*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****
I was informed there is a new version of the ZDC that is much faster than the old one, released first half of last year (?)
________________________________________
From: Confocal Microscopy List [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sylvie LeGuyader [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 2:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Rejected posting to [log in to unmask]
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****
Dear all
We have here both the Olympus ZDC (a 2 years version) and the Nikon PFS (1 year). The PFS is much faster.
Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards
Sylvie
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Sylvie Le Guyader
Live Cell Imaging Unit
Dept of Biosciences and Nutrition
Karolinska Institutet
14183 Huddinge
Sweden
office: +46 (0) 8 5248 1107 new number!
LCI room: +46 (0) 8 5248 1172 new number!
mobile: +46 (0) 73 733 5008
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Vergara,
> Leoncio A.
> Sent: 28 January 2011 19:20
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Rejected posting to [log in to unmask]
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> I second the opinion about the perfect focus, it works great. I have tried also to
> use it for multilocation experiments and is a bit tricky at first, but I could not do
> any time lapse or multilocation experiment without it.
>
> To be fair... Olympus released some time last year a fast version of the ZDC
> system that could play a similar function, no experience with it though
>
> Leoncio A. Vergara MD
> Assistant Director
> Center for Biomedical Engineering
> Assistant Professor
> Microbiology and Immunology
> University of Texas Medical Branch
> 409-750-2153 (cell)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Brideau
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 10:23 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Rejected posting to [log in to unmask]
>
> *****
> 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]
> >
|
