Why a 3000x microscope magnification does not make sense!

[@donwheeler1545]

This same scam applies to telescopes. In reality, the maximum usable magnification of a telescope is just a little bit more than the diameter of the objective lens or mirror in millimeters. A 200 mm primary mirror maxes out at about 240X. Yet manufacturers will claim magnification of 1000X or more for scopes with 50 or 60mm objectives.

[@Microbehunter]

Yes, and the purpose of telescopes is also to capture light, to make faint stars (etc) visible, and not only to magnify. I used to be (still am a bit) into amateur astronomy as well and when I bought a telescope years ago, this issue about unrealistic magnification was already covered in magazines. I guess consumers want to have a simple way of comparing the quality, and magnification seems to be the most easily understood one, even though it's not the best measure.

[@PhilJonesIII]

I spend a lot of time photographing stars and you are right. There is a huge difference between magnification and what can actually be resolved. Additionally, those high-end magnifications you need very solid (read heavy) tripods and the ability to track stars as they move.

[@JesusistheWaytheTruth288]

On top of that the higher magnification you go, the smaller the exit pupil. So not only is the image getting blurrier as you go higher, but it's getting dimmer as well! That's why larger aperture telescopes show so much more detail. You're can hit higher magnifications with a larger exit pupil. Exit pupil is the size of the image that gets reflected from the telescope. Basically what gets projected onto your eye through the eyepiece. If you have a pupil that's 7mm fully dilated, and an exit pupil that's only 0.5mm, you're wasting 6.5mm of light gathering from your eye. (At least that's what I remember it being back when I was super into this stuff, if I'm wrong someone correct me.)

[@PhilJonesIII]

@@JesusistheWaytheTruth288 Dilated pupils......So that's why people do astronomy in the dark. :)

[@PhilJonesIII]

@@AverageJoe8686 Thanks. I do actually spend a lot of time photographing stars. And you are right, slightly off-center is helpful though it feels strange at first. To me, the Andromeda Galaxy is just a faint blur when not looking directly. If I look straight at it, then I see nothing.

[@LemonScissors]

You saved me from doing a stupid purchase. You explained my worries and questions so well. Thanks a lot for letting us know this valuable info!

[@Khyrid]

I know from watching CSI, you just have to say "Enhance" it you see more.

[@MattyExplore]

This is great. Everyone should watch this video before purchasing their first microscope.

[@ARTO540]

That is exactly what I'm doing right now Haha

[@kevinarzola4781]

Olav Viking no, it’s a scam. All they’re doing is changing the eye piece lenses to achieve higher magnification without taking the rest into account. Hence, why it looks like shit at 3000x

[@BeeRich33]

@@kevinarzola4781 You've done no industrial microbiology. Do some, get back to us.

[@BeeRich33]

@Bleep Bloop Industry uses enlargement all the time. You know, the companies that pay for these things?

[@kevinarzola4781]

BeeRich33 lmao what I said is literally proven. It’s scientific fact. The man even holds your hand to explain it

[@MrPacMan36]

I actually love your intro... It feels nostalgic. Like I'm back in grade school getting ready to watch something the substitute found in the library

[@beard6488]

Randomly at exactly 4:37am I have found out I want this to be another hobby of mine and realized I should look up things to have a better understanding. I’m glad I did bc all I was focused on was the magnification. I’m glad I found this video. Thank you. You saved me a lot of money from people likely praying on beginners like myself.

[@SimMaster]

Well yeah, it's just like optical vs digital zoom. The microscope companies should advertise in terms of resolution, otherwise it's just misleading.

[@gordonlawrence4749]

It's not quite as simple as that. Using visible light it's not possible to resolve anything meaningful below a certain size as even blue light has a wavelength of about 0.0000004 meters (0.0004mm). All you would get magnifying something that small up is a blob regardless of lens quality.

[@gordonlawrence4749]

@ateb3 I'm under the impression that it is down to lens quality and alignment. I do not know for sure though.

[@jakobengelmann1262]

the zoom in got me lmao

[@imsidetracted]

"Snap!"

[@leviklopfenstein8158]

I was wondering what you were talking about Then it happened.

[@marvinkitfox3386]

The guy is correct, and accurate. But he NEVER ACTUALLY GETS AROUND to explaining why. I.E. good scientist, shyte teacher.

[@Microbehunter]

The explanation *why* is mathematical. I will do a video on that.

[@redpandamaniacal]

@@Microbehunter Looking forward to it! Subbed.

[@iarrcsim2323]

Visible light or optical microscopes can't resolve details smaller than 1 wavelength. From violet to red, that wavelength ranges from 200nm to 700nm. Since blue light has shorter wavelengths, it would be possible to see clearer details in filtered blue light than red. Why is 1 wavelength the limit? The reason is that light is a wave so it diffracts or bends at the scale of 1 wavelength. Why do the images made by interfering electromagnetic waves get blurred by 1 wavelength? This reasoning is getting deep enough that it is hard to explain. Anyway, you can still resolve finer detail with a microscope. Resolving finer details just requires a jump to a completely different type of microscope such as an electron microscope or x-ray microscope. If websites selling electron microscopes listed their maximum powers, that would be really funny since I doubt the typical electron microscope shopper would be swayed by those numbers.

[@marvinkitfox3386]

@@iarrcsim2323 All perfectly true, and all *irrelevant* to the practical limit of visual microscopy limitations. The limits imposed by wavelength limits are *several* magnitudes smaller than the limits imposed by practical objective diameters.

