Am looking for a reasonably priced scope that works. Bought a Veho and it is a nightmare to get in focus every time you want to take a shot. I like to take a pic and save it to my hard drive. Maybe somewhere up to 400 power.
Printable View
Am looking for a reasonably priced scope that works. Bought a Veho and it is a nightmare to get in focus every time you want to take a shot. I like to take a pic and save it to my hard drive. Maybe somewhere up to 400 power.
This is an economical step up, even at (only) 250x/2MP:
Amazon.com : Plugable USB 2.0 Digital Microscope with Flexible Arm Observation Stand for Windows, Mac, Linux (2MP, 250x Magnification) : Camera & Photo
I have this microscope and find it to be not much better than an inexpensive lighted loupe. The depth of field is very shallow and getting an image which improved the feedback I got from the loupe was hard to get.
Were I to assess the purchase I made, I would take a pass on it. There are some wonderful microscopes out there, but spending the necessary money to get one is hard to justify if you are doing this as a hobby.
I have often considered getting one and I hone on the side but still hard to justify the expense over my go to Belomo 10X triplet loupe, I am sure looking at my edges with a 100X or more would reveal some dirty dark secrets but the shaves I get are more than acceptable.
I got one that is rated at 300x, but my 60k loupe works just as well. Now when i get tired of looking thru the loupe i will use the usb microscope just for the ease of not sqinting thru the loupe. Plus it works great for pics of the edge/bevel. B7t its no way even close to 300 as advertised.
I have had a number of different scopes over the years and have found them to be very useful when learning to hone and as a teaching tool. For those purposes a 20x to 40x is adequate. More than 100x is useless. That assumes you are using a quality optical grade glass lense. The cheap USB scopes out there now are not a true 400x nor is the resolution anywhere near as good as an optical grade glass lense.
That being said I learned with a very inexpensive 30x with a plastic lense. Worked just fine! It showed me everything I needed to know! :)
I have cataracts, so I have a very difficult time using a loupe.
I purchased the Plugable microscope noted above, but the 2MP resolution was not good enough. I then purchased a Celestron 5MP microscope.
https://www.amazon.com/Celestron-Han...70_&dpSrc=srch
It is more expensive than the Plugable, but the higher resolution and the decent stand makes it a better value.
When they quote the magnification, they are including both optical magnification and digital magnification. By getting a 5MP unit, you get more detailed image quality to view on your screen.
That looks just like the one i bought. I would have thought it would work much better than it does. Compared to my 60x loupe its not much better.
After trying several magnifying solutions, I finally found one that I'm really happy with: USB microscope
Much better than I had. Creates images on a par with many of those you see on Youtube.
@treadstone you say you have use many in the past. Have you tried the one that Rayclem posted? Wondering if you think this one is better than that one. Just curious as I now find mine, the same one above, to be decent and the price was a touch less.Quote:
Originally Posted by treadstone
I have not used that model but I suspect from the descriptions that their performance would be quite similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gasman
Thanks for the reply. The one you linked to looks cooler being polished aluminun. Im not looking to replace mine. Was just wondering if you had tried it. Thanks again.
Good quality microscopy is more involved than just sticking your razor under the scope and hitting a button. You'll need to work with the lighting intensity and source location as well as the location and angle of the subject if you want to get good quality images. I own one of the 5MP Celestron scopes linked previously and it can make good images as long as the guy running it does his part. Here is an image of a razor honed on a Carborundum barber hone.
Attachment 278727
I fully agree with your assertion. Still, I found my USB microscope wanting. Lighting and angle had to be perfect. The holder was next to useless as it moved too easily. The grid surface had too little contrast with the blade, so my best option was to freehand the scope, holding it at an angle. The working depth of field was tiny, so let's say using it was a pain in the rear and interrupted the honing session needlessly.Quote:
Originally Posted by eKretz
My Belomo loupe was a seamless way to verify what I was doing without being needlessly cumbersome.
I believe a quality optical compound microscope would be the best way to view razors. I've seen a homemade jig which quickly allowed the user to view the "edge of the edge" and continue honing after a quick inspection.
Great image, Kretz!Quote:
Originally Posted by eKretz
Staging and illumination are indeed key. In fact, it's easy to reach very-wrong conclusions from microscopy by getting these factors wrong.
I'm not there yet but I aspire to achieve images like the one that you present.
Thanks. It is a good idea to focus on certain parts of the blade for good images too. The one above is mainly to show the scratch pattern and depth. To look at the actual edge I use a different setup.
@Kretz: Could you please briefly outline what you do for each setup? Best practices or dos/don'ts?
(New thread, maybe...)
For the scratch depth shots on my particular setup, I like to set the blade so the bevel is as close to parallel to the scope lens as possible. From there I use a variable intensity focusable LED light from almost perpendicular to the bevel (off to the side) - adjusting the height of the light source as necessary to find the "just right" spot. A focusable light source is important because it basically collimates the light - or gets all the light directed in a parallel direction. The distance of the light source from the subject has an effect on this also, so experiment with that too. Sometimes frame stacking is necessary for bevels with deeper scratches to get everything in proper focus - this overcomes that lack of depth of field issue.
For the edge, I use a similar setup, but with the edge slightly higher up relative to the spine. Light source nearly in the same place, but it needs a little tweaking to get to the "just right" place again. For this I like to adjust the light so that the apex is lit but not the bevel. These are originally around 240x when viewed pixel to pixel on my laptop screen BTW. Approximately 1mm of actual edge is portrayed in these frames.
Attachment 279066
Nice. Makes sense. Thanks!
