hsu@stsci.EDU (chung Hsu) (10/17/90)
I am considering buying a microscope for my 10 year old daughter. I like to get a good quality (i.e. not a toy) yet not too expensive one (say, under ~$250). I welcome advice about which brand/model to look for since I am very ignorant about this market. Is there any magazine which publishes reviews of such hardware? I know Edmund has a line of inexpensive microscopes. Any opinion about them? Also, pointers to used equipment market are equally welcome. Please e-mail, thanks. -- J.-C. Hsu (internet: hsu@stsci.edu, bitnet: hsu@stsci)
teexmmo@ioe.lon.ac.uk (Matthew Moore) (10/19/90)
>I am considering buying a microscope for my 10 year old daughter. I like to get >a good quality (i.e. not a toy) yet not too expensive one (say, under ~$250). I would strongly recommend getting a dissecting microscope, with good light sources for both transmission, and side lighting. Dissecting microscopes are lowish power, say 5X to 50X, allow examination of everyday articles, and plant and animal life, such as flowers and pond water, without the need for any special preparation. They allow stereo viewing, which means that things like mould on bread, or the surface of textiles, look spectacular. Dissecting microscopes are also cheaper! The general problem of obejective crunching into cover-slip, or smashing slide, is also avoided. (Because focussing at high magnifacation is tedious for a child). (I did have access to a decent microscope as a nipper, and enjoyed using it very much. When I was a student, I had possession of a dissecting microscope for a few weeks, and enjoyed that _much_ more).
rdi@cci632.UUCP (Rick Inzero) (10/20/90)
In article <1990Oct19.102111.17191@ioe.lon.ac.uk> teexmmo@ioe.lon.ac.uk (Matthew Moore) writes: >>I am considering buying a microscope for my 10 year old daughter. I like to get >>a good quality (i.e. not a toy) yet not too expensive one (say, under ~$250). > >I would strongly recommend getting a dissecting microscope, with good >... >Dissecting microscopes are lowish power, say 5X to 50X, allow >examination of everyday articles, and plant and animal life, such as >flowers and pond water, without the need for any special preparation. >They allow stereo viewing, which means that things like mould on >bread, or the surface of textiles, look spectacular. I second this suggestion. Stay with low power. All the non-industrial microscopes I've seen (1960's vintage Gilbert brand) have tremendous light-loss at higher magnifications that render these settings pretty useless. As a kid, I was MUCH MUCH happier with my 60-100-150-400 power scope than I was with a second 100-400-750-1000X scope. I primarily used the 60X setting, and frequently wished I had a few *lower* magnifications, not higher. I also second the stereo scope idea. If you can afford one, a stereo scope is vastly superior to a mono scope for the type stuff kids and hobbyists look at. Seeing 3-D is truly *incredible* through a stereo scope. We have an industrial stereo scope here at work, and I bring in mineral specimens to look at once in a while, and my friends are awestruck when they take a peek. If anybody knows a source of inexpensive stereo scopes, let me know, I'm looking! --- Rick Inzero rochester!cci632!rdi Computer Consoles Inc. (CCI) uunet!ccicpg!cci632!rdi Rochester, NY uunet!rlgvax!cci632!rdi "Your grandmother never, ever called me stupid. She always called me 'pinhead'." -Jimmy Stewart in 1988 Campbells Soup commercial.