[@chrismorse3862]

How is it correct or accurate then? Using digital zoom as an analogy doesn't really make sense either unless you're talking at the level the commentor above mentioned where the wavelength is the smallest scale. Taking a digital photograph and zooming in looks like shit because there is no more information there. You're looking at a representation of a sample of light taken by a sensor; usually a square that is not accurate measurement of the actual light as it would be observed, but an 'average' if you will that is assigned to the closest match available. From what you and the video poster are saying it is something different.

[@arthdenton]

Okay, I get it. Then what specs should one be looking at? You said 'use other criteria' but it will help to actually spell them out.

[@butth0le_inspector]

Scanning electron microscope: "Hold my beer."

[@FinnMcRiangabra]

Helium ion microscope: "Hold my cognac."

[@juliansuse1]

@@FinnMcRiangabra iPhone macro lens: "hold my soy milk shake"

[@Crimsonfireball]

Eyes: "hold my eyelids"

[@TiSapph]

STM: "Hold my electron.. ah shit they tunneled through may hands"

[@Don.Challenger]

@Crimsonfireball, Eyes: "hold my dirty glasses"

[@terriplays1726]

Your point is perfectly valid, but you should explain the reason. This phenomenon was first described by Abbe in his diffraction limit. Short explanation without math: Light consists of waves and you can totally forget seeing anything smaller than the wave length of light in a normal microscope. The wave lengths of visible light are 750-380nm, so seeing stuff like the transistors of a CPU (14nm) is completely out of the question. But the wave length is only the limit when your microscope is perfect. The second most important factor is having a large lens very close to the object to collect all angles of scattered light from the object. This can be done by using an immersion oil and sticking the lens directly onto the object. The further you go away, the smaller your lens is, the less angles you collect and your resolution suffers. At last, all of this assumes that your lenses are perfect aberration-free glass. For scientific instrumentation these days this can be safely assumened, for amateure equipment maybe not. And now you can perhaps understand we scientists (like me) use x-rays and electrons for microscopy. The wavelengths are much smaller (sub-atomic in some cases) so that we can overcome the limitation of optical microscopy. But the prices for these instruments start where the prices for high-end optical microscopes end ... we are talking several 100k up to some millions.

[@MetalheadAndNerd]

In the first minute you show some Müller brand microscopes. Please note that "Müller Optronic" or "Müller Germany" is not a German optics manufacturer. "Made in Germany" is a protected attribute, "Germany" is not. Müller is one of the most common surnames in Germany. In the recent years a couple of Chinese companies have started brands with German names.

[@aliszhinchaenz]

Yes,a couple of years ago, someone in China manufactured sport shoes branded as Uncle Armor

[@MetalheadAndNerd]

@@aliszhinchaenz That reminds me of a set of "Pieonear" headphones.

[@timgels2918]

@@MetalheadAndNerd lol

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

Not as good as Acliclas.

[@paulchilders9969]

@Jakob Jones China is fully capable of making high quality, high precision goods. They seem to be obsessed with flooding the market with 2nd and 3rd rate (or worse) junk because people are obsessed with buying it. If the average consumer was more demanding, a lot of this junk would disappear.

[@radicalxedward8047]

So basically it’s like the misconception with zoom on cameras, where people think 2x means it’s like standing half as far away from the subject, but all it really means is the image will look twice as big. You don’t get the increase in detail like you would from physically moving closer.

[@Stanton_High]

Translation, you won't get good focus at high magnification.

[@valdemarjrgensen8072]

It's not about focus, it is as he says about resolution.

[@RonnieMcNutt_Mindblowing]

Ok

[@ExaltedDuck]

When I was in 7th grade, my science class had some group projects and we got points off on ours for not listing a 1500x or whatever under a picture we had on our poster board. Thing is, it was blown up from an image in a book and the teacher wanted the book's magnification level on our blown up image. If you think about it, a magnification factor really only applies to the virtual image at the ocular lens. Your eye or camera will be receiving an image that's about half an inch or a centimeter wide. Take a picture and put it in a book or on a poster board and that factor no longer applies. The photography and printing affect the scaling of the image and therefore "magnification factor". Blew my mind that as a 12 or 13 year old kid I had to explain it and was still told I was wrong.

[@BritishBeachcomber]

You can make a microscope image larger by printing or displaying it on a big screen. But that does not increase the resolution - the amount of detail you can see.

[@inox1ck]

No, you obviously need magnification and resolving power as well. But, yes, beginners are attracted by magnification. A single piece of perfect glass with no magnification so no lensing has maximum resolving power DEPENDING ON THE SOURCE OF WAVES, light or electrons so all details are preserved but you can't really see much of the details without using lenses Once you introduce lenses the image is distorted. The better lenses you have the better the resolving power For high magnification the resolving power becomes more important. Apochromatic lenses have less chromatic and spherical aberration and thus better resolving power. But even in low magnification they offer a sharper image. For example if you have a camera and a good objective lens you can digitally zoom and get more details than with lower quality lenses. Better quality lens are more expensive not higher magnification as explained in this video. Having the best possible lens is still not enough for magnifications over 1000x because the resolving power is limited by the wavelength of light. The higher the frequency / lower the wavelength the better resolving power. That is why electron scan microscopes are by far superior because electrons have much lower deBroglie wavelength.

