Stil on the subject of the Zeiss META, I was wondering if someone in the list has actually detailed hands-on info on the system. We're in the process of buying a new confocal, and this is an expensive option (on top of Zeiss being the most expensive per se). I understand the technicalities and the potential for multispectral imaging, but would like also to hear practical details, like reliability, merging with the software, detection comparisons (Zeiss claims it's the same, but going through a grating filter and spliting the available photons between an array of PMT's sounds hardly like a way of increasing sensitivity) and any other details that may make one decide whether or not it's worth the money.
I was kind of hesitating to bring up to the list another "I have to buy a new one- HELP!" request, it's a sort of re-current issue that I believe most people gets bored with. Anyway since I found a METAexcuse, let me extend the quest for help to anyone that has been recently passed through the hellish process of having to make the usual BioRad-Leica-Zeiss decision. Please mind that I would value more realistic oppinions of realistic hands-on, paper-publishing, biology users than strictly technical oppinions, I've been getting a lot of the latest. Specially wellcomed are:
1. Direct side-by-side confrontation of Bio-Rad and Leica on the usual issues (sensitivity, resolution, separation, etc.)? (2100 vs. SP2)
2. If Bio-Rad 2100, what optics? I only hear about Nikon, did everyone gave up on trying others on the Bio-Rad?
3. If Bio-Rad, how well is their software coping with Leica and Zeiss? Is it user-friendly enough for a multi-user facility in which the regular users considers anoying and time-consuming anything further than pushing a button on a screen?
4. If Bio-Rad how is the engineering vs. the others? Bio-Rad has a tradition of having to pull 10 knobs and filters to get the thing going, while the others usually integrate much better the optics, does that stands in the 2100?
5. If Leica, does anyone feels limited by the objective inferior working distances, specially on live imaging?
6. If Leica, I've heard some negative comparisons with the 2 others (SP2, 510 and 2100) on the issue of sensitivity, does anyone stands agaisnt or confirms this?
7. If Zeiss, any other really strong argument besides the software?
8. 10 good reasons to pay a lot more money for a Zeiss or a Leica over a Bio-Rad?
basal config we are comparing for all brands includes:
- 3 lasers (Red solid state in the BioRad)
- AOTF
- 3 PMT's (2+1 arrayPMT in the ZeissMETA)
thanks in advance for any help in any of these points. The matter has some urgency, decisions have to be taken quite quickly, so I would appreciate quick, even if short answers.
Cheers
Jose
**********************************************************
Jose' A. Feijo', Prof.
----------------------------------------------------------
Inst.Gulbenkian Ciencia, PT-2780-156 Oeiras, PORTUGAL
tel. +351.21.440.79.41, fax +351.21.440.79.70
and
Dep. Biologia Vegetal, Fac.Ciencias, Universidade Lisboa
PT-1749-016 Lisboa, PORTUGAL
tel. +351.21.750.00.69, fax +351.21.750.00.48
__________________________________________________________
e.mail: [log in to unmask]
URL: http://193.126.26.2/Groups/plant_development.html
**********************************************************
|
