Binocular/stereo microscopes vs head-mounted visors, revisited - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2016, 03:48:35 pm
content: Despite being a fan of stereo photographs, and having tried a few stereo (binocular) microscopes for PCB work, I've never been a fan of them. I've always preferred head-mounted visors, since they are in exactly the right place/angle, have a good image, and don't interfere with the soldering iron etc. With that in mind, I stumbled across four microscopes, and picked them up with the intention of flogging them. Unfortunately they aremuchbetter than I expected, so I've got to revise my opinion.What do I like about them?excellent image, easily fused into a stereo viewgood clearance, ~70mm, sufficient to allow an iron to reach a PCB4mm/8mm diameter field of view (*25/*12)usable depth of field, not much adjustment required for top/bottom of an 0603 capacitor or an SOT23 gatehigher magnification than the visors (~*12 and ~*25); not necessary for soldering, but much better for inspectionDespite that, I'll continue to use my visor for soldering and peering into the depths of faulty equipment.Does anyone know a good way of taking photos (not stereo!)? The pictures below don't do it justice, since they were taken with a not-very-good phone camera held in place by hand.Does anyone know the key differences between Beck Binomax 15001/15324/14933/15046 microscopes; googling doesn't seem to produce any useful results, so I guess the numbers are simply serial numbers.Ditto prices, since fleabay is similarly uninformative.

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 17, 2016, 04:51:38 pm
content: HiBoth visors and microscopes have their place in the lab. Illuminated magnifiers are something else I would add to that list.There are an enormous number of USB microscope cameras out there. Some microscopes have a third axis on them for pictures. On others you replace an eyepiece with the camera and mount. Each has constraints in terms of optics you need between the camera and the microscope. It's no different than picking the eyepiece you look through. eBay and other online venues have a lot of them to pick between. Matching one up properly to your microscope involves a bit of work.One thing to consider with a camera:The amount of light that works for normal viewing may not be enough for some camera setups. You may need to upgrade the illumination when you put on a camera.Bob

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2016, 06:36:18 pm
content: Quote from: uncle_bob on June 17, 2016, 04:51:38 pmI was surprised that with the camera I had toreducethe lighting to more-or-less ambient levels. If I didn't reduce the illumination, the picture was awful; it looked like overload/flaring.It may or may not be significant that the circular image's diameter was maybe 1/3 width of the small axis, so the majority of the image was black.

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2016, 06:42:28 pm
content: QuoteMy neck hurts just looking at your microscope. If you try a microscope with a 45 degree eyepiece angle, fully adjustable angle of the head, and a boom stand, you will revise your opinion again. And immediately drop $500+. Being as this is posted under manufacturing and assembly, I think you're going to have problems with that one.QuoteThat scope apparently has no angle reduction. Using a visor up close, you are probably very accustomed to crossing your eyes to a close focal point. A fancy stereomicroscope messes with your depth perception because your eyes don't cross so much as they should when seeing something that (apparently) close up. Most people get used to this, but it DOES play havoc when you switch back and forth between a head visor and scope - eye strain/headaches. I can see how that scope has an advantage.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 17, 2016, 09:04:14 pm
content: Quote from: KL27x on June 17, 2016, 06:42:28 pmPossibly, but no. I do this occasionally, not for long periods.QuoteIt has to be postedsomewhere, and this is no worse than the alternatives. I'm not sure what problems you mean, but I don't think it is important.QuoteWhat is "angle reduction"?QuoteI'm not aware of that; how could I tell? Certainly I loathe the wretched pseudo-random stereograms that were popular a decade ago, and the pimply background on this website (and the RS) website makes my eyes go so squiffy that I've disabled the background.QuoteOh, stereoscopy isn't a simple topic. IIRC there are fourteen different clues used when determining depth, and - for normal views - "toe in" isn't one of them. Indeed in stereo photography, "toe in" is frowned upon as an error.QuoteI've yet to determine that is it an advantage. So far I'm merely pleasantly surprised that it isn't much worse than a visor.

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2016, 05:00:03 pm
content: QuoteWhat I mean is... if image is 5-7" inches from your nose, as when using a visor magnifier, your eyes have to cross to converge on a single point that is a bit closer to your face than you might normally read a book or use a smart phone, or whatnot. Just look at how angled inward are the eye pieces are on your microscope.Now this good and natural, in a way. Actually when the eyes cross enough, they automatically focus a bit better at short distance. The neurons are linked in most people, so crossing eyes and seeing up close are linked.In the "fancier" scopes, the prisms and whatnot are adjusted so you don't cross your eyes as much. This is what causes some people to have a hard time to resolve the stereo image. And it can also cause eye strain/headaches when switching back and forth between a magnifying visor and microscope. Your eyes are trying to see this image at a certain eye angle based on how close the image appears. And switching instruments throws a wrench into the work. After using my microscope for a bit, when I try to look at a very close up object with my naked eye, my eyes are "lazy" and don't want to cross enough to get both eyes focused on a single point. The angle of the eyepieces on your microscope look a lot more "natural" for the amount of magnification. I am guessing this might be why you are having better luck with this vs your previous experience.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 20, 2016, 06:58:41 am
content: Quote from: KL27x on June 19, 2016, 05:00:03 pmThat's too simplistic. My personal experience with stereoscopic photography, which seems to be supported by other people's experience, is that 10%-15% of people simply cannot see in stereo at all. Many such people, when asked, reveal that they can't play ball games (e.g. tennis) because when they swing at the ball they completely miss it.QuoteI would have thought that most use-cases have people using either visors or microscopes. Repeatedly swapping between them seems unlikely.In addition, the lenses in visors will have a prismatic effect if an individual's inter-ocular distance isn't the standard 62.5mm.QuoteThat kind of effect is whyhatethe stereo pictures based on random dots, or the pimply background on this website and the RS website. But I've never experienced it with stereo viewing using cross-polarised projectors, hand-held viewers, visors or these microscopes.All these effects are very individual, and so I refuse to give advice - other than to suck-it-and-see with a cheap visor before splashing out on an expensive microscope.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 22, 2016, 08:27:29 am
content: I use a microscope similar to this onehttp://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/C2-D-Stereo-Microscope-Binocular-Head-10x-Magnification-Soldering-PCB-/151739525409?hash=item2354616921:g:6voAAOxy7nNTWOXrWith 10x there is plenty of mag and a 20mm FOV. I tried 20x but found it unnecessary.I generally use it for short periods 1-2 hours, for longer term it needs more adjustment, or chair with adjustable height. The working distance is at least 20cm which is plenty.There is a camera attachment, but it replaces one of the eyepieces and is a little awkward to swap back and forth. If I really needed a camera I would get a trinocular scope, but they are a little more pricey.