[@badstate]

If only the video had included any of this information...

[@Ranveer_Singh_Kahani]

U mean...not enough light to see through 3000x?

[@sergiourquijo4000]

I agree the most part but i don`t think more than 100x is a waste. I have a 1976 microscope with 4 10 40 and 100oil and oculars ranging from 5 to 15. And to do the jump from the 10 to the 40x objective i put the 15x ocular with the 10x objective first so as an in between magnificaiton and it doesn`t loose any detail. What i mean is that the 10x objective for example has enought detail to magnify it`s image like 25 times with the ocular without loosing resolution (at least not perceptible)

[@MrStringybark]

Stop beating around the bush and explain why. I'm halfway through the video and it's beginning to sound like a shaggy-dog joke story.

[@ZomgPL]

watched the whole video and i still dont know why, the only example given was blurry due to resolution which does not apply when doing optical magnification...i have no doubt that magnification numbers over certain point start to be pointless and higher end microscope with less magnification will be better than cheap chinese microscope with high magnification, but why....beats me and i dont think this guy understand why either, hes the user, he knows its there but he cant explain it

[@MrStringybark]

@@ZomgPL I wish he'd do the whole thing again but to the point. All I could gather was that he was really just stating the obvious and that is a clear distinct photo/video was better than a blurry one and the best way to do that was to concentrate on getting good resolution and depth of field and not so much on the power of the microscope.

[@ZomgPL]

@@MrStringybark i suspect it has something to do with focus and how good of a quality the lenses are, as in without defects, i dont really get why he even talks about resolution in optical zoom...

[@woowooNeedsFaith]

@ZomgPL There is something called diffraction limit. Basically you can't distinct details smaller than the wavelength of the light you are using.

[@JohnnieHougaardNielsen]

Visible light has a wavelength of about 400-700 nanometer, or 0.0004-0.0007 mm. This is the very smallest objects visible with normal light and optics, meaning that some object of that size simply cannot appear as more than just a very blurry dot. Around 0.5 mm (at 1000X) is ample size for viewing a blurry dot, it does not at all become more clear by being a 1.5 mm (at 3000X) blurry dot without any more detail.

[@Sonicexpres]

You took the first 4 minutes to convey a short sentence worth of information. I had to check the timeline because I thought I restarted the video by accident somehow.

[@giopa110888]

don't know how I end up here, but I'm not complaining.

[@romeostonem6798]

im buying a 1200x microscope with 7.5x,15x and 30x objectives and a 40x ocular is it going to provide blurry results?

[@roderik1990]

10 minutes of rambling, and you can't bother to explain WHY? This video is about 8 minutes too long for what was actually said.

[@jcr65566]

magnification is limited by the wavelength of light - you can’t see things that are only a tiny fraction of a wavelength in size. The most you can ever hope to get out of a light microscope is about 1500x, which will let you see objects as small as 200 nanometers in size.

[@punkisinthedetails1470]

Also the blurry pic is 4x and none blurry is 40x so why did he say they were the same?

[@CreeperAssassins1]

@@punkisinthedetails1470 he zoomed in on the 4x pic to get the same 'magnification' but he doesnt seem to explain why the 40x is more clear other than the normal viewer knowing about optical vs digital zoom

[@CreeperAssassins1]

@Bleep Bloop well thats the only difference that is shown in the video about why maginification doesnt matter

[@peterjf7723]

The maximum useful magnification that can be achieved by an optical microscope typically ranges from 500x to 1500x. Higher magnification is possible, but increasing magnification past a certain point results a decrease in resolution. While both the ocular and objective lenses are responsible for the final magnification on a compound microscope only the objective lens is responsible for resolution. You need to take into account the *numerical* *aperture* of the objective lens. Numerical aperture can be defined as being equal to the refractive index of substance between the specimen and the objective multiplied by sin Mu Mu being 1/2 the *aperture* *angle*. (sorry Mu should be the lower case Greek letter, KZbin comments do not seem to allow Greek letters) The aperture angle is the angle described by the cone of light that enters the objective lens after passing through the specimen. This will depend on the curvature of the lens and also on how close the objective lens is to the specimen when it is in focus. There is more about microscope magnification and resolution on the Nikon site. www.microscopyu.com/microscopy-basics/useful-magnification-range

[@peacemaker9807]

Pretty sure the limit of optical microscopes is the literal size light wavelengths. So around .4 to .7um. Or i think about 1500x.

[@KarolMurawski]

Very convoluted explanation. And too many repetitions. You can do better.

[@ZomgPL]

@White Rice pls tell me why some microscopes with high magnification are no better than ones with lower magnification

[@Microbehunter]

From a certain magnification onwards (about 1000x), you will simply see everything more blurry but not more details. The spot that you see will only appear larger but small details will not appear. You will not gain more information from a certain magnification onwards.

[@bhc1892]

@@Microbehunter Yeah dude you said that like 12x in the video but never explained why. Honestly this video could have been about 30 sec long and conveyed the same amount of information.

[@joestevenson5568]

@@Microbehunter That is simply not true. Light microscopy can resolve objects 0.2 micrometers across, a magnification of only 1000x would make that appear only 0.2mm across. That is not enough to make them easily visible, even though they can be resolved. 10,000x magnification is thus completely justifiable on a sufficiently high quality light microscope.

[@karpsson]

Thank you for explanation, but if not magnification, what specs should I pay attention to?

