I’m a casual observer with no scientific background in what I observe, but I love the wonder of looking around me and seeing things I hadn’t seen before, so I’ve been considering getting a simple pocket microscope. My question is: how would I be able to use a pocket microscope to help my observations? Is it at all useful for things like insects or plants as a hobbyist? Are there any particularly useful aspects of specific types of organism that could really help identify an observation if a microscope photo was attached? (Keep in mind it wouldn’t be anything fancy and I wouldn’t be able to dissect anything, which I know can be important.)
Are you talking about a supplementary lens for your camera or something more sophisticated that generates a digital image?
Something like this https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B001448KT4 which is a standalone microscope but has an attachment to take photos through it with a phone.
As an amateur botanist, I do sometimes use a 30x one to verify the presence of small structures that typically cannot be captured easily in photos (usually small hairs). They are pretty cheap and a light addition to a backpack. They can take some getting used to though and can be difficult in the field. The images on mine are flipped, presumably due to a single lens. I did try out a higher magnification one, but found it very difficult to use, though others may have had different experiences.
I purchased one like this a few years ago, but without a camera clip, which may be a new addition. The one I got appeared to have a scratched lens and was somewhat difficult to use. However, attaching a camera with a clip like that might improve the experience. I too am curious if anyone has tried that version and how well it works.
That is reason enough to get a microscope. I have a dissecting scope and a compound scope and rarely use either for iNat observations. I’ve used them to look at butterfly scales, insect molts, empty wasp nests, mosses, parasitic plants, a mummified salamander, and other interesting things I find. Go for it!
I’m a great fan of x10 hand lenses (loupes) - you can get a good enough one for (say) £10 or a nice one for £30. Much easier to use than a pocket microscope, probably better quality lens? and if you’re very dextrous you could probably get a photo through it :) Is always to hand on a lanyard round your neck (and acts as a secret sign to other nature nerds in the field)
If you enjoy taking extra gear into the field, you can actually pair field microscopy with DNA barcoding. Depending on your region, projects like Zombuddies (zombie-making fungi) and FunDiS (Fungal Diversity Survey) allow you to collect specimens and submit them for sequencing, often for free.
Combining microscopy with DNA sequencing is revolutionizing fungal taxonomy. You can help describe new species. It is a fantastic time to get into mycology!
pssst @suntooth, @ffnaturalist:
Not an endorsement for the shop, just the loupe. I use one of these for antiques, and it works great.
Do you know of any Europe/UK projects for this sort of thing? It sounds interesting!
Check out the links on Susana’s profile, and also see FunDive.
Strong magnification is great for looking at little larval critters in pondwater. If you can get the dang arthropod to sit still (or are willing to kill them), there are also often species IDs that hinge on things like the number of segments in antennae or the arrangement of wing veins. You don’t necessarily need a full-on microscope for that, but a good macro lens and images from several angles can be the difference between “definitely a greenbottle fly of some sort” and “this specific greenbottle fly, and it’s female”.