[Histonet] Histonet Digest, Vol 162, Issue 6

[Steve McClain]

Olympus microscopes win in my experience.

You can't go wrong with any of the 3 major manufacturers. Modern scopes all have have better optics than what we trained on.  I place a high priority on durability and in my experience with Nikon and Olympus, Olympus has consistently shown better overall quality and durability and wins hands down.


Why?  In my personal experience, in scopes getting used 8-10 hours a day, and multiple users, Olympus survives better in terms of rubber parts such as ocular cups and the ring around the objective turret which failed on both Nikons. In other words, where the rubber meets the road ( or the pathologist touching the rubber), both Nikons suffered.


During my first 10 years, I used Nikon scopes exclusively, and I still own one Nikon scope (albeit stored in a cabinet). After 2-4 years both stages wore out and those rubber parts needed replacing.  I purchased  3 different digital cameras in my first 5 years of slide imaging (Polaroid and Spot) and 2 different Nikon scopes 400 and e600.


But in my own private lab experience Olympus is clearly more durable. I wore out 1 stage and wore out 1 motorized microscope head in 14 years of rigorous daily use since changing to Olympus in 2004. That's it. 3 pathologists 3 scopes, 100,000 slides a year. 2 repairs* We rely on our microscopes to work to a greater degree than most labs because we

IMAGE EVERY SPECIMEN.  Having a scope down or having suboptimal  performance inevitably shows up in the images.


Olympus scopes BX 61 BX41 with digital cameras DP70 DP71 have held up really well.  3 student grade scopes in the dirty lab environ at each microtome cutting station, used for immediate wet slide inspection and KOH exams, have held up well. Perhaps most surprisingly, both Olympus digital camera models (surprisingly because they are now 12-14 years old) still produce great slide images and remain in daily use.  The scopes likewise.


If you are buying a scope to be replaced every 3 years, you may see little difference.  But if you plan to use for 3-10 years with little maintenance aside from cleaning, odds favor Olympus.


Steve A. McClain, MD

*PS truth be told I also left the UV lamp on for a week 240 hours and burned up the UV lamp housing and had to replace that. Adding of course a $12 darkroom timer to prevent that accident from repeating.


On May 8, 2017, at 13:09, "histonet-request at lists.utsouthwestern.edu<mailto:histonet-request at lists.utsouthwestern.edu>" <histonet-request at lists.utsouthwestern.edu<mailto:histonet-request at lists.utsouthwestern.edu>> wrote:


Subject: [Histonet] Microscope selection

Message-ID:

   <CAAMyTv_L4eKAHMTTc=CAVjX=Urr1QVGDDxd0WnS0CJmkHHd02g at mail.gmail.com<mailto:CAAMyTv_L4eKAHMTTc=CAVjX=Urr1QVGDDxd0WnS0CJmkHHd02g at mail.gmail.com>>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8


Hello to all

Would like to have some advice from expert from the field of pathology on

microscope selection

Which one would you select as a manufacturer for microscopes


1- Olympus

2- Nikon

3- Leica