How Much Magnification?

[Lumberguy]

Hey guys, I'm looking for a good tool to examine exuviums to determine my tarantulas' sexes. Do any of you with experience know about how much magnification is needed for the task? I don't know whether I can get away with a 30x jeweler's loop, or if I want a 60-100x pocket microscope, or if either of those options will work. I want something fairly cheap and that's what I've run across so far, but do any of you have the knowledge that a specific item at whatever magnification works well?>

Much thanks! :worship:

 

[Anubis77]

What size spiders are you sexing? I get by with a macro lens on my camera for all but the smallest of spiderlings (I think it's 30x zoom). 1" or so and you can start sexing a lot of species by eye. A small microscope would be more than enough for the majority of your intact exuviae.

 

[Lumberguy]

Well the Ts I'm trying to sex are around 2" right now, but I've yet to be able to pick up on the subtle differences in exuviums with anything at my disposal. I'm getting a 60-100x portable microscope online for about 6 bucks, and I'll just hope that it isn't total crap. I dunno if anyone else has tried to use them with success, but if the magnification is close to what it is advertised as, hopefully it'll show me the detail I'm hoping to see and allow me to learn better how to sex.

 

[Ictinike]

My wife in an attempt to help me got me one of these:
http://www.amazon.com/Carson-MM-200-Micromax-60X-100X-Microscope/dp/B000P8AUMU

It's not too bad and I've actually had good luck sexiing my 1.5-4" T's. It's not the best but once you've used it a bit it works out well and once you know what to look for it's much easier.

 

[Jerm357]

I just use my old 3 MP digital camera. You can take some pretty detailed pictures to sex most 2" spiders. Heres my first pic of a 2" spider that I actualy sexed with this 4 year old camera. This is a 2" B. emilia

 

[Jerm357]

 

[Ictinike]

That's a pretty good shot Jeremy for what you have!

Sorta off topic a bit and I apologize but anyone reading ever used some of those USB pluggable scopes out there?

I'm going to go search the forums for threads related to that question (before anyone asks ) but thought I would ask again.

Cheers,

 

[Lumberguy]

Ya I looked into a USB microscope as well, and they look like a good product, but right now I don't have the $70 to throw down on one of the cheaper varieties, so until I do I'll have to make do otherwise.

 

[Lumberguy]

Great News! My little 6 dollar pocket microscope came a while back, and works like a charm. I looked at the exuvium of my B. emilia that I have been saving for several weeks to examine, and I HAVE A GIRL!!!

Now I just need to wait for my other Ts to molt to figure out what they are. The exuvium had to be crushed a bit in order to press the microscope against it in the right way, but I feel that it was more than worthwhile to see what I was looking for with such clarity. If anyone else is looking for a cheap, effective tool to sex your Ts with, I have to say this was a perfect solution.

 

[brachybaum]

My wife in an attempt to help me got me one of these:
http://www.amazon.com/Carson-MM-200-Micromax-60X-100X-Microscope/dp/B000P8AUMU

It's not too bad and I've actually had good luck sexiing my 1.5-4" T's. It's not the best but once you've used it a bit it works out well and once you know what to look for it's much easier.

To be honest I would not recommend this product. Just got mine yesterday and its not what I expected. For example I thought you can point this a fair distance away from the subject but no you have to stick the subject right up to it, pressing to get a good magnification, so for moving subjects forget it. I spent $20, I would recommend you spend some good money, don't go cheap.

 

[codykrr]

well considering this was recommended for sexing spiders via MOLT. it wont be moving, so theoretically it is a good buy. the only thing i would prefer is an attachment for a camera. Or just a digital microscope, but i dont have the cash, so this is like i said a good buy for the money. plus 20 for it? i got mine at radioshack for 13 bucks...

 

[Cirith Ungol]

To be honest I would not recommend this product. Just got mine yesterday and its not what I expected. For example I thought you can point this a fair distance away from the subject but no you have to stick the subject right up to it, pressing to get a good magnification, so for moving subjects forget it. I spent $20, I would recommend you spend some good money, don't go cheap.

That's why it's called a pocket microscope. With a microscope you always have to be right on top of what you are observing, and since it's a pocket version, the surface of what you are touching with it is the focussing point. There is no way around it.


Yeah, USB microscopes look neat but unless you're willing to pay more than $500 they're all very crappy. I've looked into them myself, red tons of reviews and each and every cheaper version has some sort of problem either of use, or bad colours, is slow, bad resolution, can't focus or what have you.

To OP: 100x should be plenty, but the problem is that you want a real microscope as it might be hard to focus on the area with a pocket microscope.

I would suggest you test taking macro shots at maximum resolution. You can also take macro shots through 30x lenses. I've tried that and other than them ending up a tiny bit on the fuzzy side they were surprisingly clear.

Remember - the higher the magnification when you take a photo, the more light you will need on the subject, and it's not always practical to use the flash.

 

[Ictinike]

To be honest I would not recommend this product. Just got mine yesterday and its not what I expected. For example I thought you can point this a fair distance away from the subject but no you have to stick the subject right up to it, pressing to get a good magnification, so for moving subjects forget it. I spent $20, I would recommend you spend some good money, don't go cheap.

Sorry mate if you took my recommendation the wrong way. Indeed as others had stated it's more for placing on a flat surface and sexing molts which I think, for the cost, it does real well. This is from a guy who's eyes are not the best either.

I've had good success with mine again for the cost and to me was a gift from my wife trying to help me out in the hobby. I wouldn't give up on it yet and would wait for a molt and give it another shot more for what it was intended for.

Cheers,

 

[ametan]

I'm just looking to sex molts as well. It's difficult to know what to trust that isn't astronomical as well. I'm thinking I need to make a trip to American Science and Surplus and bring a molt along...

 

[Cirith Ungol]

Thread counters might be the best option here and all that is needed.

 

[Lumberguy]

I'm just looking to sex molts as well. It's difficult to know what to trust that isn't astronomical as well. I'm thinking I need to make a trip to American Science and Surplus and bring a molt along...

Like I said above (my post got swallowed up by all the rest lol) I got that $6 pocket microscope from Amazon, which has an LED light attached, and it worked out perfectly for sexing the molt I had waiting for it. I was amazed at the detail I was able to see out of something I expected very little of since it was so inexpensive.

 

[TalonAWD]

This is what I use... Radio shack

Combined with a camera to get records of what I see, I get these... a Psocid and Nhandu chromatus. (The Psocid I have it on a piece of tape to hold it in place. It was as big as this "0" )

Notice I broke off a part of the clear part of the microscope. This makes it easier to view molts as I can slide the microscope around it. All the molts have to be on top of a flourescent light. I do not use the built in light because it sucks.

Heres a size reference for the N chromatus spermathecae.

 

[Ictinike]

Like I said above (my post got swallowed up by all the rest lol) I got that $6 pocket microscope from Amazon, which has an LED light attached, and it worked out perfectly for sexing the molt I had waiting for it. I was amazed at the detail I was able to see out of something I expected very little of since it was so inexpensive.

Good to hear.. The one I listed is similar as well even Steve's above and once you know what to look for and use those little scopes a bit it's not too hard.

I still don't understand the one posters comment about `moving targets` but I'm not going to dwell on that longer. Just don't understand how that could have been implied.

Oh well glad yours is working well and contgrats on the female!

 

[cacoseraph]

i use a 3x optical zoom normal PAS digicam and shoot through ~10-15x loupe type magnifiers

the loupes cost $1-2 and you don't even need to spend $100 on a cam to get a nice, working rig going.


with a rig like that i can sex 1"DLS spiderling molts as females quite easily



also, bottom lighting the molts is insanely helpful, sometimes

 

[Nerri1029]

Can you get by with a Jeweler's Loupe? Yes
they usually have decent glass in them.

Those pocket scopes are barely worth the money ( if it is truly all you want to spend then fine ) do not expect them to be more than they are. ALSO they require you to hold them with one hand, and manipulating the exuviums with the other single hand can be nearly impossible.

I WOULD SUGGEST a slight investment: A Dissecting Microscope.
here's one that is new.
http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-DISSECTING-...tem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2eae4094e1
You can find used easily.

However the return on said investment will be great.

I use a more expensive model with a $120 camera to get the results you see on my website ( see signature )

a Dissecting Scope with those magnifications will come in handy and be fun to use. If you get a Stereo one like the one I linked. you will see things in real 3D and sexing is greatly facilitated.

** that said.. obviously these are a decent amount of money and you can spend LOADS more.. so these aren't for everyone's needs/budget.