Amateur microscope mostly for children

  • Thread starter fluidistic
  • Start date
  • Featured
  • #1
fluidistic
Gold Member
3,654
100

Main Question or Discussion Point

When I was a child I used to have a microscope. I don't remember the maximum zoom it could do. Nowadays when I look up for amateur microscopes on the web, they seem to go up to either 1000x or 2000x. Do you think it's enough to get some fun by looking at bugs and cells of onions for example? The use would not be for research, only to have fun.

Is there any recommendations you could provide? I'm thinking to buy one either in the near or not too far away future.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Mister T
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,485
759
Edmund Scientific is a good source for stuff like that.
 
  • #3
berkeman
Mentor
56,649
6,551
I would buy a USB based microscope. That way the kids can also save the images they like best and can use them for their science class reports, etc. :smile:
 
  • #4
davenn
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
9,065
6,802
I'm thinking to buy one either in the near or not too far away future.

I would buy a USB based microscope. That way the kids can also save the images they like best and can use them for their science class reports, etc. :smile:

excellent suggestion … completely agree :)
and one step further, make sure it can be used with eye or camera
just so the real hands on experience is still there
 
  • #5
davenn
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
9,065
6,802
they seem to go up to either 1000x or 2000x. Do you think it's enough to get some fun by looking at bugs and cells of onions for example?
more than enough, to get decent quality viewing at high magnifications will require a much higher quality instrument ... much more cost

I have one similar to this .....

binocular-microscope-500x500.jpg



great for magnifications over 1000x
but with a hefty price $2k +


stick with something good quality but a fraction of the price

@Mister T suggested Edmund Scientific .... a good company
 
  • #6
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
24,132
4,230
I would buy a USB based microscope. That way the kids can also save the images they like best and can use them for their science class reports, etc. :smile:
It would all depend on the particular 'kid'. Operating two devices at the same time when a child is crawling about on the grass or just beside a garden pond seems to me to be a recipe for disaster. But a teenager could probably cope. As a starter scope, I think a straight simple visual would be best up to, say, early teens.
I would suggest that a wireless connection to a smart phone would be better than USB. I use a wireless endoscope (very cheap and cheerful) and an App on my iPhone. No wires to get tangled up in and all the functions of record, display and store.
Amazon have a big range of Wireless Microscopes and others. Look at the reviews.
 
  • #7
834
371
My favorite scope for my own amusement is a Bausch and Lomb stereozoom 7 which I got for $200 on ebay. It has a maximum linear magnification of 35x. This is a front illuminated (reflection) scope and a much better design for most kids IMHO. It makes circuits huge and bugs are very scary.
Most of the Chinese scopes which they advertise as 1000x are really more like 33x linear magnification (they must be looking at area). But that's a good thing because a real 1000x linear scope is a lab instrument and requires high illumination and careful handling......not all that much "fun". I have seen "1000x" scopes advertised ~<$50 with gear driven stand, dedicated electronic screen, zoom capability, and SD card. The electronic display is cheaper to build than purely optical I think. That's what I would get, but I have not used one.
 
  • #8
Andy Resnick
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
7,352
1,787
When I was a child I used to have a microscope. I don't remember the maximum zoom it could do. Nowadays when I look up for amateur microscopes on the web, they seem to go up to either 1000x or 2000x. Do you think it's enough to get some fun by looking at bugs and cells of onions for example? The use would not be for research, only to have fun.

Is there any recommendations you could provide? I'm thinking to buy one either in the near or not too far away future.
Personally, I recommend starting with something like Digital Blue's QX5 or QX7 USB scope- Digital blue is no longer is business, but the scopes seem to still be available.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0095YJVUM/?tag=pfamazon01-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0002HLKI2/?tag=pfamazon01-20

If you are interested in higher-quality lenses/camera and want more capability, Edmund Optics has a decent array of options:

https://www.edmundoptics.com/c/microscope-systems/628/

Amscope is another source:

https://www.amscope.com/

What you should do is find a model that you like and try and find a used one on eBay. Happy to comment on any model you find promising.
 