[@augustotiberio]

Thank you very much for your video, it is really very helpful for someone who is starting in the hobby as me. But I didn’t understood how can I determine the useful amplification for a set of lens. How can I choose between different lenses? Is there some kind of specification that determines their quality, or “sharpness” in certain amplifications?

[@Microbehunter]

Yes, there is a number (the numerical aperture or NA) printed on the lens, and the higher the number, the better the theoretical resolution. Higher magnifying objectives have a higher NA. BUT: this is only theoretical. There are many other factors that determine lens quality and there is no way that you can see this from the outside. However, for all practical purposes this does not matter in most cases and often you are not given a choice anyway when buying a microscope. Apochromatic objectives are better, but almost not affordable and you only get the image quality if your specimen is prepared properly etc. Watch the video "Microscope comparison - From very expensive to super cheap" to see a side by side image comparison.

[@augustotiberio]

Microbehunter thank you very much! I will check it out!

[@Hopperdoodle]

Same

[@xylfox]

but if you work with UV-light(10-100 littler wavelenght) you could,with some sort of converter, magnify much more? Or is also the glas the limiting factor?

[@indraa6]

tx for the explenation. So, what is the difference between low end and high end microscope if everything share the same features? is it only the quality of the device?

[@Microbehunter]

In short: A. mechanics (manufacturing quality). B. modularity (exchangability of parts) C. accessories (brand microscopes have many accessories because they also manufacture for medicine, research etc.) D. reliability. But I would say that most mid-range microscopes are really fine, especially for amateur and educational use. Some high end devices allow for additional features that are not necessary for amateur and educational use (fluorescent microscopy, DIC, phase contrast, specialized polarization microscopes etc). I made another video, where I compare low and high end microscopes.

[@woodworkerroyer8497]

Love how the brand is carefully blurred, but the "sold by" area is crystal clear! Lol I mean, we all knew which ones were get thrown under the bus, but still... But you're right, marketing is getting out of hand. The great scientists of history would KILL to get their hands on a cheap kids microscope nowadays, much less an Olympus!

[@miguelelento5637]

I have 100x objective and 16x eyepiece which makes 1600x magnification of my microscope, was this really true?

[@Microbehunter]

Correct. But it will be blurry, therefore there will not be many details visible.

[@AMadScientist]

Yes...it's true. If you like what you see, then you are ok.

[@mike4ty4]

It is true. However, it is going to provide no further _resolution_ over one with 600x magnification. That is a function of the illuminating wavelength, and for visible light that pretty much caps it at around 300ish nm or so. No feature smaller than that will you have any chance of seeing. The only way to change this is to change what you're illuminating with, and that requires a completely different and often dramatically more expensive microscope, e.g. electron microscopes.

[@starsnstuff842]

Its also almost exactly the same situation with astronomical telescopes. Low end companies advertise small often low quality telescopes with 1000X , when in fact these instruments are only capable of 120X ,maximum, even then when sky conditions are perfect.Astronomers suffer the added handicap of atmospheric turbulence so even the best and largest amateur instruments are restricted to about 400X most of the time anyway.Like microscopes the main criteria is resolution and brightness of the image at the eyepiece that counts.

[@mattsloan32]

Really liked this. Almost everything you mention also applies to astronomy as well. Insane magnification leads to no or horrible imaging.

[@PenyuluhPertanianLapangan]

What kind of adapter that u use for adapting eos camera to trinocular? I just bought a new microscope Olympus BX53, and i dont have an option to adapt my eos dslr canon camera to my microscope

[@Microbehunter]

Hello, Connecting a DSLR to the BX53 works well and gives you good results, because there are no intermediate optics. The camera must have an APS-C sensor (small seonsor amd not full format) otherwise you will not get the full field of view. You need 3 items: U-TV1X-2 and U-TMAD and a camera-specific T2 adapter ring. You can get these adapters directly from Olympus or second hand. (There might be a plastic foil in the adapter that you have to remove to get the full field of view).

[@PenyuluhPertanianLapangan]

@@Microbehunter i just have U-TV0-5XC for be connected to C-mount camera. And i also have T-Connector to be used to my small microscope (107Bn) I think for having a high frame rate i decide to use my canon eos camera to my olympus bx53. But i dont have option. I try to find store online in my country (indonesia) but i cant find it (T-MAD)

[@Microbehunter]

@@PenyuluhPertanianLapangan Try to buy it directly from Olympus if you can not find it second hand, even if you have to import it. It will not be cheap, but you will get a really good image quality and a large field of view.

[@PenyuluhPertanianLapangan]

@@Microbehunter okay, thank you for your friendly response.

[@Smasheer123]

comparing optical zoom with digital zoom doesnt debunk anything. 4:50

[@Lardzor]

What's the difference between resolving power and focus? It seems like a lower resolving power is just an image that is more out of focus.

[@tylerschnaible1363]

4:49 is when the video starts

[@mashedpotatoes5323]

All his videos need a time stamp when it starts, he talks soooo much

[@funposting8912]

As in "Here's where there's one picture of what he's talking about, who cares the reason I just ant pretty pictures"? Yeah, very informative.

[@aqimjulayhi8798]

Now that is a jumpscare

[@linuxbrad]

Please what is the NA number in the 40x vs 40x comparison? The higher NA looked clear but what is NA?

