Is any binocular mic worthwhile or need to be choiceful?

[neevo]

I’m literally just getting in to the hobby and really struggling using loupes. They are uncomfortable to use and I just rely on eyesight for the most part. However some things are impossible to do without a loupe.

I’ve been toying with the idea of buying one of those cheap digital microscopes but also been on the look out for binocular microscopes.

Is any binocular microscope an option or should I be looking at specific ones only? For example, this one is near me but doesn’t have anything other than the 10x eye pieces.

 

[AndyGSi]

Looking at it this is a microscope for viewing slides so unless you can modify it there won't be the same to work under it.

[Neverenoughwatches]

Like Andy says, without the working distance underneath the head makes any microscope unusable for movement assembly.  There is 10 inch under both mine, I would think as a minimum you need 7 inch considering an average pair of tweezers is 5 inch in length and then there is a movement holder reducing the height on top of. You can just about get away with x10 magnification, but that wont give you a full view of an average movement,  I think about 18mm field is visible on my cheap Amscope type. Those don't seem to be available with x5 , i did buy some x5 separately but the field of view was the same as the x10. I also have some Russian biological biscopes, for the cost, I think they were 40 quid af the time originally for my wife as she had an interest in the hobby a couple of years ago. I'll see if I can dig them out, maybe some cheap on ebay as a starter set. 

[mikepilk]

A common microscope setup is the Amscope, with 10X eyepieces and 0.5X Barlow lens.  Giving up to 22.5X magnification and 170mm working depth. You need at least about 150mm working depth.

[Neverenoughwatches]

[spectre6000]

4 hours ago, mikepilk said:

A common microscope setup is the Amscope, with 10X eyepieces and 0.5X Barlow lens.  Giving up to 22.5X magnification and 170mm working depth. You need at least about 150mm working depth.

The key words there are "up to". You usually work zoomed out such that you're working at around 3.5X or so. Sounds like NEW may even have a 0.35X Barlow for that sort of working distance. Also, he's probably pretty tall, or has some special seating/work surface situation going on. 

That one pictured is a Russian model that seems to be fairly commonly available in the UK for inexpensive. Can't get them here, and shipping cost negates the price attractiveness. 

What you want to find, first and foremost, is a reasonable amount of magnification with the most critical figure being how little you can get. Second, and almost as important (some people use scopes for inspecting only, and don't work with them), is working distance. That's mostly in the Barlow lens where less than 1X gives you more working distance at the cost of a reduction in magnification. Third most critical, unless you happen to find something that's just jam packed with all the accessories, is the ability to get parts like eyepieces and Barlow lenses.

Read through the Stereo Microscope thread. It's worth the education. Toward the end, there are a number of links and such to various scopes that are all pretty much the same thing white labeled under different brand names. Familiarize yourself with the form factor of that, and you'll start seeing them everywhere. Can't say you'll find a used one pop up for cheap in Australia, but it'll give you a clue for what to look out for.

[RickTock]

Adding to the good advice above, these two videos helped me wrap my head around what was important to look for in a microscope for working on watches:

Alex Hamilton - The One Tool That Will Make You a Better Watchmaker

Kalle Slaap - Microscope special Part 2of2 - My personal set-up and why

Best of luck in your quest!

[neevo]

Awesome info. Thanks all. I’ll dive in to those videos now too.

[gpraceman]

I started with eye loupes, then to a cheap digital microscope, then a more expensive digital microscope, then finally to a trinocular microscope.  I wish I would have just bitten the bullet early on and just had gotten the trinocular microscope.  It would have been the cheaper option than going the route I did.  I love my Eakins microscope.  Cheaper than the Amscope equivalent, with only minor hardware differences (when I compared it to @spectre6000's Amscope microscope).

[mikepilk]

9 hours ago, gpraceman said:

I started with eye loupes, then to a cheap digital microscope, then a more expensive digital microscope, then finally to a trinocular microscope.  I wish I would have just bitten the bullet early on and just had gotten the trinocular microscope.   

