How about the optical performance? Soberly speaking this instrument should not be called a microscope, it is just a strong loupe.
E.g. you will not be able to resolve the test diatom Triceratium favus for which we would need a - rather modest - numerical aperture of 0.1.
This test diatom structure is easily resolved by most dissecting microscopes like e.g. the Russian MBS-10 which has been reviewed here in depth about a year ago.
The field of view of the "pocket microscope" is able to show an object with a size of 5.5 mm in full view. But, sadly, of this 5.5 mm image width only those two
in the very center appear crisp, the remainder is strongly blurred.
When comparing with the MBS-10 dissecting microscopes' 28x magnification not only the MBS-10 detail resolution is much better but we take profit from a
greatly enlarged field of view as well - by a factor of 20! Moreover, due to the low working distance it is not possible to screen the contents of a petri dish for tardigrades.
On the other hand, in case you should be primarily interested in postage stamps or in a quick view at classical permanent preparations on microscope slides,
the pocket microscope might serve as a tiny helper and come in handy. Overall, in particular when keeping in mind the very modest price, possibly a funny
gadget for casual use but certainly not a tool for our tardigrade studies, sorry.
|