What genius thought it would be a good idea if two major microscope brands (Olympus and Zeiss) used opposite conventions for which direction you turn the knob for "focus down" vs "focus up"? So that after you are accustomed to one and have to use another, you end up wasting half your time focusing the wrong direction, or if you are very lucky, crashing the expensive 63x objective into the specimen?
Anyone who wants to clear this up for me, go right ahead.
15 years ago
9 comments:
This must reflect a difference in thinking among Japanese and German optical engineers. Because Nikon was definitely a "turn away from you to focus down" set up.
Pat yourself on the back for actually knowing that the focus moves the objective. Amazingly, this isn't as widespread as you'd think. Leading to all sorts of damage to any commonly used objective. Don't even get me started about the improper use of immersion oil. Grrr!!!
We're lucky that due to significant differences between local reps, we are essentially a pure Olympus lab, from patch clamp set ups to TIRF and confocals.
our high resolution scope is an inverted olympus, so to move the object up (toward the slide) you move the knob toward you. Our lower magnification Zeiss is an upright scope, and the direction of the focus knob is opposite. to move toward the slide you turn the knob toward you (but the objective is now moving down...)
could you scopes also be inverted vs upright?
No, it doesn't have anything to do with upright vs inverted--it's a "toward the specimen, away from the specimen" characteristic that they all differ on. Nat, I think you're right, and Leica works like Zeiss...I've always had Olympus for phys and Leica/Zeiss for histology, so it's a total mindfuck every time I switch occupations.
I'm terrified to imagine what someone thinks is moving if not the objective.
that is my point, the direction that the objective has to move in order to go "toward the specimen" will be different depending on whether you have an inverted vs upright scope. The objective may be still moving in the same direction (up or down). I w
I'm terrified to imagine what someone thinks is moving if not the objective.there are some where the stage moves, you know, not the objective.
anyway, I know what you mean. It is annoying. but if you're having trouble finding your sample... use a lower magnification, or make better samples.
The frustration usually hits when one switches from a low-power objective to a high-power objective, and since they're often not parfocal, you end up trying to figure out whether you need to move towards or away from the specimen (SM, different brands work with a certain convention regardless of inverted or upright--it's always toward the specimen is one direction of turn, just that different brands have different conventions).
So then you're sitting with your 63x or 100x oil immersion objective on a scope whose up/down is different than the scope you usually use, and you're not sure which direction you need to move in anyhow....urgh. It just messes with my head. Eventually motor learning kicks in, but always a bit later than I want it to!
Oh Jeebus, the same opposite convention occurs between Zeiss and Leitz, so it's not just a Japanese vs German thing. We use both for coal microscopy and have destroyed objectives and glass reflectance standards by misremembering which one turns which way. It's made all the more dangerous in that our coal specimens are hard solid pellets that will happily break your objective.
Oh Dear Lord- I can sooooo relate. Also why can't all these companies decide on standard file formats for their images. Why do I have to save them initially as X format and then export as tiff ? They know we'll be using photoshop and illustrator for the final annotation. Aaarrgh.
And don't even get me started on the whole PC only compatible scopes. Why Lord why? when most of us lab rats are Mac folks.
Non open file formats are the bane of my existence. Especially when these companies' software sucks harder than that super vacuum that English guy is always peddling. Really, have you used some of this crap? Garbage.
If you can't export the raw data into TIFFs, and you can't get the imaging parameters from a text file output, then I don't want to hear from you, you stupid companies.
Cause I ain't never gonna use your software, other than for the initial capture. That, and the hardware, is what you should focus on. Everything else I'm just gonna do in Igor anyway.
Post a Comment