Many of us have gone the exact same route. If you are serious about watch fettling, I'd say a binocular microscope was essential. 

I can't imagine working with a loupe now.  

[neevo]

I’m still on the look out for a microscope. Hopefully something more suitable. Whilst I have a few watches and would like to do my own servicing, I’m yet to understand how deep I’ll dive in to watches. So not sure I’m at the point of buying top end just yet.

[spectre6000]

23 hours ago, mikepilk said:

I can't imagine working with a loupe now.  

I always liked the clip-on eyeglass loupes. Until I got my scope. I got the loupes out not too long ago for something, but it wasn't watchmaking, and it had been a long time. The scope is 100% the only way to do anything anymore. Last I looked, the least expensive option similar to my own setup that someone had posted a link for was on the order of $400 delivered. I paid a few hundred more for mine, but I also got a lot more lenses and accessories to be able to use the scope for other things (electronics, fixing skipping LPs, and educational opportunities with my kids).

[mbwatch]

On 1/9/2025 at 8:20 AM, spectre6000 said:

fixing skipping LPs

Oooh add another to my growing list of non-watchmaking uses for the tools & skills I have picked up (or eventually will).

[spectre6000]

20 hours ago, mbwatch said:

Oooh add another to my growing list of non-watchmaking uses for the tools & skills I have picked up (or eventually will).

This is a completely off topic aside, but a great example of extracurricular microscope activities that might affect one's choice of scope:

You need greater than watchmaking levels of magnification to do this, and still quite a bit of working distance. but I forget what lens combo I ended up with off the top of my head. I used the largest oiler in a set that never seemed to get used for anything else to make a tool for the task. I sorta ground it flat on a diamond plate into something like a pointed spade (you know what the tip of an oiler looks like), then cut a hook into one side. I finished by polishing it as best I could. Skips come from when the grooves get folded over on one another, and push the needle across/between grooves. Put the LP under the scope, find the scratch (possibly the hardest part), then either push (rounded side) or pull (hook side) the vinyl out of the groove so the needle can get through while doing as little damage aside as possible. You won't be able to eliminate the damage entirely (you'll hear noise, a scratchy sound like it's dirty), but it'll play. 

Sometimes, it's not a scratch though. I once had a stone-like bit of ash embedded in a groove. That one was more difficult, because it was really embedded in there, and did a bit of damage getting it out. I think I had to cheat a bit and sort of reform the vinyl into minimally viable groove walls to keep the needle going so it would play afterward. Obviously not ideal, and had more noise than usual, but it played. That was a really common Billy Joel album that I must have ended up with duplicates of over time, and ended up being sold/traded. Never really thought about it again until just now, and never heard anything negative from whomever bought it, so the repair must have been acceptable. I have 300-some odd albums that we often just rotate through. I haven't had anything requiring repair in a while... Well, that's a lie, I have a small stack awaiting just that, but I guess nothing I'm super eager to listen to... anyway, there are a number of repaired albums in the lineup, and the post repair noise isn't enough for me to remember what albums have been repaired or even notice while listening.

[mbwatch]

4 minutes ago, spectre6000 said:

You won't be able to eliminate the damage entirely (you'll hear noise, a scratchy sound like it's dirty), but it'll play

This is a great description, thank you! I have a big collection of classical music LPs >1000, and about 80% of them were rescued from public or university libraries who were throwing them out. So a lot of them are in terrible condition. I'll have to start setting aside the ones that skip when I encounter them. At one point I had a project going to hand clean every single one, but I gave up somewhere around Debussy or Delibes.

[spectre6000]

Taking in large collections creates big mini-projects when you need to do things like that. I also hand clean, repair as necessary, catalog, and resleeve everything that comes in. I've been gifted a few collections that people have dumped over the years, and they can really back up when time is tight. I'm currently down to 300-something after a major cull a few months back. Never broke the 1k mark though. One of my pandemic projects was a phono preamp build. All tube and passives including the power supply. I still need to make the accompanying line level amplifier, but haven't had time to even get started yet...