 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Optics / July 2008Motic, Bresser
Has anyone ever tried the microscopes made by Motic and Bresser? They should be made in China but they don't seems crappy at all. Besides, one can always buy more expensive optics to replace the standard ones. > Has anyone ever tried the microscopes made by Motic and Bresser? They should > be made in China but they don't seems crappy at all. > Besides, one can always buy more expensive optics to replace the standard > ones. The quality of the stand is very important. Play or wear in cheap nylon gears, collimation, and linearity of the optical path can be a problem. I have an old russian stand which wasn't performing well, but fortunately was adjustable.It was out of alignment by a tiny amount, but enough to give a sort of astigmatism. I'd spend my money on a good secondhand instrument made by a big name, personally. Caveat emptor! hj On Jun 30, 8:34 am, UKOncol...@aol.com wrote: > > Has anyone ever tried the microscopes made by Motic and Bresser? They should > > be made in China but they don't seems crappy at all. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > secondhand instrument made by a big name, personally. Caveat emptor! > hj Chinese optics tend to be better than the mechanics of their stands, judging from the few that I have used. I own a small Motic stereoscope that works well, although I don't know how serviceable it will be when needed, an important consideration. I know nothing about Bresser, but Motic is one of the few Chinese companies that markets in the west under their own brand name, and I understand they are also involved in producing student scopes for one or more major brands. I expect they are still below the quality and value of my 1970s Wild and 1980s Olympus microscopes, but that might not be true in the future. JGM > Has anyone ever tried the microscopes made by Motic and Bresser? They should > be made in China but they don't seems crappy at all. > Besides, one can always buy more expensive optics to replace the standard > ones. Exchanging a badly made objective for a well made objective won't make the microscope look as good as it should. The objective and eyepiece should be designed to work together. There are a bunch of things that can be corrected either in the eyepiece or in the objective, some makers correct one place and other correct in the other. You should always use one makers optics only, the maker who built the stand. Motic and the other names Motic uses or has used, Red Wall No 1 and No 2 for instance, is a good maker but not a great maker. The plant makes every thing from car bumpers to microscopes. Some day they will make a good microscope just not now. Buy a good quality 'scope new or used, you won't be sorry! Thanks, Kevin Cunningham SMS Thanks to all for the answers. I believed a new microscope, if of decent quality, is normally better than a old (25+ years) one even of big brands because of technology development in optics... > Thanks to all for the answers. > I believed a new microscope, if of decent quality, is normally better than a > old (25+ years) one even of big brands because of technology development in > optics... Your right if you willing to buy one of the big four brands. They make great instruments. Buy any thing else and you on your own. I just fixed a cheezy cheapo microscope for a customer, well, it wasn't really repairable but I made it less crappy than it was. They needed it for the three weeks until their parts got here. It was a frustrating job on a microscope with no design and darn few working optics. Maybe yours will work, ya never know! Thanks, Kevin Cunningham SMS > Your right if you willing to buy one of the big four brands. They > make great instruments. Sure, but at unreachable prices for hobbists. > Buy any thing else and you on your own. I > just fixed a cheezy cheapo microscope for a customer, well, it wasn't > really repairable but I made it less crappy than it was. They needed > it for the three weeks until their parts got here. It was a > frustrating job on a microscope with no design and darn few working > optics. It's different in most other high-tech fields: take cell phones. The worst cheapest chinese thing of today is still a dream machine compared to the first Motorola phones of the '90s... > It's different in most other high-tech fields: take cell phones. The > worst cheapest chinese thing of today is still a dream machine > compared to the first Motorola phones of the '90s. I disagree. Cellphone *connection* quality is far worse than any Depression-era bus-station pay telephone. My Underwood typewriter never crashed from a virus. And your phone bill didn't arrive in your mailbox lost amid 10000 spam pieces. Advancing technology degrades quality in some regards. >> It's different in most other high-tech fields: take cell phones. The >> worst cheapest chinese thing of today is still a dream machine [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > some > regards. I see your point but this has more to do with the (mis)USE of technology than with technology per se... |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.