[@boskojal1681]

Thanks for the infos, now if i were to look for a microscope what would be the specification I would need to recognize in order to have a good structure resolution of what Im magnifying ?

[@WilliamKKidd]

Guess you'll never know :c

[@garbleduser]

I calibrate and repair lots of different microscopes, but I will think twice before I agree to rebuild another Olympus CX41 Phase Contrast unit. If you thought calibrating them at setup was stressful and tedious, rebuilding one under a homemade positive pressure hepa hood is a nightmare. Gods bless bearing retention fluid!

[@JB1978]

But why haven't you listed these OTHER criteria for buying? What is the really important parameter to look for if we should ignore the magnification figures? How do you state a resolution of the microscope, for example? Is the focal length an important parameter?

[@FinnMcRiangabra]

Looking at examples of specimens through the 'scope is the best way to evaluate. NA (numeric aperture) is nice to know, etc. But you might have a 'scope that looks good on paper, but has chromatic aberrations, or weird-but-subtle internal reflections, or focus shift with change in magnification,...

[@joestevenson5568]

The poster doesn't seem to have a firm grasp about the subject. The resolution of all light microscopes is exactly the same, however lens defects lower the effective resolution, therefore the best microscope is the one with the best made lenses, unfortunately there is no real metric for this. The best you could hope for is for a company to state the size of the smallest object that microscope/lenses can resolve.

[@gordonlawrence4749]

This is why I like the advertising for electronics microscopes. Not only do they give you the magnification range they have pictures of extremely well known size items to show how well you can see them. EG an 01005 resistor (0.01 inch by 0.005 inch) is not something normally solderable by hand. You then get a picture at the different magnification levels to show how clear not only the resistor is but the "fillet" of the solder joints. Needless to say it's a completely different ball game as typically magnification is between 1.5. and 40x. Also instead of eyepieces their is a shrouded viewport you look down so the glass is actually up to 5 inches on the diagonal.

[@VoidHalo]

You want 3000x with good resolution, use a STEM. Visible light just hasn't got a small enough wavelength to resove fine details. I wonder though why they don't use EM waves of a shorter wavelength like UV with a photodetector that can actually "see" these wavelengths. Though something tells me they do.

[@VoidHalo]

I looked into it and yeah, UV microscopy is a thing. As is microscopy utilizing soft x-rays in the same manner. But apparently you can tune electrons to almost any wavelength. So that's why STEMs are more common.

[@ElectricityTaster]

Maybe you can use a UV light source and then use a UV camera to take photos. Might save you a few million dollars.

[@mpforeverunlimited]

Let me just pull out a quarter million dollars and grab one

[@ElectricityTaster]

@puckay Put sunscreen on them.

[@gordonlawrence4749]

Electronics uses both X-Ray and Electron microscopes. When you are trying to resolve things with a size heading for 1/10,000 the wavelength of visible light it starts getting a mite hairy. EG fault "blips" on the line widths of .07nm lithography.

[@bengoodchild883]

My antique winkel-zeiss field microscope manufactured in 1911 grotingen has 1000X magnification. It has: 3 objective lens mounts, monocular eye piece, a horizontally adjustable stage, course and fine focus adjustment (nose/turret height rather than stage height), an iris diaphragm, and a filter insert slide. It is by no means a superb microscope by today's standards considering its small field of view, quality of objectives, etc. I can still look at what I want to though, and as a hobbyist that's good enough. QQ I've been trying to figure out: does the 100X objective require oil immersion? This could explain why I can't get it to focus at a reasonable focal length from my slides. Will have to look into that more closely. Thanks for your video!

[@ottoleisering7855]

You really didn't have to keep repeating the difference between magnification and resolution endlessly. I got it the first time.

[@marcsmithsonian9773]

Are there organisms to small to resolve under conventional microscope and to big to resolve for electron microscopes?

[@mavriksc]

you don't talk about why those higher powers don't work. your example doesn't work either. by zooming after the fact you are reducing the resolution because there are fewer sensors being hit by the same area of sample. with your eye it's going to still be projected across the whole surface. I remember doing oil immersion in high school, so i'm guessing we're dealing with a refractive index issue at this level of magnification or are we also coming close to the resolution limit of light at those powers?

[@lakshaykaushik2763]

Sir is the digtal microscope with 1000x better or the carson opticall 300mm

[@bogdandima8139]

Thank you! As a Med-Bio student it is releaving seeing and understanding the specificity and the point of your advices. I am both glad and gratefull to you, for this clip. The only true microscope propper buying advice. Thanks to you, today i gained a few more criteria when considering purchasing my new ''toy''. :)

[@piousminion7822]

Isn't the one on the left simply out of focus? Or... Are we do we have a limited set of photons coming in with which we are sampling from to zoom in? Verses far more photons from a smaller area.

[@nitsan]

Great stuff. Thanks! What stereo microscope would you recommend up to $300?

[@Microbehunter]

I can not recommend anything particular, because the choice is so large and so much depends on individual needs and preferences. There is a saying: "The best microscope is the one that is used most often."

[@gregsprowl9439]

The manufacturers are referring to the size as viewed on a video monitor. I use a 2000x scope to view very small rotary engraving bits which have a tip width of 0.1mm ...... on the monitor, they do indeed appear to be 200mm wide ......... a magnification of 2000 times. I do not use the scope to resolve things or make things appear. I use it measure the tip width and other aspect of the engraving bits.

