Which microscope

What magnifing requirments do I need to see and ID microorganisms, parasites and such in chameleons and reptiles in general?

Would a 500X do, or would I need 100X or higher.
I ordered a book about parasites, and do not know their various sizes.

Just looking myself, and would also appreciate a little advice

A 500x would work. I use a scope with 40/100/400 and it does pretty good for the most part.
I will make another post later on this after work, as there is a lot to get into on this subject

I was hoping you would say a 500X is good for most parasites.

Yeah, I have worked in a chem lab for many years and have some
microbiologists hanging about also.

I tend to have certain access to supplies

one I use

http://www.amazon.com/Celestron-443...1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1338406342&sr=1-1


Video taken of some nasties with this microscope

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBBQa1vWCIs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myM79VtzD60

You can also take photos with it

Psychobunny said:

I was hoping you would say a 500X is good for most parasites.

Yeah, I have worked in a chem lab for many years and have some
microbiologists hanging about also.

I tend to have certain access to supplies

Click to expand...

LOL "Don't know what you mean"

Dez said:

one I use

http://www.amazon.com/Celestron-443...1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1338406342&sr=1-1


Video taken of some nasties with this microscope

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBBQa1vWCIs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myM79VtzD60

You can also take photos with it

Click to expand...

Dave brought one of these to the ChamEO workshop and let me know my cham had a mild case of parasites He also recommeded that brand because they are are cheap but just as good quality. It was nice to be able to just look at the screen and scan the entire slide and be able to take pics.

my scope picks

most common reptile pathogens can be identified at 100x or less. there are even some 100x pocket viewers that will work, depending on what you are trying to accomplish.

imo, it definitely pays to include photomicroscopy as part of the plan. photomicroscopy allows you to share images online with vets, universities, other forum members etc. this is especially helpful when first starting out or otherwise in doubt. it also allows you to keep an actual photographic record of your chams pathology for later reference. depending on scope choices, photomicroscopy does not necessarily cost anymore than standard microscopy. thats whats great about the celestron lcd/ldm scopes, the have plug and play idiot proof user friendly photo microscopy built right in, at a price that is comparable with other likely cham scope candidates.
http://www.celestron.com/science_education/microscopes.html

people ask me about scopes all of the time, so ill just throw out my default recommendations, starting with the cheapest.
1. celestron 44302 (150X) . first off, i'd like to point out that i am not currently recommending this scope as a viable pathology scope (although i am evaluating it as such) but i will say that for less than $50 this thing is awesome (retail$70, typically online for$45, i payed $30 on sale at bartells, last years xmas stock). typically, top lighted scopes dont make the best pathology viewers, but this would still be a great tool for taking pics/vids of things like whats in your soil, tail or eye problems, skin lesions etc. capable of taking very clear pics but has a very shallow depth of field. i recently posted some pics using one of these, of tenodera sinensis mantis nymphs. also posted a vid using it on youtube lol.

2. celestron amoeba 44325 (200X), ive never actually used this scope, this is a fairly new release for celestron, but it does have photomicroscopy function, and theoretically enough (marginally) magnification for reptile pathology. being lower end celestron, imo its probably got a not great but still viable quality of build. all plastic. if i absolutely had to stay under $100, this is what i would get.

3. celestron 44340 (40-400x) the choice of scopes on the market is endless, but imo, as Dave Weldon and others before me have pointed out, this scope clearly stands out in the under $200 price range. full built in user friendly photomicroscopy and vids. lcd/ldm so better for users with glasses than a traditional scope. mediocre quality of build but still viable. so many usefull features that its other faults can be overlooked for the price. (retail $240 but can be found new for around 170) imo, this scope punks most other scopes in the <$200 price range. i had one of these for about 2 years. pros; lots of great features, fairly user friendly, comes with a nice case. cons passable quality of build, fragile batt door. single focus only. imo, this scope is ideally suited for cham pathology.

4. celestron 44345 (40-400x) basically, the little brother to the pentaview. uses a pentaview style frame and has a touch screen instead of buttons. also has dual focus retails $329, can be had for <$250 also a great scope very well suited to cham pathology, however its almost $250 price tag puts it in the same price range as an amscope t-490-a, which makes it a real tough choice

5. amscope t-490-a (40-1600x) $270. this is a full optical, non ldm trinocular microscope. imo, the t490-a is the holy grail of biological scopes under a $1000. this is a high quality scope that holds it own against scopes many x its $. this scope is suitable for professional lab work and well taken care of would last a lifetime. excellent parts availability, mountains of options/accessories available but does not include photo microscopy. trinoculars are ideally suited for microscopy, but the camera is usually a separate deal. you can get a 3 mp ccd to fit a 490a for about $130 or you could just get c mount adapter and use a dslr. either way, you are talking about another $150 to add photomicroscopy which sort of changes things.
imo, if a person was committed to long term learning of pathology, and was confident of that from the start, and had the $cash to buy but only wanted to do it once, then imo the t 490a would be the scope to get.

