*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi Kathryn, 

Have you invited Nikon and Olympus to bring systems for you to demo?  That will give you an excellent sense both of which system better suits you personal needs.  Equally important, it will also tell you what kind of service to expect in your area.  In my experience vendor service is an oft-overlooked 'intangible' that can make a microscope significantly more or less pleasant to own.  

Also, have you decided on an inverted or an upright base?  If you choose to go inverted, I would consider the Nikon simply because of my preference for the Ti base unit.  The 'Perfect Focus System' (PFS) was by far the most effective focus-lock mechanism at the time that we shopped for a scope two years ago.  This mostly matters for live-cell time-lapse imaging, and it sounds like you don't plan to do much of that, but on the occasions that you do it makes a dramatic difference.  Note that new focus control tech comes out all the time, so Olympus may have a comparable system by now.  

Best of luck! 


Tim 

Timothy Feinstein, PhD
University of Pittsburgh Dept. of Pharmacology
Pittsburgh, PA

**No commercial interest**

On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:19 PM, Kathryn Spencer wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
> 
> Hello all;
>        I'm in a quandary. We are looking at getting an additional confocal system in our core (we have the FV500). We're looking at either the Olympus FV1000 or the Nikon C2. Both companies have been very, very aggressive in pricing and components, to where our two quotes are essentially identical. Same lasers, same PMTs, same multi-dimensional acquisition.
>        This system would be used 95% for fixed tissue imaging, some cells. Moderately to highly sophisticated users. No real FRAPing or uncaging, or other modalities than simple, multi-color fluorescence Z-stacks.
>        Service from both companies is exemplary, and has been over the years. We are so fortunate to have other additional systems to meet other imaging needs, so I am not concerned about expandability, or future capabilities.
>        What a fabulous quandary to have. Which system is better? I've talked to users on both sides, who are completely satisfied with their choice.
>        Recommendations? Which one out-performs the other? Honestly, that will be the difference. Which has better signal to noise? Which has faster scans?
>        Thanks.
>        Kathy
> 	The Scripps Research Institute
> 	La Jolla, CA