Microscopes

[Leif]

My old Prior microscope is getting on a bit and I am thinking about buying a more modern instrument. Can anyone recommend a make and model of microscope suitable for fungal microscopy?

I am looking for a monocular instrument with a stage, with motions in both horizontal axes, and a lamp. I presume I should stick with a bright field illumination instrument.

I have seen Russian and Chinese ones around, but I am hesitant, having once bought a Russian 15x eyepiece, and found it to be of mediocre quality. Some Chinese equipment is remarkable value for money, but some is decidedly suspect.

I have seen some online at Brunel Microscopes and they are relatively inexpensive at about £300, but are they any good?

[Fungus Ken]

I can't really help, having only ever bought and used 2 microscopes ... and I daren't tell you how much my second microscope cost, (but you would have to add a nought onto the price of those at the cheaper end of the range).

But I would say that the more expensive microscopes tend to have a greater depth of field, which does reduce the amount of racking up and down with the fine focus you have to do to see the important characters. My Russian Biolam was a cheap and useful introduction to microscopy but I soon found it frustrating that the resolution was just not enough eg for seeing Mycena cystidia, or viewing the ornamentation on spores.

I do find a x60 objective a very useful in addition to the normal x10, x40 and x100 and it sometimes saves having to go up to oil immersion.

Ken

[Leif]

Thanks Ken. I guess you have answered part of my question, which is whether or not it is worth paying more for a good one.

Is yours a bright field instrument, or phase contrast?

Leif

[flaxton]

I just had to go in the loft to check but guess what my old microscope was a 1950s Prior and gave great service. I replaced it a few years ago with one from Brunel and that has been excellent. Both are binocular and I find that much easier to use but each to his own. Having got involved in mycena and even some myxo's this year I bought a dissecting scope from SEBEN on ebay and I have been very pleased with it and use it a lot. BUT I am not sure I would recommend SEBEN for your main scope.
I have been on courses with the BMS and have seen the results from SERIOUS microscopes that some amateurs have and wow. For general or even semi serious study unless you have money to burn I would say anything you get from Brunel would give you very good results. They will help with the choice and they recommended one with quartz halogen illumination for the higher magnification needed in mycology.
When the lottery comes up I might go for the sort that it sounds as though Ken has (there was no green for envy smiley)
Just one word of warning having a good microscope, rather like mycology generally, can become addictive
Mal

[Fungus Ken]

Originally Posted by Leif

Is yours a bright field instrument, or phase contrast?

I decided not to go for phase contrast, to keep things relatively simple because I'm a microscope user rather than a microscope enthusiast, which means I know the minimum I need to get results rather then having a thorough understanding of the optics.

I have a Meiji ML2500 trinocular, with an adaptor for my Nikon Coolpix camera.

Ken

[Acutipuerilis]

Hi Leif,
I can't comment on the monocular, transmitted-light Brunel 'scopes, but their stereomicroscopes are certainly pretty good. Even the cheapest ones they do have decent lenses, and are about the only ones I'd recommend to beginners on a budget. I'm looking at one of theirs for my palaeo work at the moment, but too many expenses right now (I'm about to move up to Yorkshire).
Hope you get a good 'un,
Joe

[Leif]

Thanks Mal/Ken/Joe

Ken: As a long time binocular and camera user, I don't doubt you get what you pay for with a microscope, though it is not always obvious to the inexperienced.

I've been doing a bit of reading, and will go for one with plan objectives which means the image plane is flat i.e. without field curvature. I've seen a nice Olympus though it is not as fancy as Ken's Meiji. Still, I've only ever been an occasional microscope user.

One of the really irritating aspects of my old Prior microscope is the Huyghenian eyepiece in which one optical surface is in focus, including every little bit of dirt. It is impossible to clean.

[flaxton]

Joe
Don't know where you are moving from but you are moving to the right part of the country
Mal

[Leif]

Thanks again to everyone. I eventually ordered a Meiji MX4000 series scope from Brunel Microscopes. Everyone seems to think Meiji are good, and I like the fact that they are Japanese made. Well, I will find out tomorrow when it arrives.

What I cannot understand is that the UK price is twice the price in the US, and that is the case for several brands of 'scope.

Anyone know what to do with an old Prior microscope? I am tempted to give it to Oxfam so they can make themselves a few pounds.

[flaxton]

Leif
We look forward to some magnificent microscopic photos over the next few days
Mal

[dibuci12]

I am a little late for this thread but for anyone else looking for a microscope I would recommend the Seben range, I picked up a unit for my 8 year old son from Ebay and it was sent from Germany and all for under £100. I wasnt expecting a lot but the unit came in a lovely wooden presentation transport box and a pile of extras and is fantastic quality. So good in fact it was too good and my son hasnt had much chance to play with it as dad looks after it!!!!

[Stewy]

Don't all laugh at once but my girlfriend has just walked through the door with a microscope (450X) that she has borrowed from work!!!

Is there any possibility that I would be able to see any spores with a microscope like this?

(I repeat don't laugh!)