6. celestron pentaview 44348. ($370-430) 40-600x basically the big brother to the 44340/44345, recently released at ces 2011, this is the flagship of the celestron ldm line. this thing is off the chart in wow factor (and fairly difficult to get a hold of i might add). more features, better, larger tft screen, better quality of build.
http://www.celestron.com/science_education/microscopes/pentaview-lcd-digital-microscope.html

http://www.celestron.com/science_education/microscopes/pentaview-lcd-digital-microscope.html

sorry, you cant own this microscope, only xanthoman is allowed to own the celestron pentaview. after 2 mths of being on backorder my pentaview has finally arrived at my shipping location, but i wont actually have my hands on it for a couple more days. i was really torn between this and a 490-a, but the 490a with 3 mp ccd would have been $500, i got this for $370 which was already above the upper end of my budget. i'll be doing a unboxing/review in the near future. imo some basic features desired in a cham pathology microscope;

• monocular will work but generally speaking binocular is better, trinocular is better still, or ldm, depending.
• mechanical stage with x-y axis
• coarse and fine focus.
• adjustable not battery operated bottom light.
• 40-400x, 600x max, powers above 600x are counter productive to cham pathology.
• imo ldm, trinocular or other option for photomicroscopy is desireable. jmo.​

finally, you dont need to get a new scope to get into pathology, there are some great deals on cl and ebay. one of my favorite scopes that i had for many years was a swift binocular scope that my sister got at a garage sale for <$50.
aside from fecalizers, fecasol, and all of that stuff, some other optional things that might come in handy;

• stage micrometer, basically a micro ruler for your stage.
• McMasters slides, an etched, usually chambered slide designed especially for determining pathogen count/load
• 30ml buchner funnel with filter paper or coarse fritted disc to filter to 200 microns
• test tubes/racks
• glass stir rods
• a couple of pipettes, beakers or burettes can come in handy too. jmo

clarification of magnification properties.

Psychobunny said:

What magnifing requirments do I need to see and ID microorganisms, parasites and such in chameleons and reptiles in general?

Would a 500X do, or would I need 100X or higher.
I ordered a book about parasites, and do not know their various sizes.

Click to expand...

??? are you talking about a scope with only 500x?
generally, when viewing microscopic samples you start out at a lower x like 40-60x and then as you find concentrations of pathogens or other suspicious sightings, then you move to a higher x.

the reason its done this way is because its impossible to view a full slide window at 500x, even scanning the slide in a grid pattern it would be easy to miss large sections of the slide or even go right over pathogens and not even recognize them.

one of the features that a cham pathology microscope should have is a mechanical stage. a mechanical stage has 2 little thumb screws that move the stage a few mms at a time. one screw moves it from right to left (and back of course) and the other screw moves it from front to back.
generally you would view as much of the window as possible to identify the more suspicious areas of a slide, then, you would move to a slightly higher magnification to see those ares in more detail, and then once you have determined the ideal magnification, you would scan those areas using the mechanics of the stage.

its important to understand that for purposes of pathogen identification, that too much x is not good thing, although higher x can be desirable for things other than just identification, like taking a stunning pic of just a single coccidia for example. cool, entertaining and educational, but not necessary for identification.

its also important to understand that things take on a different dynamic at the microscopic level. to view an entire slide window (about 1 small drop of liquid) at 600x , starting at the top of the slide, scanning from rt-lt, then moving down a one line of view and then doing it again, it could take well over an hr to view an entire drop of liquid, and cover it thoroughly. thats why its important to have lower x options available than the x that you actually use to identify the specific pathogen at.

your question of coccidia size is sort of hard to answer. their size would depend on the specific species of coccidia and its stage of development.
there are 4 orders of coccidia containing 21+families, 65+genera, and well over a 1000 species. oocysts are generally larger than ococysts. collectively, they range in size from <5 micron to over 60 microns, but the ones most commonly found in reptile would typically be between 12-35 microns depending. as a size reference, there are a 25.4 microns to a thousandth of an inch, so i guess in crude terms, most reptile coccidia would be slightly less than 1/1000 of a inch.


heres a great reference chart for trying to under stand the microscopic scale of things;
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/particle-sizes-d_934.html

this is why you will see the amscope t-490a recommended more often than the t490-b. they are the exact same scope, except the 490-b has 2000x instead of 1600x. as a general rule, regardless of scope design or manufacturer, the more higher x options you have the less lower x options you have, this is why its important to choose your scope wisely. a scope well suited to cham pathology needs to have several x options between 40x-400x, anything outside of those ranges isnt really necessary or even helpful for purposes of cham pathology. jmo

Thanks everybody for your input.
I decided to buy this one:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004UI5QT8/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i00

It may be overkill for lizard parasites, but it seems to be one of the best bargans, all things considered.

I know I could have gone much cheaper, but I know me! I would have it for a while and kick myself for not spending a little extra for more veritility

Psychobunny said:

Thanks everybody for your input.
I decided to buy this one:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004UI5QT8/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i00

It may be overkill for lizard parasites, but it seems to be one of the best bargans, all things considered.

