

[kwyjibo]

I am considering purchasing a scope for sign out and I was looking for recommendations. Looking mainly at ergonomics and optical performance. I drive solely by hand so the quality/ergonomics of the x-y stage controls don't matter much. Rather, having a rigid stage/frsme would help more to minimize going in and out of focus due to the hand being on the stage.

Here are the models I have tried in the past:
- Olympus bx40 (lots of stage flex and "mushy" focus knob although this may be due to age/lack of maintenance)
- accuscope exc-500 (lots of stage flex, objectives slightly aplanar at the edge of the field)
- Nikon ci-s (ok stage flex, optics better than the exc-500, which is interesting as these two microscopes are allegedly made in the same factory in China)
- Nikon 50i (ok stage flex)
- Nikon ni manual model(slightly better than the ci and 50i in terms of stage flex but it also had a circular stage, which was actually better for driving by hand)

Overall I would say the Nikon scopes had slightly better optics but these were with achromats, I'm not sure if the difference goes away at the fluorite/Apo grade objectives. I did like the trigger style knob for the Nikon flip condensor over the knurled knob on the Olympus but this is a minor thing.

I have not tried any of the ergonomic Olympus models (bx45 or bx46) so input on those would be appreciated.

Thanks for your help!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted314957]

I am considering purchasing a scope for sign out and I was looking for recommendations. Looking mainly at ergonomics and optical performance. I drive solely by hand so the quality/ergonomics of the x-y stage controls don't matter much. Rather, having a rigid stage/frsme would help more to minimize going in and out of focus due to the hand being on the stage.

Here are the models I have tried in the past:
- Olympus bx40 (lots of stage flex and "mushy" focus knob although this may be due to age/lack of maintenance)
- accuscope exc-500 (lots of stage flex, objectives slightly aplanar at the edge of the field)
- Nikon ci-s (ok stage flex, optics better than the exc-500, which is interesting as these two microscopes are allegedly made in the same factory in China)
- Nikon 50i (ok stage flex)
- Nikon ni manual model(slightly better than the ci and 50i in terms of stage flex but it also had a circular stage, which was actually better for driving by hand)

Overall I would say the Nikon scopes had slightly better optics but these were with achromats, I'm not sure if the difference goes away at the fluorite/Apo grade objectives. I did like the trigger style knob for the Nikon flip condensor over the knurled knob on the Olympus but this is a minor thing.

I have not tried any of the ergonomic Olympus models (bx45 or bx46) so input on those would be appreciated.

Thanks for your help!

I always thought the Olympus S PLAN APO’s (their top end optics) were outstanding .


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[pathslides]

I have a Nikon Eclipse Ci-E with all APO lenses. It is absolutely fantastic. LED with those optics gives great clarity and detail. I love my scope.

 

[HeyDalaron]

Zeiss

 

[Alteran]

I've used both Olympus and Nikon scopes. They have their quirks, but they're both good scopes. There are some quirks though, but you'll have to have a big budget to notice. Olympus does not make a dry plan apochromat for 60X (only fluorite), but Nikon still does. And Olympus makes a 1.25X in the apochromatic grade while Nikon only makes a 1X in the achromatic grade. These differences are almost certainly meaningless to all but the most particular pathologists.

Both scopes can be set up to be very ergonomic, despite what one company says of the other and vice versa. Its's all just a matter of preference and budget really. My group is an Olympus outfit, but I trained with Nikons and found both to be very acceptable.

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

Plan Fluor and an ergonomic head and you are set.

All the brands are good, Olympus, Nikon, Zeiss. I really enjoyed testing a Zeiss but their quote wasn't competitive with Nikon.

 

[path19]

Quality of lenses are more important than scope imo.

 

[Torsed]

I would look at Zeiss.

I have used Nikons in the past, very good, can't kill em.

I have used Olympus, good, I don't mind, currently flying a BX46.

