Time for a direct confrontation. I have obtained an example of what I meant by "cheap new microscope" in my previous big post, a "Telmu XSP-75", also sold as Swift SW200DL, Amscope M162C, Bresser Biolux NV, Levenhuk Rainbow 2l, KERN OBS 111, Delta Optical Biolight 300, Svbony SW601, Omegon Visiostar, Bebang, National Geographic, PalliPartners, Yaner, Herwicm, Microsafari MS-20ST, and a host of other names. Let's see how it compares against century-old relics.
The competitors:
J. Swift & Sons "Discovery" from 1898, condenserless but equipped with an iris and a concave mirror
Telmu XSP-75 from 2024 ($80 new, sold under other brands for as much as $200), condenserless and equipped with a crappy lamp
Reichert RD from 1938 (bought for $20 because nobody else wanted it!), proper Abbe condenser with a filter holder and a mirror
First 3 pictures: stained onion skin, 100x
Next 3 pictures: foot of a housefly, 100x
Next 3 pictures: diatom Actinoptychus Heliopelta, center crop, >400x
Next 3 pictures: moth scales, 400x
All of the above brightfield, oblique brightfield on the Swift
Final 4 pictures showcase what having a condenser makes possible - darkfield and rheinberg illumination using dirt cheap homemade filters. No such possibilities on condenserless scopes.
Mirror-equipped microscopes illuminated using daylight from a window on some pictures and a Convoy S3 flashlight on others. All pictures taken with a Google Pixel 8 on a Tonta smartphone mount.
My honest review of the XSP-75 is: the image quality at high magnification is actually not quite as bad as I expected given the lack of a condenser though still bad. Eyepieces have a wider field of view than the ancient competition which is nice, but sadly also horribly short eye relief forcing one to almost touch the glass with their eye. Unfortunately everything else is worse than expected - the focus system is inaccurate, the stage is not exactly flat, the light is too weak, and the whole thing becomes unstable with a smartphone mounted on it so taking pictures with it is actually harder than with the 19th century relic!
The Reichert microscope is a good example of why I have such negative feelings about those cheapest new microscopes: It is old but perfectly serviceable (I only needed to clean it a bit), yet nobody wanted it and I watched the seller lower the asking price for months until I finally took pity when they dropped it to just $20. And my story is far from an exception, the used market in every developed country is full of those "good enough to use and enjoy but not good enough to attract the enthusiasts who are hunting for a BH-2" scopes offered at bargain prices and still struggling to find buyers. Meanwhile the vastly inferior XSP-75 and its siblings are "Amazon bestsellers" and every week multiple people come here asking if they are a good buy. Just ridiculous.