>I think the OptiVISOR satisfies both requirements.
>Much better image and better depth of field than a
>jeweler's loupe too.

I have an Optivisor too, and would not be without it. has the #3, #4 & #10
when I got it, but I have to change the lenses. What I do like is that the
lens have an angle to take account of the way the eyes point inwards when
close focusing. Trying to do this with a large single lens gets very hard on
the eyes.

I have very recently seen a similar style of magnifier which I would like to
investigate if I can track down the source. It does not have the shade above
the eyes like the Optivisor, and so it can be lowered further over the face.
It would make looking through the magnifier to probe a circuit, and then
looking up at an instrument, easier, instead of having to lift the head to
look under the magnifier. However the lenses are further from the eyes, so I
suspect it may not have as much magnification.

>The stereo microscope fits in a different, higher power
>niche. Certainly less freedom of movement and restricted
>working stage.

Agreed.

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist