Prusa mini MK3 or the upgraded MK4 model be ok to start printing parts to build a microscope?

General
1

I am getting ready to purchase a 3D printer to try to print the UC2 boxes with 2 students. We are experimenting with this. I was wondering would the Prusa mini MK3 work. Would the upgraded MK4 models also be ok to start printing parts to build a microscope?

2

Hey @TomPhD thanks for reaching out! That’S a great idea. I know that people from the https://lichtwerkstatt-jena.de/ have the new mk4 and they are quit happy. We have the bambulab p1p which was a dealchanger for us. However, the cubes are injection molded, so the stability, precision and reproducibility is not really comparable. For a quick test, Prusas and Bambulabs work great.

Maybe @the_alquemist and @MakerTobey can share their experiences with their printers? :slight_smile:

3

Hi, we have the Prusa MK3.9 and MK4 (I would say 3 and 4 have the same quality but the MK4 is much faster), which are open source in contrast to Bambulab :wink:
Our experience was the same, we print many inserts and other optics parts in 3D and it works well. But cubes and baseplates we only print when necessary because of custom inserts. The moulded ones are much quicker to assemble and fit together better.

4

Thanks do you recommend the mini mk3? I have a small budget of 2,000 usd to work with students this semester on building uc2 microscopes to image fluorescence. if my big nsg grant get funded next year i will have much more resources to print light sheet fluorescence scopes.

For now we are just proof of concept phase that we can actually do this.

I thought the mini prusa could work but do not want to buy the wrong machine just to save a few bucks.

Thanks
Thomas

5

Thanks so I h for the feedback. I’m so excited to start my journey into this open source community my students and I are very excited to 3D print microscopes.

Thanks
Thomas

6

Sorry I haven’t used the Prusa mini. It should be OK, too.