  • #9
PAllen
Science Advisor
2019 Award
7,910
1,199
Has something changed in recent years? I thought for 1000x or more nonempty magnification you need oil immersion. And empty magnification is worse than useless.

As a kid, I would think decent quality in the range from 25x to 400x is much more useful than higher magnifications.
 
  • #10
OmCheeto
Gold Member
2,114
2,483
I purchased my first two microscopes about 2 months ago. I've been delighted with both.

The only annoying thing was the false advertising involved with my USB microscope:
0.2 megapixel, advertised as 2.0 megapixel​
3.6x - 47x magnification, advertised as 5x - 500x​
640x320 resolution, advertised as 1600x1200​
I paid $90 for what is selling for around $20.

Anyways, even at 17x magnification, bugs are HUGE!

This poor sod, is 2 mm across the shoulders:

monster.bug..jpg


I say poor, as I froze it for a month at -10°C, and when it awoke, I drowned it in isopropyl alcohol for half an hour. When that didn't kill it, I lit it on fire.

My other microscope cost about $300, and is most fantastic. I have seen bacteria, Swimming!
But fungi are more photogenic.

Here's something that grew in some tea that I left out a bit too long:

dontknow.jpg

I'm guessing it was with my 40x objective.

Here's a fungus culture I grew from my mouth. Prior to putting it under the microscope, I thought the colony was bacterial.

2020.01.04.4.10.40.black.png
 
  • #11
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,603
2,065
The only annoying thing was the false advertising involved with my USB microscope:
0.2 megapixel, advertised as 2.0 megapixel​
3.6x - 47x magnification, advertised as 5x - 500x​
640x320 resolution, advertised as 1600x1200​
How on Earth could you let them get away with that!?
 
  • #12
OmCheeto
Gold Member
2,114
2,483
How on Earth could you let them get away with that!?
As far as I can tell, nearly everyone selling them is claiming the same thing.
 
  • #13
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
24,132
4,230
I say poor, as I froze it for a month at -10°C, and when it awoke, I drowned it in isopropyl alcohol for half an hour. When that didn't kill it, I lit it on fire.
That's why cockroaches and their friends will outlive us all. :))
 
  • #14
Andy Resnick
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
7,352
1,787
Has something changed in recent years? I thought for 1000x or more nonempty magnification you need oil immersion. And empty magnification is worse than useless.

As a kid, I would think decent quality in the range from 25x to 400x is much more useful than higher magnifications.
You are correct- the advertised giant magnification is mostly empty magnification. But look at all them zeros!
 
  • #15
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,603
2,065
You are correct- the advertised giant magnification is mostly empty magnification. But look at all them zeros!
I assume that empty mag is the same for microscopes as for telescopes.

Telescopes use a Barlow lens that simply makes the image larger without adding detail (as well as resulting in a dimmer image).

The key to a telescope is not magnification - it is objective lens diameter.
 
  • #16
davenn
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
9,065
6,802
I assume that empty mag is the same for microscopes as for telescopes.
Not usually, the scope (with a given focal length) with the appropriate eyepiece will give
200 - 500 x mag. but for the el-cheapo scopes that advertise that it is useless as the view
is extremely poor
 
  • #17
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
24,132
4,230
Not usually, the scope (with a given focal length) with the appropriate eyepiece will give
200 - 500 x mag. but for the el-cheapo scopes that advertise that it is useless as the view
is extremely poor
It's such a shame when a kid is given something technical which was chosen by a non-technical person. My Granny gave me a number of such gifts and she never found out just how useless they were. I hadn't the heart.
 
  • #18
davenn
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
9,065
6,802
It's such a shame when a kid is given something technical which was chosen by a non-technical person.
True, but it's even worse that this crap is on the market to start with :frown:

I dread to think of the number of people ( kids and adults) that have been turned off astronomy because of
sales hype and garbage gear
 
  • #19
Andy Resnick
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
7,352
1,787
The key to a telescope is not magnification - it is objective lens diameter.
Close: it's the numerical aperture (f-number). The rule of thumb is that empty magnification begins around 500 to 1000 times the numerical aperture.
 
