I am new to microscopes
, though I am an experienced photographer. My budget is up to $600 for the scope.
In a nutshell, my interest is to view and photograph (micro)fossils in the range of .5mm to 25mm, using my Canon
I have read nearly all postings on the microscope
forum here, and have been impressed with the apparently unbiased and professional responses.
My eye is on the Lomo
SF-100 w/trinocular but I want to ensure it is the best fit.
1. Zoom vs non-Zoom microscope: A friend on a forum told me that having a zoom on the stereoscope is essential. Of course, the SF-100 does not, though it has the 5 magnification steps available. Is the zoom feature considered by most users to be a high priority feature? What about your experience? Does the 5 positions on the Lomo
mitigate the non-zoom disadvantage effectively? If not the Lomo
, then what scope would be the best fit?
2. Light source: I notice that the stock SF-100 is noted as "incandescent". Can you please explain if most photographers will be satisfied with the stock illumination color balance on the Lomo
? I know the ring light is available, but it is a pretty significant bump in price, but worth it?
3. Brands: Can you briefly state how Lomo
, and VWR compare to each other? Do many non-pro users recognize that the Lomo
brand (European) is of higher quality than Konus
or VWR that are made in China?
4. Taking photos: Can you briefly discuss the pros/cons of the different ways use a camera with a scope? Please address a)just pointing the camera at the occular, b)mounting the camera to the eye piece, c)using the trinocular.
My main goal is to determine if the Lomo
is the best fit of quality and features for my intended use and budget.
I know this is a lot, but myself, and likely others, will appreciate your insight.