🧵 are these scam.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 23:38:48 UTC No. 16587364
>dinolite usb microscopes cost 330 euro
>regular no-name usb microscope cost 20-50 euro
>both look basically the same on their outside appearance
also, nobody in the microscopy field, neither in biology classes or in medical microscopy lab, uses this stuff, they use age old regular microscopes from 100 years ago or maybe a little more modern from 1980 but certainly not a usb microscope
so, I am asking is this just a scam?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 01:05:44 UTC No. 16587432
the cheap version won't have the same quality.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 03:06:26 UTC No. 16587529
>>16587432
>surely nobody would just slap a new brand and 100x markup on a chinese alibaba product and count on people thinking that expensiv=good
>that would be unethical!
oh you sweet summer child
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 03:10:59 UTC No. 16587533
>>16587364
>are these scam.
>dinolite
You will not be able to see any naked dinosaurs, OP. Sorry.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 03:27:35 UTC No. 16587542
We use the old equipment because lense technology has not improved for over a hundred years. It's still ground glass. We beef up the magnification by using oil immersion which basically reaches the limit of visible light microscopy. Past that we have scanning electron. That... thing... in your picture is a toy for YouTubers to show audience macro shots of objects. It is not used for research.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 04:56:03 UTC No. 16587583
>>16587364
>>16587432
Yeah, they're a scam.
I used them in manufacturing as equipment for station technicians to get a closer look at the operation of some small-scale manual components during assembly. They were, almost universally, WORSE than the $20-50 plug-and-play cams that we bought on Amazon.
They weren't, as I recall, as bad as AmScope. AmScopes were also terrible and expensive, but they also read into the computer as generic serial devices, not cameras, which meant that image collection/analysis services that expected USB cameras wouldn't even work with them. So you had to buy the proprietary AmScope vision program to even run the camera, which was infuriating. We were trying to build an image-collection pipeline for an old line and had to scrap about $10k in camera equipment + mounts/scopes from the original shit setup. I have a permanent vendetta against AmScope for this.
>>16587542
Lol. Lmao. Even. Sure, the physical lens in cams haven't changed much because we've known how to make decent lenses since like fucking Newton was alive. But an imaging system like a microscope is a lens array + a stage + light + visual receiver system for displaying the subject. They have absolutely advanced and there are methods of imaging that are significantly better now than they were 100 years ago. You don't even realize it because so many things that used to be "checked under a microscope" have been turned into a box that you drop your sample into and it "magically" churns out results.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 06:10:00 UTC No. 16587626
>>16587364
To go pro, you need triokular miscroscope and mount DLSR in there. Otherwise you're cheap faggot and your pictures will suck horsecock.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 10:52:58 UTC No. 16587759
>>16587432
>>16587529
I mean it looks like even the model that cost 6000 dollars is not used by professionals so is it a scam or why they dont want to use it?