Fullscreen
Loading...
 

General Discussion Help

Forums > General Discussion > Olympus BX41/51 versus Nikon 50i/80i

Olympus BX41/51 versus Nikon 50i/80i


posts: 1 1 stars user offline

Can anyone help me with making a choice between:

Olympus BX41/51 versus Nikon 50i/80i?

Any input on the pros and cons of each microscope would be appreciated.

In addition to posting on this forum, please also email to:

 
Thanks,

Harvey Kliman, MD, PhD
Yale University School of Medicine
203-785-3854



posts: 6 2 stars user offline

Dr Kliman:

In the interest of full disclosure I should mention that I am a seller of Olympus and Nikon microscopes. I'll skip the hard sales pitch, and give you some options and information that you may wish to consider.

1) If you spend any significant amount of time viewing specimens you may wish to consider the Nikon 55i. The 55i uses an LED array for illumination in place of the typical halogen lamp that comes in the Nikon 50i and the Olympus BX series. This bright white light reduces eye strain. If you've never used an LED microscope, I should warn you, it takes a few days to get use to the color improvement.

2) Objectives: Both Nikon and Olympus make outstanding objectives with excellent optical quality. Nikon has a line of CFI objectives that, in my opinion, are slightly better than the Olympus objectives. Plan objectives are acceptable in most cases, but plan fluorite as well as apochromat objectives are available from both manufacturers. I would give a slight advantage in optical quality to the Nikon. The biggest difference in my opinion is on the 1x and 2x objectives. I believe that Nikon has an advantage when comparing the lower powered objectives based on my personal experience.

3) Ergonomics: Both Nikon and Olympus microscopes are built exceptionally well. The BX45 has an ergnomic stage design that allows the user to basically rest his hand on the table while manipulating the specimen. This takes a little while to get use to. Nikon has a very comfortable stage control. Both the BX series and the ECLIPSE series are available with PLAIN stages (no specimen holder) for those who like to manipulate the slides with their hands. (The plain stage is also less expensive than the mechanical stage) It's an option to consider. Also, you will want to get an ergonomic head. They are more expensive than the standard head, but you will be much happier in the end. I would say that the ERGONOMIC HEAD is a must.

4) Pricing: Nikon tends to be more willing to negotiate on price. In my personal experience, Olympus is somewhat difficult to deal with on price bartering. (as well as obtaining parts for service). I find Nikon to be significantly better from a customer service stand point.

5) Upgradeable: Both Nikon and Olympus are excellent at providing customers with options to upgrade their microscopes. This allows you to buy what you need now, and upgrade later for applications such as PHASE, IMMUNOFLUORESCENCE, or POLARIZATION. Also, both companies provide cameras and software for digital pathology.

6) Teaching Unit: Both Olympus and Nikon provide teaching modules with multiple heads and a pointer unit. Nikon's is slightly less expensive. Also, you should use the standard binocular head for students, instead of the ergonomic binocular head. This will save you money.

 
I hope this information helps. No matter which of the models you chose, I think you'll be extremely happy.

If I had my druthers, I would chose the Nikon 55i over the rest of the field.



posts: 1 1 stars user offline

I realize this post is two years old. Microscopes' post has been very useful for me. However I was wondering if you may help me choose between these two microscopes.

I am trying to buy a versatile upright transmitted/reflected microscope at the moment. I will use this microscope mostly in dark field although sometimes in bright field. Additionally, I would like to be able to play around with 360° rotating polarizer and analyzer both in transmitted and reflected illumination.

I hesitate between Olympus BX51TRF and Nikon Eclipse LV100D-U. So far, Nikon's microscope seems to best suit my needs in terms of how upgradeable it is. Indeed, I would like to be able to use two light sources at the same time in reflected illumination (a laser and a halogen lamp) and I also need at least two ports (one for a camera and the other one for a spectrometer connected via a fiber). However, the price is a big issue. I've found that Nikon's products cost twice as much as Olympus products. Is Nikon's quality twice as better?

 
Thank you in advance for your help.


Show posts:
Jump to forum:

Search Wiki Page

Exact match

CYTOPATHNET Polls

Do you plan to adopt the Bethesda Guidelines for Thyroid Cytology?






Code of Conduct

We comply with the HONcode standard for health trust worthy information:
verify here.

Theme: Tikinewt

TikiWiki assistant

Thank you for installing Tikiwiki!

LoginTo begin configuring Tiki, please login as admin.

The Tikiwiki CommunityTo learn more, visit: http://tiki.org.

Tikiwiki DocumentationFor help, visit http://doc.tiki.org.

Upcoming events

1)  Tue 12 of May, 2015
National Cytotechnology Day

Online users

125 online users

Search PubMed

PubMed Logo
Search PubMed:   

Shoutbox

kucingz2 points , 02:08 MDT, Tue 06 of May, 2014: http://goo.gl/3n9rax
kucingz2 points , 01:52 MDT, Mon 21 of Apr., 2014: [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]
admin, 21:24 MST, Wed 22 of Feb., 2012: User registration enhancements made and more coming in future.
admin, 18:06 MST, Sun 29 of Jan., 2012: Site upgraded from 6.4 to 6.6.
admin, 21:56 MDT, Thu 06 of Oct., 2011: Not sure I totally understand question. Perhaps post to forums for feedback.

Random Image

Google Search

 
cytopathnet.org
WWW

Site Language: English