Dissecting Scope Instead of Loupe?

[dpn]

Hi all,

Since I remembered I had one in my garage, I've been using an old "American Optical Company" 10x and 20x dissecting scope to work on watches. I'm a glasses wearer, and I find it far more comfortable to use my dissecting scope when working on watches than the 4x and 10x loupes I had been using previously.

Using the dissecting scope is working really well for me, especially since I can see in stereo. 

In the longer term, is it considered "better" to use loupes instead? 

[jdm]

7 hours ago, dpn said:

In the longer term, is it considered "better" to use loupes instead? 

For general work it is  not considered better, a stereo microscope is in between your body and you so it makes you keep an awkward position, limits your hands movement and doesn't let you see anything else without rising your head. It is however a needed tool for accurate inspection or really minute work, an example could be pinning a stud on a small hairspring, etc.

If you are short sighted try working without glasses, or use a band loupe support.

See pinned thread below for a discussion.

 

[dpn]

Thank you @jdm. I am a biology professor, and I have *a lot* of experience using compound microscopes and dissecting scopes for delicate work. I'll keep an eye on my posture, etc., but to me working with a dissecting scope feels much more natural and comfortable than working with a loupe. Given my recent experiences with NH36A movements, however, I'm not taking any advice for granted. I'll be really watching my posture as I work.

(I wear glasses, and have been using a 4x Bergeon loupe clipped to them on my dominant eye. Losing stereo vision hurts, and I can't get the dang loupe situated well on my glasses -- it's always on the cusp of falling out of its clip. I might pick up a band loupe support to see if that's better.)

 

[jdm]

In the end anyone's vision and preferences are different. Also discussed and recommened by some are magnifying visors. I am luckly being able to do general work at naked eye, fine work with No 1.5 eyeglass, really close with a Bergeon double lens which is probably fake, and no scope. I'd love to upgrade from that plastic but there is always something else distracting me.

[nickelsilver]

American Optical scopes are really nice, I've been a fan for a long time. It sounds like you have an early one, likely marked Spencer. Later they dropped the Spencer and concentrated on zoom scopes.

I know one guy who works almost exclusively under a microscope, but for general work I think you'll find that a loupe is better. The scope is great for some tricky jobs and for inspection. I wouldn't be without one.

[dpn]

@nickelsilver You nailed it: It's an AOC non-zoom dissecting scope marked Spencer. I picked it up for free from my college's geology department when they upgraded to zoom Leica dissecting scopes. Those are gorgeous -- I wish I were able to score one of those! My Spencer is cosmetically awful; it's really badly scratched up, but it has gorgeous optics and the price was right.

My personal compound scope is a Zeiss Standard that I've upgraded to an LED light source, phase contrast, high eye-relief eyepieces, and a trinocular head. I was able to purchase several highly-corrected Zeiss planar-apochromatic objective lenses for almost nothing (<$300 each). It has been great for microphotography of fungal spores, one of my other passions. Here's a 1000x shot of some Scleroderma sp. spores using an iPhone that I mounted to an eyepiece with a 3d-printed holder. The diagnostic feature I was looking for was whether the spores were spiny or reticulate.

Edited August 17, 2020 by dpn