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

It is worth noting that some EMCCD cameras (eg Andor and Roper Scientific)
feature two separate readout registers: a fast one with EM gain, and a
slower conventional one without EM gain and also less readout noise.
Depending on the experiments, the user can select the fast EM readout mode
for fast/low light imaging and the conventional one for slower processes. I
think it is worth checking them out since they are very versatile. So far I
am quite happy with our Cascade II EMCCD camera from Roper Scientific,
although I mainly use the EM register myself.

I did not, however, compare the conventional register with a comparable
classic CCD camera directly. Maybe someone else did?

Best regards,

Kevin

Kevin Braeckmans, Ph.D.
Lab. General Biochemistry & Physical Pharmacy
Ghent University
Harelbekestraat 72
9000 Ghent
Belgium
Tel: +32 (0)9 264.80.78
Fax: +32 (0)9 264.81.89
E-mail: [log in to unmask]


> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Confocal Microscopy List 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Namens Ian Dobbie
> Verzonden: dinsdag 3 juli 2007 12:17
> Aan: [log in to unmask]
> Onderwerp: Re: Hamamatsu EMCCD
> 
> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
> 
> Kathryn Spencer <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> 
> > Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> > http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
> >
> > Hello all;
> > 	We are leaning toward the purchase of the Hamamatsu 
> EMCCD camera. 
> > Would anyone be able to share their experience/recommendations for 
> > this camera? We do long-term live-cell timelapse 
> microscopy, Yokogawa 
> > spinning disk, one frame/ 10 min, usually at 60-100x with 1.5x 
> > Optovar, looking at very tiny dendritic spines, labeled 
> with eGFP and 
> > mCherry. However, we also look at lower magnification (10-20x) cell 
> > migration and cell spreading, one frame every 5 seconds or 
> so. Nothing 
> > really fast (less than 1 second). We like the small(ish) 
> pixel size, 
> > but also the ability to keep our exposure times short to keep the 
> > cells happy.
> 
> From your descriptions you are not trying to go fast so why 
> go for a EMCCD. Yes you will be able to fill its dynamic 
> range with short exposures but you will end up with noisy 
> pictures. For the types of experiments you specify you would 
> be better off with a back-thinned conventional CCD and not 
> worry about the fact that your data only takes up 1/5 or 
> 1/10th of the cameras full dynamic range. You will actually 
> end up with less noisy data, see James Pawley's stuff at
> http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocum
> ent/55_918to932.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-359899-p81055696
> Sorry about the long URL. This solution is also likely cheaper!
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
>  
>