[@lezivate6206]

Hahahahahahaahah when he zoomed into his mouth 😂😂😂😂

[@thesoul2871]

you have any links with more magnification and other modifications its kinda serious you know something where I can buy a microscope that cam let me look closer? then 400x magnification??? what is a better measurement to use & a real authentic microscope?

[@johngrey5806]

Interesting and useful, but there's no need for this video to be almost 10 minutes. There's too much repetition, I would cut it down to 5 minutes or less.

[@Memory_Blanks]

John Grey longer videos = monetization optimization

[@dillon7981]

Tarik Essamri yeah but if you know anything, you’d know the 10-min mark gives a big difference in revenue on this website, which he didn’t hit, which invalidates your stupid talk

[@Memory_Blanks]

dillon I hope u have a cancer :)

[@Memory_Blanks]

dillon I know a lot Dillon...and I know u'll get cancer :)

[@atarilegend1907]

It's called marketing. Remember the bit wars of the 90's? The Super Nintendo and Genesis were 16-bit. The 3DO was 32-bit. Atari released the Jaguar which was 64-bit. They even said this in their ads. Their slogan was "Do the Math". The Atari Jaguar failed miserably and now it holds dental equipment.

[@Anthony_Matabaro_3D_360]

. Hi Microbehunter, I have just discovered your channel through this video, and I have to say I am very impressed, this exactly what I have been waiting for. This channel should be a first port of call for any student or amateur (like myself), I have just subscribed and I cant wait to see your next video. Thank you, Anthony Mataabro. .

[@BobRoss-wk1ho]

DOUBT URGENTLY, what should I do if when I move the condenser up it starts to go down by itself? Is this an internal problem? I expect your answer soon because I need urgent help.

[@user-tz5uq2bt1s]

This guy talks fast. I had to turn it down from the usual 2x speed I watch all videos on to 1.5x speed.

[@TheRolemodel1337]

@Microbehunter In our paleobotany department we've got an old microscope that had a camera once but the camera does not work anymore. My Prof told me that it got excellent hardware/optics and its a shame the camera is broke and there is no simple replacement available anymore. So here is my question: What is the "tube" called you use to mount the DSLR to your microscope, and how can i figure out the requirements for the "tube" to be able to mount a DSLR to the microscope. He would sure be happy if there is a way we could get it running again. Thanks in advance

[@-sleepy-]

Insisting that a microscope's purpose is not to magnify is one of the stupidest things I've heard in my life. I can see he's trying to make certain points about the qualities of microscopes but he is going about it in the worst possible way.

[@juperrr]

The resolution is limited by the wavelength of the visible light that illuminates the specimen. I think this is what you wanted to say but didn't quite get there.

[@kivikall]

I like how maybe a month ago I accidentally happened to watch that one random microscopy video of some bacteria or whatever. Since then KZbin has recommended me more and more such videos. Now I'm watching this and thinking maybe I should get a microscope.

[@snyfnugg88]

I want a microscope I can use when looking at the spores of fungi. Will Bresser 50x-2000x LCD Mikroskop work for that purpose?

[@FullFledged2010]

We,ve got some pretty highend Leica scopes at my job and some of them go up to 400x and i can tell you , you can't see sh7t at that magnification!

[@FullFledged2010]

@jclouds22 I'm not saying they're crap. At 300x they're perfectly sharp. Just around 350x and above they get very blurry. Also they are stereoscopic and you can't really perceive depth at anything above 200/250x We use them to inspect microchips so they don't really need to go that high but still.

[@SupaDanteX]

So if most microscopes are very similar, in their features and parts, and magnification isnt a good metric for which is better, what IS a good metric?

[@Mickimoss]

- A 1 mm² size object or area (1 mm x 1 mm) times 1000x will be like 1000 mm² or around 3.1cm x 3.1cm in area size. For example a tardigrade. - The biggest virus is Megavirus with 440nm diameter, so the area is 607904 nm² or 6.07904e-7 mm² magnified by 1000 then 6.07904e-4 = 0,000607904 mm². It's still too small for a microscope to see a virus then. If even 3000x magnification doesn't make sense, then how do people see a virus ?

[@Mickimoss]

I just googled it and turns out this kind of microscopy is called light microscopy (max around 1500x) while for viewing virus will need electron microscopy (can be 1 or 2 or 10 million times). Funny thing is, tardigrade looks transparent under light microscope but looks solid under an electron microscope which can only see through skin in nm thickness while tardigrade is in the mm size, so that's why there are various images of tardigrade lol, transparent and solid view.

[@pramodbuddha9157]

I think viruses seen under electronic microscope, and here they are talking about compound microscope

[@peterjf7723]

@@Mickimoss The tardigrade would have been gold plated for viewing in the scanning electron microscope.

[@RadicalCaveman]

@@Mickimoss You don't really "see" things under an electron microscope. Usually they use the word "visualize." Much below the wavelength of visible light, objects have no appearance. An electron microscope detects a pattern, which is then converted into a visual image for our sensory convenience.

[@ElectricityTaster]

You would need a fine adjustment on your fine adjustment just to center the sample.

[@TheDuckofDoom.]

