Jump to content

Digital or Optical microscope - which way to jump ?


Recommended Posts

I'm very new to both watch repairing in general and this channel in particular, so I'm also still in the mode of buying/finding enough tools to enable me to strip and rebuild a mechanical watch.

( And I'm still gasping at some of the prices of these tools... )

However, it seems that some form of magnifier is a MUST and the 3x over-glasses that I already have just don't cut the mustard. I've scanned through this forum and I've read through several of the topics and I can't see this exact question aired anywhere else. And I wear corrective lens glasses - have done for forty years now..

So, a question for the hive mind, please... Should I plump for some sort of digital microscope (Andonstar or equivalent), or should I settle on some sort of optical microscope (A Brunel BM1 for example)? They both seem to be about the same price...

Thanks

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

In my opinion Optical Microscopes are far superior to digital scopes for one main reason and that is depth perception offered by the use of a Stereo microscope, plus its easer to work looking down at the work area rather than looking up at a screen, it just feels wrong.

This is the one I use, you will need to add a Barlow lens which is about £20 to give a greater working distance between work and lens so you can get your screwdrivers etc in under the lens but that's it, it will take a camera should you want to add one, I did and its a boon to be able to review video or pictures you took during the disassembly to help remember where all the bits go, it does not need to be super hi resolution so again not too expensive.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/124373214244?hash=item1cf538a424:g:RBoAAOSwOQpfmcWS

Its said that once you try a Microscope you will never go back to using a loupe and with that I can agree.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, railwaymaniac said:

So, a question for the hive mind, please... Should I plump for some sort of digital microscope (Andonstar or equivalent), or should I settle on some sort of optical microscope (A Brunel BM1 for example)? They both seem to be about the same price...

Don't feel you have to buy new either, plenty of used scopes turn up on eBay. Many of them have standardised parts... I originally bought a x10/x30 microscope but with a little research and shopping around I found more eyepieces that fitted (30mm) which increased the magnification to x20/x60/x90.

The higher magnification is really useful on tuning fork watches and cleaning dials.

I agree with @Paul80 about the optical scopes although I only have a cheap Celestion digital to compare.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you to @Paul80and @Platofor the replies. 

I hear the words, but ...

Firstly, I wear glasses. I need to wear glasses. Can I look through one of these optical magnifiers with my glasses on, given that they all seem to come with padded eye-pieces, or can I focus the thing down to accommodate for my eyes' imperfections?

And secondly, given that I have history with neither of these, would I not just get used to working with whatever I buy?

TIA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I wear glasses to read as well as glasses when I drive (distance). Last year I had a series of strokes and following the last one I ended up with retina damage to my left eye. If you were standing in front of me and I closed my right eye I wouldn't be able to see your head/face. With both eyes open I sorta see OK but my close depth perception is really poor.

I didn't know how I was going to reconcile that with using a microscope.

I don't use glasses on the microscope and the stereo scope that I purchased does in fact allow me to see in depth despite my eye problems. In fact, the depth perception is magnificent!

On page 23 of the Stereo Microscope thread I posted a photo of the multi-lens visor that I use as well as the subsequent AmScope that I purchased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With mine although I can adjust the eyepieces so that I don't need my close vision glasses I actually find it better to wear my glasses and adjust the eyepieces accordingly, that way I not only get a better view on the scope but can see the bench when I look away from the scope, to find a tool or pinged part. I found wearing the glasses held my eyes at the perfect position to see a unified circle image which I struggled with without the glasses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2022 at 5:37 AM, railwaymaniac said:

Thank you to @Paul80and @Platofor the replies. 

I hear the words, but ...

Firstly, I wear glasses. I need to wear glasses. Can I look through one of these optical magnifiers with my glasses on, given that they all seem to come with padded eye-pieces, or can I focus the thing down to accommodate for my eyes' imperfections?

And secondly, given that I have history with neither of these, would I not just get used to working with whatever I buy?

TIA

Hey Ian,

I am also just starting out. The loupe was what I used to begin with but I do not have that special eye muscle to make it stay in my eye socket. I tried the ones with the wire around my neck and I find that the working distance is not ideal. So I got one of these. 

I got it from taobao, and it worked out to be about USD 120. I can adjust both eyes (left and right distance) and also the diopter so it accommodates for my myopia I can use them without glasses.

I also learned that I am not really supposed to smash my eyes to the padded eye pieces, more like hover a little above them. I can get better working distance, although I still struggle with my screw drivers to get under the scope.

I can give you the link if you want, but it is not in English.

 

Good luck! 

20220704_123709.JPG

20220704_123733.JPG

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other than the colour that looks identical to mine, so that's an excellent price.

Regarding struggling to get your screwdrivers under it, just add a 0.5 Barlow lens, that will raise the head up enough to give plenty of room for drivers etc, I get about 8 inches of working space on mine with the Barlow fitted.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul80 said:

Other than the colour that looks identical to mine, so that's an excellent price.

