Why a 3000x microscope magnification does not make sense!

Here's some microscope buying advice. Amateur science and amateur microscopy is becoming increasingly popular. Some companies are advertising their microscopes with unrealistically high magnifications. Some comments mention that the reasons were not properly explained in this video, so I will add this information here. [video: 048]

RECOMMENDED MICROSCOPY PRODUCTS (Affiliate links)

#microbehunter #amateurmicroscopy #microscope

[donwheeler]

This same scam applies to telescopes. In reality, the maximum usable magnification of a telescope is just a little bit more than the diameter of the objective lens or mirror in millimeters. A 200 mm primary mirror maxes out at about 240X. Yet manufacturers will claim magnification of 1000X or more for scopes with 50 or 60mm objectives.

[LemonScissors]

You saved me from doing a stupid purchase. You explained my worries and questions so well. Thanks a lot for letting us know this valuable info!

[MattyExplore]

This is great. Everyone should watch this video before purchasing their first microscope.

[MrPacMan]

I actually love your intro... It feels nostalgic. Like I'm back in grade school getting ready to watch something the substitute found in the library

[Khyrid]

I know from watching CSI, you just have to say "Enhance" it you see more.

[SimMaster]

Well yeah, it's just like optical vs digital zoom. The microscope companies should advertise in terms of resolution, otherwise it's just misleading.

[beard]

Randomly at exactly 4:37am I have found out I want this to be another hobby of mine and realized I should look up things to have a better understanding. I’m glad I did bc all I was focused on was the magnification. I’m glad I found this video. Thank you. You saved me a lot of money from people likely praying on beginners like myself.

[marvinkitfox]

The guy is correct, and accurate.
But he NEVER ACTUALLY GETS AROUND to explaining why.
I.E. good scientist, shyte teacher.

[Stanton_High]

Translation, you won't get good focus at high magnification.

[butthle_inspector]

Scanning electron microscope:
"Hold my beer."

[arthdenton]

Okay, I get it. Then what specs should one be looking at? You said 'use other criteria' but it will help to actually spell them out.

[sergiourquijo]

I agree the most part but i don`t think more than 100x is a waste. I have a 1976 microscope with 4 10 40 and 100oil and oculars ranging from 5 to 15. And to do the jump from the 10 to the 40x objective i put the 15x ocular with the 10x objective first so as an in between magnificaiton and it doesn`t loose any detail. What i mean is that the 10x objective for example has enought detail to magnify it`s image like 25 times with the ocular without loosing resolution (at least not perceptible)

[terriplays]

Your point is perfectly valid, but you should explain the reason. This phenomenon was first described by Abbe in his diffraction limit.

Short explanation without math: Light consists of waves and you can totally forget seeing anything smaller than the wave length of light in a normal microscope. The wave lengths of visible light are 750-380nm, so seeing stuff like the transistors of a CPU (14nm) is completely out of the question. But the wave length is only the limit when your microscope is perfect. The second most important factor is having a large lens very close to the object to collect all angles of scattered light from the object. This can be done by using an immersion oil and sticking the lens directly onto the object. The further you go away, the smaller your lens is, the less angles you collect and your resolution suffers. At last, all of this assumes that your lenses are perfect aberration-free glass. For scientific instrumentation these days this can be safely assumened, for amateure equipment maybe not.

And now you can perhaps understand we scientists (like me) use x-rays and electrons for microscopy. The wavelengths are much smaller (sub-atomic in some cases) so that we can overcome the limitation of optical microscopy. But the prices for these instruments start where the prices for high-end optical microscopes end ... we are talking several 100k up to some millions.

[MetalheadAndNerd]

In the first minute you show some Müller brand microscopes.
Please note that "Müller Optronic" or "Müller Germany" is not a German optics manufacturer.
"Made in Germany" is a protected attribute, "Germany" is not.
Müller is one of the most common surnames in Germany. In the recent years a couple of Chinese companies have started brands with German names.

[giopa]

don't know how I end up here, but I'm not complaining.

[inoxck]

No, you obviously need magnification and resolving power as well. But, yes, beginners are attracted by magnification. A single piece of perfect glass with no magnification so no lensing has maximum resolving power DEPENDING ON THE SOURCE OF WAVES, light or electrons so all details are preserved but you can't really see much of the details without using lenses
Once you introduce lenses the image is distorted. The better lenses you have the better the resolving power
For high magnification the resolving power becomes more important. Apochromatic lenses have less chromatic and spherical aberration and thus better resolving power. But even in low magnification they offer a sharper image. For example if you have a camera and a good objective lens you can digitally zoom and get more details than with lower quality lenses.
Better quality lens are more expensive not higher magnification as explained in this video.
Having the best possible lens is still not enough for magnifications over 1000x because the resolving power is limited by the wavelength of light. The higher the frequency / lower the wavelength the better resolving power. That is why electron scan microscopes are by far superior because electrons have much lower deBroglie wavelength.

[ExaltedDuck]

When I was in 7th grade, my science class had some group projects and we got points off on ours for not listing a 1500x or whatever under a picture we had on our poster board. Thing is, it was blown up from an image in a book and the teacher wanted the book's magnification level on our blown up image. If you think about it, a magnification factor really only applies to the virtual image at the ocular lens. Your eye or camera will be receiving an image that's about half an inch or a centimeter wide. Take a picture and put it in a book or on a poster board and that factor no longer applies. The photography and printing affect the scaling of the image and therefore "magnification factor". Blew my mind that as a 12 or 13 year old kid I had to explain it and was still told I was wrong.

[Sonicexpres]

You took the first 4 minutes to convey a short sentence worth of information. I had to check the timeline because I thought I restarted the video by accident somehow.

[radicalxedward]

So basically it’s like the misconception with zoom on cameras, where people think 2x means it’s like standing half as far away from the subject, but all it really means is the image will look twice as big. You don’t get the increase in detail like you would from physically moving closer.

[augustotiberio]

Thank you very much for your video, it is really very helpful for someone who is starting in the hobby as me. But I didn’t understood how can I determine the useful amplification for a set of lens. How can I choose between different lenses? Is there some kind of specification that determines their quality, or “sharpness” in certain amplifications?