Microscope - why not.

I figured that it might be good to get a decent look at straight edges before, during and after honing so I've picked up a microscope.
It's got 25x, 50x, 150x and 250x. Made in Japan but branded Sears and Roebuck US. Best of all though, it's got a top light that shines down on the subject which should be ideal for looking at blade edges.

I used to have one very similar to that as a kid. I used to like it. The focus is very shallow so it might be tricky to use on a razor but let us know how it works.

Yeah, looks like a fairly cheap one. 50x should be fine, and maybe 150x... but 250x will probably be almost impossible to focus on. I had a 100x400x900 like that, 100 worked fine. 400 was almost impossible to focus. 900 was a joke.

Cool!!!

I suspect it'll be rather difficult to get any light in there at high magnification because of how close the objective gets to the blade. Be really careful. I've messed up a lens or two. It should work a lot better using transmitted light, but that's useless for razors.

Let us know how it goes.

If I can get 25x, 50x and 150x to focus OK, then I'll be happy. I've got a 60x loupe that's not too bad but the quality of the optics aren't great so I'm hoping that this will be a bit of an improvement.

It looks vintage. Would you post the make & model numbers?

SiBurning said:

It looks vintage. Would you post the make & model numbers?

Click to expand...

Sure, it was being posted today so I should hopefully have it on Monday.

I messed about with one of those. The field of view is tiny, and it is difficult to set up a means to stabilize the razor. I found it cumbersome. I bought a 30x loup.

Phil

I just bought my 8th scope tonight. Another old Olympus metallurgical thing. Click through the "See full description" link to see the listing.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160540934850

Just hoping that at least the 40x lens works and I'll be happy. If not, it's pretty iffy. Wouldn't be my first mistake.

Pkrankow said:

I messed about with one of those. The field of view is tiny, and it is difficult to set up a means to stabilize the razor. I found it cumbersome. I bought a 30x loup.

Phil

Click to expand...

At high magnification, the depth is so tiny it takes several stops just to see the coating on a DE. It comes with the territory. You really can't get depth beyond about 90x. Below that, a stereo microscope is way better.

Some kind of clamp to hold the razor is absolutely required. Either that, or a large stockpile of extra lenses.

SiBurning said:

I just bought my 8th scope tonight. Another old Olympus metallurgical thing. Click through the "See full description" link to see the listing.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160540934850

Just hoping that at least the 40x lens works and I'll be happy. If not, it's pretty iffy.

Click to expand...

Nice. I would have liked one like that but they are few and far between in Australia. Plenty in the US but postage is a killer.

johnmrson said:

Nice. I would have liked one like that but they are few and far between in Australia. Plenty in the US but postage is a killer.

Click to expand...

Might pay to look at
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Microscope/

I sometimes read about things coming up in Australia. Just be careful--obviously this is no endorsement. More likely you'd get something shipped from Asia.

Don't be in a rush. Too easy to make mistakes.

If you're honing, a stereo (not just binocular) microscope is a better option than a compound.

Subscribed to the thread.

SiBurning said:

Some kind of clamp to hold the razor is absolutely required. Either that, or a large stockpile of extra lenses.

Click to expand...

This was the biggest problem. I could not figure a way without building something or altering the toy microscope. The microscope is my wife's so my options are limited.

I did not see what I wanted to, even though I could see very good detail when I did get lined up. I think I will go the USB microscope camera if I find the loupe inadequate.

Phil

I have a Leica and a Wild Heerbrugg binocular pair sitting next to me at work right now. I'm going to miss them when I leave.

legion said:

I have a Leica and a Wild Heerbrugg binocular pair sitting next to me at work right now. I'm going to miss them when I leave.

Click to expand...

Both CMO?

SiBurning said:

Both CMO?

Click to expand...

Yes, both CMO.

I had one like that. It didn't work for this application.

I then got one of these:

http://store.amscope.com/h100.html

You need to make a little stand for it to use fir razors ( simply some dpacers, I can post pics), and it works extreemly well. USB camera costs extra, but is not necessary at all, in fact it's much crisper viewing by eye.

Post the pictures of the stand. That kind of stuff is important, and challenging to think up.

stereo is much easier: http://store.amscope.com/se306r-py.html (not a product endorsement, just an example)
Typical 2-3" working distance or better, stereo vision eliminates the flat 2d look. Top & bottom lights let you use it for other things.
Downside is you pay at least twice the money for twice the optics.
You need a serious camera to get really good pictures at that low a magnification. With a 17mm diameter view, your eye is basically a 7,000 Mp camera. I think Canon's still struggling with 25 Mp.

Seraphim said:

You need to make a little stand for it to use fir razors ( simply some dpacers, I can post pics)

Click to expand...

Please post pics.

SiBurning said:

Post the pictures of the stand. That kind of stuff is important, and challenging to think up.
... your eye is basically a 7,000 Mp camera.

Click to expand...

Never realized that was the effective capture of the eye. Is this based on average cone/rod density in an average human eyeball, or some other means? I know that the cones and rods are not equally distributed across the retina, most people have a gap where the optic nerve connects.

Phil

You guys might want a dissecting microscope instead of a compound, since they give ample magnification but do not require light to pass through the object. Furthermore, most dissecting scopes have clamps or clips that might be a better way to secure your razors for viewing.