*****
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]