Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:41:18 -0600 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
In-Reply-To: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Comments: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I like our BioRad and the suport has been quite good. I saw the new
Olympus instrument at Cell Biology and was very impressed; it's also
pretty cheap, and includes a bunch of useful software including either
surface or volume rendering (can't remember which) and pretty much the
same functionsas COMOS in the BioRad system. I felt it was a very nice
package. Not so automatic as the BioRad, but the adjustments were all
very simple and right where you could reach them while you used it. Good
setup. I don't know of any that are installed though.
*************************************************************************
* *
* Anthony Moss voice (334)844-9257 *
* 101 Cary Hall fax (334)844-4065 *
* Zoology and Wildlife Science email [log in to unmask] *
* Auburn University *
* Auburn, AL 36849 *
* *
*************************************************************************
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Martin Wessendorf wrote:
> Dear confocalers--
>
> A friend is in the market for a confocal and has asked me which confocal is
> best. Price is not a huge consideration, but he's not in the range of a
> 2-photon instrument. Anyone compared the Big Three (Leica, Zeiss, Bio-Rad)
> recently and want to stick out their neck with an opinion of their relative
> strengths?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Martin Wessendorf, PhD
> Univ Minnesota
>
|
|
|