I guess everytime I told you that I have opmi 99’s that are grey, you just heard the “peanut’s horn talk”
Remember, you get to use it, and fine tune what you need to make it work, like lenses for distance and whatnot. (and although swimming pool blue doesn’t effect the performance of the piece, no, it would not be swimmingpool blue… keep in mind, it was almost definitely a woman who picked that color in the first place. most men could care less)
While we’re on this subject, some of us over on facebook have been fooling with the Celestron USB handheld microscopes and seeing very good pics like Josefa produces. I have a distant cousin that makes a similar scope that interfaces with an ipad and has a frame rate that would make it actually real time so you could operate under it. If you folks are interested, I’ll chase down his website and post it here. I’m considering that route to “televise” our production microscopes.
YES!
That picture of the
Demonex worm was cool that Barbara submitted with her scope.
Laurier I’m interested in knowing more information on the USB microscopes…including what they cost. Do they interface with android tablets or just products of the evil white empire?
Edit: After looking around on the web, I have to say I’m really impressed by these. At about $50 this shows a lot of promise. I could easily see clamping one of these onto something like a microphone stand.Hmmmm
Seana
Regular USB 2.0 Made by Celestron. A 2mp model is less than $100. For an operator 2mp is plenty but I find to picture a Probe properly 2 isin’t enough at 40X
I watched a video, they were doing test of one on a coin.There seemed to be lots of visability.Do you mean to picture a probe for examination of the probe, or to view the probe in use?
Edit: I’m also curious about depth perception with these. with a single microscope, I would think it difficult to judge on an insertion, which is where the stereo microscopes have an advantage. Are folks actually tagging two of these together?
Seana
Depth perception is one of the major factors in why stereo scopes beat circle lamps.
I’s not often I disagree with you james, but your statement makes no sense.
The depth perception comes from seeing with two eyes from different angles. And that view is duplicated whether it’s using one set of optics , or two. When looking with a loop, you are still seeing with two eyes. Whether through a single set of optics, or through two because it’s stereo magnification.
I can, for example look through a loop with one eye closed, It makes it more difficult to judge an insertion though because if say the probe is behind the hair, it’s not possible to tell if it’s right at the follicle, or 4 mm away. Open the other eye and I CAN see, oh look it’s away from he follicle and not right at it, because I’m getting the view from 2 different angles. Whether I’m looking through one set of magnification, such as a loop, or through two dedicated ones, such as a stereo optic device, shouldn’t make a difference.
Seana
Here’s that link I promised for the ipad based microscope camera. Turns out it’s pretty pricey.
It is 3.1 megapixel though.
Yes and no. Depth perception depends a lot on experience as well, and it must be learned newly when the “optical surrounding” changes. Even more important is the effect of the working distance on depth perception. Reason is that the two optical axes approach parallelity the longer the working distance becomes. Which means that depth perception through a single 8 dioptres (3X) loupe is different from depth perception through a set of 3X stereo loupes (and there it matters if its a Kepler or a Galilei system) and also on a 3X Eschenbach clipon with its really short working distance.
In summary things are actually more complicated that Your simple model.
But, I like simplicity! Ah well.
Seana
Dee are you any further along in getting a microscope, I really would like to purchase one, the best I’ve come across on the Internet so far are ex-dental. I can’t bear another year of wearing loupes for long sessions. James what type of microscope is yours and did it take a long time to get use to working with it.
Mairi -
I just saw this. Since it is late, I will answer this tomorrow! I do have some thoughts to share.
Mairi -
I did try a Zeiss Primo for a couple months, but the first month didn’t count. This is what it looked like:
A very, very nice representative from Prescott’s set me up with the scope and taught me some specifics on its use. The problem I had for the first month was related to having the wrong objective lens. It was 200 mm lens and my arms were not long enough to reach my client as I zeroed in on the hair. It took a month to figure out what the problem was. The blue part is the objective lens, with a fine adjustment knob.
I tried a 125mm lens, with a working distance of 5", which was better, but too close.
I think I would have been better off with a 150 mm lens, but they didn’t have one for me to try. No matter what, the stand that the scope was mounted on was called a missionary stand that they use in Africa. They pack it up, piece by piece and pack it in a gigantic black suitcase so it can be easily moved. It had a huge 3 foot base on wheels and was hard to maneuver as many times as I need to during an appointment. I would get things in focus and then it would move on me. Looks like this:
I loved the halogen light source. It was a round circle of light that didn’t blind he client and it wasn’t too warm. The source of the light comes from this box.