Regarding struggling to get your screwdrivers under it, just add a 0.5 Barlow lens, that will raise the head up enough to give plenty of room for drivers etc, I get about 8 inches of working space on mine with the Barlow fitted.

Thanks Paul, I will look into that. 8 inches? nice! (Thats what she said..) The barlow lens will go underneath the scope?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, suomaf said:

Thanks Paul, I will look into that. 8 inches? nice! (Thats what she said..) The barlow lens will go underneath the scope?

Jumping in. Yes the Barlow lens screws in as a last lens before the viewing table.

hth

 

Tom

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1085789774_20220706_145342(Copy).thumb.jpg.da7cf64dbc0fd210b861bfa04208e204.jpgAnd the 0.7 Barlow with give even more room but you may find the head it now too high to use, useful if you can stand your scope on a lower bench, or you have one of those fancy adjustable height benches like the one IKEA Sells, but for me and my workbench 0.5 is perfect.

And yes it screws on the bottom lens set where the ring light clamps, if you have one that is 😉

Here is my little setup

Showing around 8 inches to the bottom of the original lens set with the Barlow lens fitted which is hidden by the ring light.

 

 

20220706_145342 (Copy).jpg

20220706_145333 (Copy).jpg

Edited by Paul80
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 7/3/2022 at 7:27 PM, Paul80 said:

you will need to add a Barlow lens which is about £20 to give a greater working distance between work and lens

Thanks @Paul80 - I now have wifely permission to pull the trigger on buying one of these Relife trinocular microscopes. 👍

There seems to be a large selection of Barlow lenses available - which one did you use here, please? Did someone say I need a '0.5' magnification? 

Edited by railwaymaniac
Added extra words for clarification
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Ladies and gents, I found the most awesome old gold watch chain!  It has spring links!  I am always so careful with my antique pocket watches, and still fear to drop them, even while on a chain. I've re-staffed a number of balance wheels that no doubt suffered a similar fate. But this chain has lessened that fear somewhat.  So my "watch of today" was my beautiful Elgin 339 clipped to this chain.
    • For me, there’s no binary yes/no answer to this. It really is a matter of feel, experience, inspection under magnification, the age of the movement and what a replacement costs vs invested effort to “revive” it that all play a role determining the answer above. For an Omega 56x series reverser wheel you’ll spend more time trying to revive a reverser (which, by the way is also much more serviceable, but also harder and more expensive to find a replacement for) than you would an a Sellita SW200 where replacements are cheap and easy to find.
    • That's what I did after my Pearl machine stopped working. I've run about 5 watches through it so far and get results as expected. One interesting note is that their customer service says the machine comes with a 2 year warranty but that is not indicated on the website and when asked via email they are unable to provide a copy of the warranty, which I believe runs counter to US federal law 🤷‍♂️  Luckily for me the service center they use for repairs is local to me so if I ever do need to have it serviced I won't have to ship it in its HUGE box.
    • @JohnR725I live in a “3rd world” country (South Africa) and even here you can’t make a middle class living charging $120 to service a watch. I make many times that spending that same amount of time in my day job. But quote the average someone $200 to service their inherited vintage Omega (that stopped working 20 years ago) and you’re told you’re effing mad. This is why watchmaking is dead as a profession in modern times; everyone wants that cool mechanical watch, no one considers what it costs to maintain it. A wrist watch is no longer an essential tool, it’s novelty jewellery. So I do it as a hobby, a make a few videos and I fix broken things. If this hobby can make a little money to at least contribute to its vast expenses then that’s a bonus. I have many other hobbies that are just money pits, so there’s at least that. Speaking of making videos: there’s a lot of criticism being levelled at YouTube watchmakers, either because they don’t show enough detail, or that they talk too much, or that they’re hacks, or whatever other negative thing you can imagine. But these YouTube watchmakers have done more to expose watchmaking to the average Joe than what any of the professional watchmaking institutions have ever done. Professional watchmakers scoff at these “hacks” in their comment sections but fail to see how these YouTubers create interest in the average Joe and turn them into enthusiasts. Anyway, enough rambling from me…
    • This Suizo 1950s AS1361N 10 micron gold plated Automatic got an outing today. It is a gents watch, but is quite a diminutive piece (as was typical for the time). It is also very well engineered. The plating has a few wear marks, but other than that it is looking pretty good for its age. There is one minor discrepancy though. The dial states 25 jewels but the rotor says 21 jewels. Oh well, I guess nobody's perfect. It got a new crystal as the old one had resisted my best polishing efforts, but still wasn't up to scratch. I also treated it to a period correct 17mm dark green leather band from a job lot of 1950s or 1960s straps I picket up recently.  Before you ask, no, I am not responsible for all of those scratches on the rotor, they were there long before I got my hands on it. Suizo is almost certainly a Achille Hirsch brand.  
×
×
  • Create New...