Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

A huge effort in our facility is spent steering people towards the correct
microscopy technique.  People walk in with dishes of cells and say, "I
need to use confocal right now," and typically they are wrong.  However,
many users who don't really need confocal end up there anyhow.

1.  Manuscript reviewers ask for confocal.  It's easier to reshoot the
pictures with confocal than to argue why they are wrong.

2.  There really are no truly simple plug-and-play multiprobe imaging
systems with on-the-fly deconvolution.  Non microscopists need to see
their thin optical section results (or volume renderings) with multiprobe
pretty color registration in "real time".  They need to see it before
their face.

3.  A corollary:  people expect things fast.  New confocals are fast and
line-by-line or point-by-point sequential imaging eliminates bleadthrough
problems while presenting an image "real time".

4.  Many newer confocals have all sorts of nifty features such as
illumination only in drawn ROIs, FRAP, FRET, interactive zoom, analysis
software, time lapse Z series multiple fields, etc.  Expert microscopists
may say, "Well I can do all of this on my Java enabled HP-65," but the
fact is that people want quick and easy state-of-the-art imaging and the
high end confocals do an excellent job.

Now, to address the original question:

It is correct that you need to test your material on the confocal you are
going to buy.

You need to have a list of anticipated features.

Confocals typically do not work properly as initially installed and they
need service.  Which companies will provide good service in your
particular geographical location?



-Michael


> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
> Dear All,
>
> based on what I have seen over the last 10 years, >>90% of users do not
> need
> a confocal image for their data analysis/presentation/interpretation etc.
>
> Thus the issue around confocal versus a wide-field microscopy is often
> presented misleadingly and incorrect both "politically" and
> scientifically.
>
> Do not believe Marketing People - Big Four (and many others outside the
> imaging business) should rather heavily increase their Engineering and R&D
> Departments and fire 90% of the Marketing staff.