I didn’t purchase the scope because it took too long to maneuver and focus and I felt like the stand was too cumbersome and unwieldy. One minute I was excited because I could see so well and insertions were unbelievably easy, even on the blondest, finest hairs. For the next group of hairs, I would move and focus, but it would take me too long to get it just right. I was very frustrated and a paying client wouldn’t like it if I was fiddling with the scope too much.
This scope had 0-60 incline binoculars, meaning, I could keep my head straight, even though I was really looking down at the area of hair. That is worth the extra money. Very nice. Looks like this:
If there was some way I could check out other scopes, with options like the 200 mm lens had, with the fine adjustment knob, that is used after the gross adjustment is done, I think I could settle on something that was right for me.
I already see quite well with my loupes, so I’m not in dire need to buy a scope, but like you, these long appointments wear on my nose. In the last two days, I have logged in 17.5 hours of work. Sixteen hours was on one client. This is why I wanted a scope, but it was not to be. That is why I now will only work on one client about five hours straight. Today was an exception for a very special client.
Be very sure when you buy a scope. They are not meant for everybody, I am told. I used the Zeiss endoscope above, but maybe I need to try a colposcope with the right lens for me? I gave it a good try and my rep, Dustin, was so very patient and helpful. I wanted so much to write him a check and be on my way to another dimension of magnification, but it wasn’t right for me. The cost would have been between $8,000 and $10,000 for a used scope, 1990’s vintage, something I couldn’t justify doing unless I was over the top happy with using it successfully.
I hope you have a better outcome than I did.
If someone would listen to me, I think I could help design the perfect scope for electrologist’s.
Hi Dee, it looks great however you have addressed all the concerns I may have had ie size, field of vision etc. though James does say this is something you learn to work with. The newer microscopes are much sleeker but come with a huge price tag. In the meantime I’m going to try the head mounted loupes. Very grateful for your research.
My dearest Dee, we found out you needed a 150 or lower when Deanna and you were playing with my scope years ago.
The base you had was all wrong. The standard zeiss base is smaller, and you can get locking castors that make it not roll so easy. Another option is to just put a piece of carpet under the scope base, if one had to make the most of what one had.
I have found that the armatures on the scopes are a variable that can become a make or break thing. Unless one is going from working on a face to working on a chest, the base should not need to move at all during a treatment. Only the armature should need repositioning.
I recently broke down and got a 300mm lens for body work, so I could stop bending my neck so much when I did body work. I never bought one before, because I always avoided doing body work when I could. Recently, I have had a rash of all day body work and it was just less expensive to buy the new lens than keep paying my chiropractor and massage therapist.
Mairi,
Some time ago I posted a add I found on kijiji in the ebay thread from toronto area electrologist who was retiring nd disposing of their scope.Since it’s such an expensive purchase there may be a good chance its still available . It looked a lot smaller than the one Dee was using.
@Dee,
That is a really pretty working area! I absolutely love the built in cabinetry, and it looks like there is a lot of natural light ( which makes electrolysis so much easier).
Long days are definitely a back killer. I work on one girl here 6 or more hours a week and I find that hard, I cant imagine racking up 16 in 2 days. And blonde hairs, shiver. I have someone starting this coming week with blonde hair and I’m seriously questioning whether I have to refer them to someone else with a microscope. I dont want to because I know they cant afford their rates, so I may see what I can do for her and refer for the rest.
One criticism, there isnt a single bottle of rhum in those cabinets. Surely some days you would need a drink…
Seana
I might also point out that I like the full upside down V shaped elbow armatures, not the straight one link like the one Dee had. The elbow also makes for less movement of the base, and more adjustability for the optics. It is like the space shuttle arm.
James I wish I would have played with your scope a little more(that sounds weird). It would have been nice to be able to compare the feel of your scope to that of Dee’s(sounding even weirder). I had the opportunity to use Dee’s for a long time one day. I felt as she did, when you got the spot right-on it was OMG amazing. Then I adjusted from the chin to the neck area and OMG again but not in a good way -OMG crap! It took so long to find where I was and because, I believe, the surface was not as flat it was harder to get in focus. There was a small adjustment when I got my loupes but it was nothing compared to what I felt the adjustment would be with the scope. It didn’t seem doable but I know others love their scopes so maybe it was just the wrong scope specs for me.
I would say it took me a week to a month to really get the hang of the scope.
Part of the Zen of it is to be able to know how to focus the head in conjunction with your skin selection technique