  • #20
Andy Resnick
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
7,352
1,787
When I look at this image (a selfie) at 100%, it corresponds to a magnification of 8000x, but when posted here it's only a paltry 6000x:

100X phase.jpg

(It's a nucleus in one of my cheek epithelial cells, not sure about the tiny black spots.... ). When re-scaled to 'maximum usable magnification' it looks like this:

100X phase-1.jpg
 
  • #21
OmCheeto
Gold Member
2,114
2,483
When I look at this image (a selfie) at 100%, it corresponds to a magnification of 8000x, but when posted here it's only a paltry 6000x:

View attachment 255924
(It's a nucleus in one of my cheek epithelial cells, not sure about the tiny black spots.... ). When re-scaled to 'maximum usable magnification' it looks like this:

View attachment 255926
I spent most of yesterday and part of today testing this "maximum usable magnification" thing.
It appears to be true!

empty.mag.test.2020.01.23.png


I can't really tell much difference between the original and the one that's been through the wringer washer.

According my my maths below, I could have gotten away with a 0.3 megapixel camera vs the fancy 5.0 megapixel camera I went out of my way to pay extra for!

Screen Shot 2020-01-24 at 3.50.40 PM.png


One consolation though, is that the 5.0 megapixel camera fits my camera-less telescope!
I tested it the other day on a tree across the street, and it looks as though Saturn will be about 39 pixels across, rings not included.
 
  • #22
BillTre
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,278
2,410
I have a number of microscopes that I use for different purposes.
My favorite and most useful is an old American Optics stereoscopic (dissecting microscope).
I think of this as the most kid friendly kind of scope in the it gives you an extreme close of what you see. Something kids will be able to relate to.
Get a weird bug or what ever and look at it under the scope. It also has a convenient working distance so that yo can manipulate things under the scope as you look at them. This gives you a better feel for the things your looking at and is not something that I get as much from digital cameras.
I have been lucky to have worked near where old lab equiment was put to be recycled or sent to the dump. Since I can often fix mechanical problems wit these kinds of scopes, I have a several scopes of various kinds I have reclaimed from their final destiny at the dump.

OTOH, this scope is old and was not made for taking pictures.
I have a digital scope I use for the equivalent mag pictures.
However, it is not so handy for doing manipulations of objects under magnification.

I also have a handful of compound scopes (mostly for things like looking at slides), which I have used for trying to ID fish diseases or for looking at things living in pond or fish tank water. It would also be OK for slides of tissues, but I have not made any of these for home use.
These are also older student scopes not made for taking pictures.
The digital scopes I have seen can have different lenses (purchased separately) to give higher mags. This would require a stable mounting system to get decent results.

I friend of mine bought a nice med student quality compound (nice phase optics) scope for a few hundred dollars.
He takes pictures by holding his iPhone camera up to the ocular. This works OK, not great.
 
  • #24
419
165
Has something changed in recent years? I thought for 1000x or more nonempty magnification you need oil immersion. And empty magnification is worse than useless.

As a kid, I would think decent quality in the range from 25x to 400x is much more useful than higher magnifications.
My kids have an up to x900 microscope. But mostly use it in x50- x200 range. Higher zooms are too limited utility for (temperamental) kids - because time-consuming light setup and speciment preparation (flattening) is necessary.
 
  • #25
Andy Resnick
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
7,352
1,787
I spent most of yesterday and part of today testing this "maximum usable magnification" thing.
It appears to be true!
[...]
One consolation though, is that the 5.0 megapixel camera fits my camera-less telescope!
I tested it the other day on a tree across the street, and it looks as though Saturn will be about 39 pixels across, rings not included.
In microscopy, the camera pixel size is a critical metric. For example, it may be surprising that imaging with a 10x/0.3 lens requires a smaller sensor pixel size as compared to imaging with a 100x immersion lens in order to match the pixel size to the size of the point spread function.
 

Related Threads for: Amateur microscope mostly for children

  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
3K
Top