[Leif]

Originally Posted by Stewy

Don't all laugh at once but my girlfriend has just walked through the door with a microscope (450X) that she has borrowed from work!!!

Is there any possibility that I would be able to see any spores with a microscope like this?

(I repeat don't laugh!)

Yes! Quite easily. But for measurements you really need 1000x. She sounds useful.

[Stewy]

She sure is Leif, she actually teaches hairdressing and they use it for looking at hair but not very often (if ever!) so I thought I'd have a mess about with it!

I've been looking at some pollen from various flowers that we have and it seems rather good but I'm afraid I might of broken it, the wheel that has the coloured "thingys" seems to be loose and running free!

She's got another one at work so she's gonna swap them so I can break that one too!

You can tell I'm an expert can't ya??

[flaxton]

Stewy

DON'T USE IT

You will very soon realise what GREAT fun they are and you will want a bigger and better one. Even with a magnification of "only" 450x you will be able to see so much detail and although you won't be able to accurately measure spore size it will give you a good idea of shape and size. You will be able to see the wonders of the cystidia and the huge variety of spores and even the ornamentation on those of Russula and Lactarius. So ignore the first sentence and enjoy but be prepared for earache
from your girlfriend when you spend so much time crouched over the scope

Mal

[NickCantle]

LOL I'd better warn Elle I should be getting my hands on a nice Brunel after my Birthday in a month Hopefully I'll have it just in time for the Russula. It's addictive

[nightshade]

I have just been hankering after a Bresser with the USB camera eyepiece
I am interested in almost anything to do with wildlife big or microscopic
trouble is reading this thread really sparks an interest as long as I can photograph it there are some strange and beautiful sights out there but
money as ever is a stumbling block
I will look again at Brunel and Sherwood

[NickCantle]

I agree Nightshade; the first time I looked at spores of an Otidea sp. at a workshop with Michael Jordan, I was thrown into visual ecstasy.

[Stewy]

Originally Posted by flaxton

Stewy

DON'T USE IT

You will very soon realise what GREAT fun they are and you will want a bigger and better one. Even with a magnification of "only" 450x you will be able to see so much detail and although you won't be able to accurately measure spore size it will give you a good idea of shape and size. You will be able to see the wonders of the cystidia and the huge variety of spores and even the ornamentation on those of Russula and Lactarius. So ignore the first sentence and enjoy but be prepared for earache
from your girlfriend when you spend so much time crouched over the scope

Mal

She's getting the other one today so I'll have 2 to mess about with!!

Being a total novice, how do I get the spores on a slide, do a spore print and then scrape them on? put the shroom on a slide and let them fall onto it???

Sorry if that is a thick question but I have never tried anything like this before so please be gentle.

[flaxton]

Stewy
If it is a fresh specimen just leave the cap on a slide for 15 minutes and you will almost certainly have enough spores to get the information you need. Unless that is you want to know the exact colour as with some Russula and then you will have to leave it for much longer. When you have a big deposit you will have trouble seeing individual spores so just use the edge of a razorblade or the like to scrape off just a few.

Then add a drop of water to the cover slip and place over the spores.

And enjoy.

Mal

[Stewy]

Thanks Mal, I'm not really taking this seriously I just want to have a little play about and try and see some interesting things.

[Stewy]

Me again Mal!!!

Any chance of an idiot's definition of what the cystidia is/are?

I've had a read on this website but it's all gone over my head to be honest!!

Using a Microscope: Viewing and Measuring Spores (MushroomExpert.Com)

[flaxton]

Not the best photo but how about the Pluteus "horned" cystidia at 400x,
That should give you plenty to play with

Mal

[Leif]

Originally Posted by Stewy

Me again Mal!!!

Any chance of an idiot's definition of what the cystidia is/are?

I've had a read on this website but it's all gone over my head to be honest!!

Using a Microscope: Viewing and Measuring Spores (MushroomExpert.Com)

I'll have a go. As you probably know a fungus consists of lots of interweaved strands called hyphae, which are not unlike spaghetti, but with joins between strands. These are the fungal equivalent of cells, and (I think) they carry the nutrients around, and give the fungus structural integrity i.e. a shape. In the case of basidiomycetes (including supermarket mushrooms) some hyphae stick out from the surface of the gills, and carry the spores. These are basidia. The shape and the attachment of the spores are of interest. But there are often other hyphae that stick out from the surface too, not just the gills, but the stem, or the cap cuticle (skin). These are cystidia, and they have fancy names according to where they are, such as cheilocystidia. The shapes are often diagnostic, and they are far more consistent than macroscopic features. You've already seen how we all argue over a photo (until Mykonik comes along and either gives the correct id, or recommends that the heel of justice do its best ).

BTW Brunel microscopes do stains, and you really need a stain for fungal tissue if you want to see the full glory. Lactophenol cotton in solution is good and easy to use. And you'll need a pipette. Plastic ones are fine. Just place a drop on the specimen, apply cover slip, and press gently with the end of a pen, or the pipette.

[Stewy]

Excellent Leif, I am now a self confessed expert!!!

All I need now is some spores!!