If I had my way......I'd get a Zeiss.....

 

[Torsed]

Plan Fluor and an ergonomic head and you are set.

All the brands are good, Olympus, Nikon, Zeiss. I really enjoyed testing a Zeiss but their quote wasn't competitive with Nikon.

Sounds like admin putting jibberish in your mouth. What platform do you want YOUR cancer read on....as the billboard says.

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

Sounds like admin putting jibberish in your mouth. What platform do you want YOUR cancer read on....as the billboard says.

All the platforms looked the same once you pimp the scopes out but there was a dramatic difference in the quotes. I run many businesses and don't waste money.

 

[Torsed]

All the platforms looked the same once you pimp the scopes out but there was a dramatic difference in the quotes. I run many businesses and don't waste money.

Guess there is that Zeiss enigma that the old guys liked.

I am an artist, business....as we see recently, has absolutely tanked.

 

[kwyjibo]

Plan Fluor and an ergonomic head and you are set.

All the brands are good, Olympus, Nikon, Zeiss. I really enjoyed testing a Zeiss but their quote wasn't competitive with Nikon.

One question, how much better are the fluorites and apo objectives? Do these optics make sign out significantly easier? I can see the benefits if photomicrography is a big part of practice ( ie tumor boards, pubs) but I don't really do much of this.

 

[SPQR]

For daily signout, APOchromatic lenses probably aren't necessary and may even slow you down since you have to adjust the collar to get sharp images at
40X and above.

But in my subspecialty, our reports include photomicrographs and we frequently make educational ppt for clinicians. So I have a very nice Nikon Eclipse with APO lens objective. But honestly, I would choose Olympus BX3 series if our group decides to buy new microscopes. Nikon chassis has too many cheap plastic components that break easily.

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

One question, how much better are the fluorites and apo objectives? Do these optics make sign out significantly easier? I can see the benefits if photomicrography is a big part of practice ( ie tumor boards, pubs) but I don't really do much of this.

Test them and see for yourself. When I ordered 20+ scopes off Nikon years ago, companies provided us with anything we wanted to test.

 

[Microscope Co]

I am considering purchasing a scope for sign out and I was looking for recommendations. Looking mainly at ergonomics and optical performance. I drive solely by hand so the quality/ergonomics of the x-y stage controls don't matter much. Rather, having a rigid stage/frsme would help more to minimize going in and out of focus due to the hand being on the stage.

Here are the models I have tried in the past:
- Olympus bx40 (lots of stage flex and "mushy" focus knob although this may be due to age/lack of maintenance)
- accuscope exc-500 (lots of stage flex, objectives slightly aplanar at the edge of the field)
- Nikon ci-s (ok stage flex, optics better than the exc-500, which is interesting as these two microscopes are allegedly made in the same factory in China)
- Nikon 50i (ok stage flex)
- Nikon ni manual model(slightly better than the ci and 50i in terms of stage flex but it also had a circular stage, which was actually better for driving by hand)

Overall I would say the Nikon scopes had slightly better optics but these were with achromats, I'm not sure if the difference goes away at the fluorite/Apo grade objectives. I did like the trigger style knob for the Nikon flip condensor over the knurled knob on the Olympus but this is a minor thing.

I have not tried any of the ergonomic Olympus models (bx45 or bx46) so input on those would be appreciated.

Thanks for your help!

Nikon makes a fixed stage for microscopy that is designed for pathology. You can view it at the following link: Nikon Pathology Microscope Stage


The optical and mechanical quality of the Nikon is superior to the Accuscope in side by side comparisons. Components of the Accuscope are made in the same factory in China, but the quality control levels are not even close. Nikon uses a chromium free glass in their objectives and they've been making microscopes for over 100 years. If you're looking for a long term investment, I would recommend the Nikon. The Nikon will last you 20 plus years. I don't think I can say the same for the EXC model from Accuscope. (At least not yet...it's only been in production a few years)