Lidl Bresser NG

[nightshade]

The Bresser NG microscope is available from Lidl on the 15th December
Lidl Online

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by nightshade

The Bresser NG microscope is available from Lidl on the 15th December
Lidl Online

Saw this advertised earlier along with binocs & spotting scope.

Does anyone know if this microscope is of any real use (ie. to obtain decent images on a computer by the USB connection)?, or is it more of a glorified toy?

Regards
Mike.

[Chris Yeates]

it's the old story . . . you get what you pay for

a quick Google talks about "320 x 240 pixels" that is very basic - I think I'm right in saying that is too small to post on this site for example?

I seem to remember Nick talking about his relief at getting back to looking down the microscope rather than at a screen; I would echo that - there is no substitute for looking down a microscope at something you can actually see rather than having to rely on an intermediate bit of kit; I wouldn't advise getting this unless you have the option of simply using it as a 'normal' microscope

I've been looking at the spec' of a similar Bresser (probably slightly higher up the scale than the LIDL one); please don't get over excited at the "1024x magnification" - I suspect this is a digital 'cheat' the number 1024 is very specific and rather suspicious (2 to the power 10); if you look at the lenses it comes with the maximum optical magnification is 640x; in any case, it's all about the resolution of the 'scope not just the highest magnification, and the resolution is down to the quality of the optics, and at this price . . . also there is of course no substage condenser, so I don't know how much control you have

however, don't get me wrong - if this encourages someone to start looking at the micro world I'm all for it and it is not a huge amount to pay (though if it puts them off for life through frustration)

if anyone gets one I'd be interested to see how they get on . . .

cheers

Chris

[kiltoncomp]

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

it's the old story . . . you get what you pay for

a quick Google talks about "320 x 240 pixels" that is very basic - I think I'm right in saying that is too small to post on this site for example?

I seem to remember Nick talking about his relief at getting back to looking down the microscope rather than at a screen; I would echo that - there is no substitute for looking down a microscope at something you can actually see rather than having to rely on an intermediate bit of kit; I wouldn't advise getting this unless you have the option of simply using it as a 'normal' microscope

I've been looking at the spec' of a similar Bresser (probably slightly higher up the scale than the LIDL one); please don't get over excited at the "1024x magnification" - I suspect this is a digital 'cheat' the number 1024 is very specific and rather suspicious (2 to the power 10); if you look at the lenses it comes with the maximum optical magnification is 640x; in any case, it's all about the resolution of the 'scope not just the highest magnification, and the resolution is down to the quality of the optics, and at this price . . . also there is of course no substage condenser, so I don't know how much control you have

however, don't get me wrong - if this encourages someone to start looking at the micro world I'm all for it and it is not a huge amount to pay (though if it puts them off for life through frustration)

if anyone gets one I'd be interested to see how they get on . . .

cheers

Chris

i dont know much about microscopes, full stop, but i suppose it is possible to exchange the objectives to higher magnification ones? (a 100x one would probably cost more than this microscope in total) but then you are just spending extra money with which you could have bought a higher spec microscope in the first place, its the usual case of " you get what you paid for " scenario,

Brian

[Chris Yeates]

true, but that presupposes that their objectives conform to a standard screw thread and are parfocal (ie as you change objectives the subject stays in focus); also if you get up to 1000x magnification you're into the realms of oil immersion and for the beginner that gets - literally - rather messy!

Chris

[SheffieldLass]

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

it's the old story . . . you get what you pay for

a quick Google talks about "320 x 240 pixels" that is very basic - I think I'm right in saying that is too small to post on this site for example?

I seem to remember Nick talking about his relief at getting back to looking down the microscope rather than at a screen; I would echo that - there is no substitute for looking down a microscope at something you can actually see rather than having to rely on an intermediate bit of kit; I wouldn't advise getting this unless you have the option of simply using it as a 'normal' microscope

Out of interest I set my microscope camera at 320 x 240 pixels, with the microscope using a 40x objective ... you can see very little, it has to be extremely clear to recognise much at all. 640 x 480 is the minimum I'd recommend if you want to use a microscope cam to any extent, but even then you are peering at the screen to see the detail and it isn't particularly relaxed viewing. (Mine goes to 1280 x 1024, which is how I always use it ... with that you can sit back relaxed in your chair, and it has made life much much easier for me ... but of course you pay for that, and the Lidl offer is a fraction of that price .... )

So I think Chris is right that you really need to check that it works ok as a 'normal' microscope. If you were wanting to rely on the 320 x 240 cam for the magnification and detail you need for fungi work, I think it might turn out to be extremely frustrating. It may be fine for other subject matter though.

I'll see if I can post the images I took with mine (of some spores, and also of basidia) for comparison, at 320 x 240, 640 x 480, 1280 x 1024, though the way the images get processed to go onto the forum might make a mockery of it. I'll have to think that one through ... Alternatively if anyone is really interested, you could pm me with your email address and I could send them as unadulterated jpg files.

Melanie

[SheffieldLass]

These seem to have come through ok, something like the originals ...

Basidia taken at different resolutions, using a 40x objective:


320 x 240


640x480


1280x1024
For this one you need to click again on the large image to get the full size that you actually see on the screen real time.

Spores


320x240


640x480


1280x1024
Ditto ... for this one click again on the large image to get the full size you actually see on the screen.

I hope that helps to demonstrate the level of detail that different resolutions of microscope cameras can show. The optical quality of both the camera and microscope will affect the quality. So a Lidl Bresser may not give the same as I've shown at 320x240 .... it might be better, it might be worse ... but that is the pixel size of the picture you'd get ...

By the way these were taken on my Zenith Advanced Student microscope, probably best described as at the very budget end of the better quality ones.

Melanie

[flaxton]

Melanie

Is this with the Minicam 1.3M USB2.0 from Brunel? It is described as giving 1600 x 800

Mal

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by SheffieldLass

By the way these were taken on my Zenith Advanced Student microscope, probably best described as at the very budget end of the better quality ones.

Melanie

perfectly decent 'scope Melanie - and a very interesting demo of the importance of resolution

as with all hardware a key factor is setting up your microscope correctly to squeeze every last bit of resolution from it and often people don't do that . . . the substage condenser is a very important link in the chain between fungus and viewer and really needs to be adjusted every time one switches between objectives (5 second job)

as I said before what I suspect is the absence of that in the Bresser will limit its usefulness - but I don't want to put anyone off making the jump into microscopy - it really does make mycology so much more fun and there are plenty of people on this site (quite clearly including you Melanie) who would be willing to pass on hints and tips

Chris

[SheffieldLass]

Originally Posted by flaxton

Melanie

Is this with the Minicam 1.3M USB2.0 from Brunel? It is described as giving 1600 x 800

Mal

yes it is ... hadn't noticed that ... it may be that my screen doesn't allow a 1600x800 resolution, it isn't there on the options that I can chose, 1280 x 1024 is the largest for option I've got ... however the total pixel size is close (1.28M for 1600x800, 1.31M for 1280x1024). So my guess is it is to do with the screen you use ...

Melanie