If you want an easy example go to a large sporting goods store like Bass Pro shop or Cabelas, (when they aren't busy) find the binoculars and ask to compare 8x with 10x(12x if the have them) and compare in low cost, med cost, and top grade. Be sure you compare similar size objectives too, as this alters the brightness. Usually they have a distant target on the other side of the store just for this testing. The summary is that 12x requires extremely steady hands, 8x is very forgiving, you get more detail from an expensive 8x than you can get from a low price 12x(even with a stand to stop hand shake). The lower cost, especially in smaller objectives, tend to cause eye strain because the image is dim and not sharp.(a subtle diffusion that can't be removed by focusing, possible color fringing in the very cheap models)

[@arduenn]

1600x with really good lenses and immersion oil makes absolute sense over 1000x.

[@cassandrahefton1482]

Hello. Let me start by saying I have really been enjoying your videos. Learning so much and I'm very inspired as I have picked up this new hobby. I wish I had seen this video before I bought my microscope. It is a most excellent microscope and every day has been a day of new wonders. That being said I could have saved some money by getting a 1000 rather than a 2500. I've already discovered that not only is it overkill but it is impossible to work with, with anything that isn't absolutely stationary. I wanted to be able to see viruses and Chromosomes and such and now I'm finding that I didn't need that high a magnification. Well, I learned the hard way but, no regrets. I still have an excellent high quality microscope because I didn't buy on magnification alone. I'm also am an astronomy enthusiast, so I've learned allot about the need for image resolution over magnification. Thing is with astronomy you can't observe anything on cloudy nights so I thought I needed something equally as interesting and so that's were I am today. I also wanted to tell you that when I found your videos I was captivated right away. Many other people make very technical videos that have no personality. Your videos are very engaging and have given m, in a very short time much joy in learning about everything I can see and do with my new passion. Thank you so much for what you do.

[@josephlewinski2384]

A whole lot of talking with very little said.

[@titan1286]

I didn’t know this but I’m surprised because all microscopes are literally advertised as 2000 or 2500

[@laserbuddha]

CLICKBAIT! No explanation is given just the same thing repeated over and over again.

[@whoahwtfhuh]

What happens if you keep adding lens does it zoom in more or no?🤔 also how much zoom do you need to see genes/particles/atoms/protons/etc

[@mrzugpug]

3000x magnification vs use camera to "zoom and enhance". I think we've traded one fallacy for another.

[@LeKikoojap]

Hello, I have a question, I've recently started using a microscope camera more frequently instead of looking through the eyepiece, as I find it more comfortable and also to take and share pictures more easily. When using the eyepiece, the final magnification is calculated as such: the objective magnification (x4 to x100) times the eyepiece magnification (I have x10 and x25). I've seen in some of your videos that you also could add x2 intermediate piece for even bigger magnification (even if pointless). Now, when I use the camera, there isn't a final eyepiece that "scales things up even more". So the maximum magnification I'm able to achieve, optically, is x100 (but I don't like using oil so I keep it at x60). I'd like to know how to achieve, on camera, more than x100 magnification. I've seen videos of Microcosmos where on camera he has x400 at times. I know it will not define the picture better, but it'll still be better to optically upscale images to see the details than to digitally upscale it I guess! So, what tool do I use to go from x60 to x400? Do I need to put multiple "intermediate pieces" that do like x2, going to x120 then x240? Or is there another solution? Thanks!

[@Microbehunter]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/banLc6WYgtpgj7c

[@joestevenson5568]

The digital zoom analogy is appallingly bad. Microscopes use optical magnification which is entirely different.

[@gordonlawrence4749]

Not if you know the physics. IE for blue light the "resolution" has a theoretical limit of 0.0004mm for red it's worse. So magnifying anything up that is smaller than that looks very like and acts very like digital zoom.

[@DemiImp]

@@gordonlawrence4749 This 10 minute rant doesn't explain that at all. That's why it's an appallingly bad analogy.

[@joestevenson5568]

@@gordonlawrence4749 whilst that is true, 1000x magnification still leaves those objects at around 1mm in size. Still small enough that further magnification is easily justifiable.

[@gordonlawrence4749]

@@joestevenson5568 Please read and understand a post before replying to it.

[@SerBallister]

@@gordonlawrence4749 Can't you "super sample" it if its at low resolution - like displace the image by fractions of your maximum resolution and reconstruct a higher resolution image ?

[@zane003]

As a total beginner who's an expert in unrelated fields; my expectation was to be able to see microscopic life, and be able to turn something on the microscope and see more details. I bought an Amscope b120c with max 100 oil objective and 25x eyepiece for 2500x magnification thinking if it can do that, it must already have the hardware for resolution. I found myself having to buy a 60x dry objective and 20x eyepiece which seems to be the right compromise for good enough resolution and magnification combo

[@confiscator]

This video could’ve been 1000x shorter.

[@Harcix]

But not necessary higher quality.

[@annfambeck2132]

Is 1600x good power for a compound microscope

[@nikossiamantis7305]

why am i watching this?

[@spaceorbison]

cause of the music

[@sameer26121980]

Resolution and resolving power depending on wave length of the light used. Electron microscope uses electrons instead of light waves for very high resolution, but cannot be viewed by naked eye directly. Magnification is required too, but its nothing if resolving power is low. Both should go hand in hand.

[@MrTnbopp123]

your confusing magnification with zoom.. for 10 minutes

[@Pangolier]

Is there any way to compare the resolution? Do they mention resolution in the product? Can it have a number?

[@pattystomper1]

No. You're confusing magnification with zoom. They advertise high magnification, because that's exactly what they do. Thanks for wasting 9 minutes of my time.

