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

I've worked extensively with the C1 and C1Si platforms from Nikon.  One
thing I feel I should comment on is that they are relatively robust from a
hardware perspective.  They worked really hard to minimize the number of
moving parts in the system.  I very, very rarely ever have to touch their
alignment.
For signal, Nikons work best with medium or brighter samples I find.  If you
are working with a photon-starved sample they may not be the best choice.
 If you DO have decent signal coming from your sample though, Nikon can give
you a ton of spectral information faster than the Olympus system.  I also
have their perfect focus system and I can attest that it is rock solid once
it locks on.  It does take a little practice to get it to 'lock on' but once
you get the hang of it you can do it consistently.

Craig


On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Stanislav Vitha <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> I second Martin's recommendation on testing for chromatic aberration - this
> is a good idea regardless what of the two confocals you decide to pick.
> There is always some variability even between objectives of the same
> catalog
> #.  Our facility has a FV1000 and Olympus was very helpful in letting me
> test several identical objectives to pick the one with minimal chromatic
> aberration and best resolution. One particular objective model that we
> originally bought with the system was so underwhelming in terms of
> resolution and CA (I tested three of them) that we swapped it for a
> different model that I hand-picked.
>
> I used both the mirror slide and 0.1 um tetraspec beads.
> How-to details for this and other tests are in Bob Zucker's chapter:
> Zucker, R.M. (2006). Evaluation of confocal microscopy system performance.
> Methods Mol. Biol. 319, 77-135.
>
> One difference between the Nikon and Olympus is that Olympus can work in
> photon counting mode, which I find very useful for imaging weak signals and
> for doing raster image correlation spectroscopy. I was told by Nikon that
> their confocals do not do photon counting. That really surprised me. -
> Please somebody correct me and tell me I am mistaken.
>
> I will be happy to give you more detailed opinion on likes/dislikes on the
> FV1000 off the list, but I have no practical experience with Nikon
> confocals.
>
> Stan Vitha
> Microscopy and Imaging Center
> Texas A&M University
> BSBW 119
> College Station, TX 77843-2257
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:00:10 -0600, Martin Wessendorf <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >*****
> >To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> >http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> >*****
> >
> >Dear Dr. Spenser--
> >
> >On 1/27/2011 7:19 PM, Kathryn Spencer wrote:
> >
> >>          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.
> >
> >Given your use for the instrument (--i.e. multicolor z-stacks) and the
> >recent discussions on this list about chromatic aberration, I would
> >suggest testing for chromatic correction before buying.  That could be
> >done either with tetraspec beads, or by doing a 3- (or 4-) color
> >reflectance scan off a mirror.  In either case you'll want to collect
> >your images using simultaneous (not sequential) scanning.
> >
> >If you do this, let us know what you see!
> >
> >Martin
> >
> >--
> >Martin Wessendorf, Ph.D.                   office: (612) 626-0145
> >Assoc Prof, Dept Neuroscience                 lab: (612) 624-2991
> >University of Minnesota             Preferred FAX: (612) 624-8118
> >6-145 Jackson Hall, 321 Church St. SE    Dept Fax: (612) 626-5009
> >Minneapolis, MN  55455                    e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>