[dr_coffee]

Building on your comment, I think that while it does help to have high quality cameras and objective lenses, it is always worthwhile to push the limits of how cheap we can go. There have been many nicely done papers in this vein recently, showing for example, how cheapER cameras perform on supperresolution microscopy setups [1]. That paper showed that the setup is able to resolve cellular structures (actin filaments) less than 100 nm apart and measures the standard deviation of localization of single fluorophore emmitters.

Super-resolution implies that you are imaging below the diffraction (Abbe) limit. While the Fourier ring correlation can be used as a surrogate for resolution (it is frequently used in both cryo-em and fluorescent microscopy) you must define the correlation cutoff or else the measurement is meaningless. I do not see any mention of a cutoff used in the linked paper.

I would be more convinced if they actually imaged something smaller than the diffraction limit of their microscope, like the nuclear pore, which was recently proposed as a standard for the field [2]. Nonetheless I am impressed by the image quality given how un-rigid and prone to thermal drift/expansion their microscope probably is.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-19981-z

[2] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/582668v1