[@AirsoftxAkulA]

Magnification is the same thing as zoom. A zoom lens in photography magnifies the image when you turn the focal length from the smaller number to the larger number.

[@Cyberspine]

You aren't very bright, are you

[@alexisrael1755]

So, there is no point in buying a 640x microscope without using immersion oil? I'm close to buying a microscope with 4x, 10x, 40x + WF16x (640x), but after watching this video I am confused. Please help. Should I stop at 400x with WF10x if I don't want to use immersion oil?

[@Microbehunter]

Of course you can use the higher WF16x, but you will not see more details (larger and fuzzier). Under certain circumstances this can be OK. But often the 10x eyepieces are more comfortable to use (larger lens size etc). The point of my video was to be critical of those companies, who sell microscopes at unrealistically high magnifications of much larger than 1000x. 400x will allow you to see a lot of things anyway.

[@alexisrael1755]

@@Microbehunter thanks Boss. I'll stop at 40-400x.

[@surfboardtrough7742]

What is a good measure of a microscope's true resolving power? Is there any single metric, like numerical aperture maybe?

[@Microbehunter]

Yes the N.A. is the measure which goes into d = λ/(2 × NA) where lambda is the wavelength and d the minimum distance between the 2 points that can still be seen. But I think that other factors play also a role, like specimen quality, contrast, lens errors etc.

[@jasondeglint]

Thanks for clarifying this! This always confused me how they got so high magnification.

[@adirmugrabi]

but what are the criteria that we do need to look for?

[@nitsan]

My question was a bit vague. I should clarify. I mainly want a microscope with depth of field for examination of workpieces, often handheld, so it needs to have a 20 or 40x sort of option. But I also would love for it to go super magnified for looking at tiny details. Are AmScopes any good? They have ones with x20 X40 X80 for $300 or so.

[@Microbehunter]

You need a stereo microscope. If you want to see tiny details (not of your workpieces) as well, like all the way up to 400x, then you need a compound microscope. You need to get two different microscopes.

[@nitsan]

Cool thanks! Is there a way to mount a single x400 setup on one of the eyepieces of a stereo microscope? Or is it a completely different system?

[@Microbehunter]

It's completely different and you can not mount this. There are physical and optical limitations. And also the objects that you can see with them is different. It is not uncommon for people to own both types of microscopes so that they can look at more specimens. This video explains it: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y6rbdWCArLp9bNE

[@bobolink890]

I have a stupid question. I understand now that magnification alone is not the whole story, then how is resolution measured? What should I look for to say "Hey, this is a better scope"?

[@Microbehunter]

The quality of a scope is not only based on resolution (because you can theoretically connect very good optics to an otherwise miserable scope). If you want to determine the resolution of an objective then you have to look at the numerical aperture, which is printed on the objective. Will do a video on this. There is not a single factor that determines the quality of a scope because quality depends also on what the expectations of the person are. You can get a good image result when you have good optics attached to a mechanically bad scope and vice versa. In other words, if the optics are the same then you will see the same things, at a same clarity.

[@charlesclements4350]

What does "Labmda" stand for? What units are they?

[@luccasw1627]

Hallo sir, 2 questions. 1. Do you work also with laser based scanning microscope like confocal microscope? 2. Where are you originated from? Just wondering.

[@mikebreler9724]

What is missing in this, after your main point, is are there anything specification or features when shopping online other than price for what is the microscopes resolution capability? Thanks

[@Microbehunter]

The numerical aperture that is printed on the objective indicates this, but for many microscopes this is the same and there are also other factors. Generally if you have a microscope with DIN objectives (160mm standard) then the resolution is fine. You then have to look for other things in the microscope (condenser present, light intensity, number of eyepieces used, etc) to ensure that the microscope fits your needs.

[@vsiegel]

I was missing the explanation too. The explanation you added to the text is great! I think it is not possible to explain it that good in the video anyway, so now it's way better than it could have been originally.

[@minarimon3106]

Any ideas which is the best electron microscope suitable for fixing my Sony A7s ii on it ?? Which gear required for that ??

[@CashPlanets]

What is the best microscope that I can buy to see bacteria and blood cells at the biggest and for home use

[@wizardhunt69]

So are you saying if I were to buy a digital microscope they advertise on amazon for example, for $85.00 is really just a magnifier and not a really good one to begin with?

[@Microbehunter]

Depends what you want to observe. It could serve its purpose very well, as it depends on the area of application.

[@realcygnus]

The key "issue" imo is that unlike a telescope, which we think of as a microscopes opposite, where you can just use arbitrarily larger & larger sized Lens, when you attempt to resolve the tiny(not distant), the wavelengths of visible light is only small enough to resolve things of a similar size or greater. At least that's what sets the "limit" in principle. How close you can get to that is another matter. I'm no specialist of optics or microscopy but off hand I'd say, probably a typical 1000-1200X is plenty(for general purpose). & I'm not at all familiar with actual techniques in use, but perhaps using blue and/or even UV with capable CCD/external imaging, then a few K(that 2 or 3) might be desirable I'm not sure, maybe even otherwise in some cases. Main point 1000X VS.1500X VS. 2 or 3000X probable not typically all that significant. Especially considering that, if like the vid said, 1000X is where oil comes in. Not that such things are a big deal if you're really into it or do it professionally, but I'd take a 500X with quality lenses over a cheap-o e-bay plastic lens toy from china(no offense) of ANY "magnification".