I know I could have gone much cheaper, but I know me! I would have it for a while and kick myself for not spending a little extra for more veritility

Click to expand...

i wish i had noticed this earlier. have you already bought this scope?
i have had a fair amount of experience with amscope. personally, if thats the specific scope you are set on, i would recommend getting it in 1600x. reason; typical cham pathology never requires over 600x. cheaper scopes (including lower end amscopes dont work that well at the higher x anyway), and the higher your x the less choice of options below 600x you will have. another thing to consider is the value of being able to perform photomicroscopy so you can send pics to vets or other forum members.

choose what you will, but i have done a lot of research on this subject and also made a couple of mistakes (including recently choosing pentaview over amscope t580-A) for what its worth, my recommendation in the under $300 price range is the amscope t490-A jmo

Thanks xanthoman but too late, I already bought this model.

Psychobunny said:

Thanks xanthoman but too late, I already bought this model.

Click to expand...

How is it working out for you? I have a mircoscope that I would like to get a camera for eventually, also needs to be adjusted as the higher mags. are fuzzy now.

What little high mag work I have done on this model has looked surprisingly
good. I dont have much experience with microscopes, but I would say this
is a great buy!!

It comes with a small dropper bottle of immersion oil, about 2ml, but the
oil is very yellow, with age I guess.
I ordered fresh clear oil.

As xanthoman said, I probably should have gotten the t490a instead, but I
am very pleased with the 2000x quality image on this puppy!
With better oil, it should look even more clear.

I can allway buy parts for it later if I want to take pics. and the objective
lenses on this are the same as the other model, only the eyepieces are different (16X and mine is 20X)

This is just what I am trying to figure out. I want to purchase a microscope in the near future but have no clue what one.
So to summarize, which one should I go for???

Thx

which scope to buy , hmmmm, ?????????

basically its a question of what all you want to do with it, and how much cash you can comfortably spend.
personally, i am a big fan of trinoculars for their photo-microscopy capabilities. thats a huge plus for sharing microscopy observations with vets or on forums, or even archiving results. you can easily spend thousands on a microscope, so its wise to choose carefully. imo,the most useful magnification range for cham microscopy/pathogen identification purposes is from 40-600x, so getting one with too high x can be counter productive if you are planing on limiting its use to that specific use. the more higher x options you have the less lower x options you will have on any given scope. this is why i recommend the t490a (1600x) as opposed to the t490b (2000x) other than that they are the exact same scope. one can easily be changed into the other by just purchasing more optics. both accept an endless # of upgrades.
i have used several different brands over the years, and imo the best place to go for microscopes especially under $500 would be amscope or you might be able to get a better deal from their ebay store. my personal recomendation for a trinocular would be a t490A http://store.amscope.com/t490a.html
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p5197.m570.l1313&_nkw=t490A&_sacat=0
imo, amscopes are as close as you will get to a lab quality scope in the new under$500 range. last time i checked amscope was a Square Trade seller which means you can get a considerably extended warranty for dirt cheap.
some basic things to consider;
imo amscopes are a higher quality of build than something like a celestron or a barska.

you could probably save about $75 by going with a binocular instead of a trinocular, but if you ever wanted to add photo capablities you would probably wish you had gone trinocular.

i would also be cautious of other brand trinoculars in that price range for the following reason

Traditional microscopes on the market allow you to see through either the trinocular port or eyepieces, forcing you to switch between the port and eyepieces. Because their trinocular port is not designed to be par-focal with the microscope optical system, you have to conduct re-focusing after each "switch". ​

The T490A, however, has simultaneous viewing and parfocal trinocular port so that these "switch" and "re-focusing" are no longer necessary.

there are some cheaper scopes on ebay very similar looking to amscopes that are made in india, imo i would avoid for reasons of quality, features, upgradeablity, customer support. also do not have the par focal focusing feature, which is very important

​

another thing to consider is lighting, led lighted models are often marginally lighted, but halogen models produce heat, which can be a problem for extended viewing/photo-ing of things like live ameoba, or protozoa, (can dry or kill your specimen before done viewing). there are lots of other issues to consider if your purpose is not limited to cham pathology but thats a whole different post. t490 has a halogen lighting but imo heat levels are acceptable for cham pathology/photomicroscopy purposes.

on the other hand if your sole purpose is cham microscopy and you would like to stay on the smallest budget possible, a celestron 44340 can offer you built in idiot proof photomicroscopy for around $175.
http://www.celestron.com/science_education/lcd-digital-microscope.html
i have had one of these and they are well suited to cham pathology/photomicroscopy, but they are no amscope by any means. their quality of build is marginal, but acceptable for the price, and just good enough to suffice for the purpose, providing you dont get one with more than the usual # of issues. it should be noted that "issues" are extremely rare/minor where amscopes are concerned.

i have also had a celestron pentaview, which was almost 2x the price but still had a similar quality of build and came with some minor issues which i felt unhappy with for the price. hope i have done something besides confuse the issue.

lol. just realized this was an old thread. jmo

I recomend atleast getting 1000x with oil immersion. I use a phase contrast scope that I can change the oculars and get up to 1500.