Olympus FV1000 vs Nikon A1
Locked
|
Hi all,
has anybody in the list performed some real comparison between Olympus FV1000 and Nikon A1? We´re in the proccess of purchase a general-use confocal, and any input (either on or off-list) will be very wellcome. Thanks -- Dr Pedro J Camello Dpt Physiology Faculty of Veterinary Sciences University of Extremadura 10071 Caceres Spain Ph: 927257000 Extension 51321/51290 Fax:927257110 |
|
|
Dear Pedro, I have used both the machines and satisfied with the performance of both. However, Nikon A1's built quality and performance is far better than Olympus FV 1000. If you are planning to buy a system with spectral detector, then I would like to say that A1si or A1Rsi would stand apart due to 32 channel multi-anode PMT. The image quality and sensitivity of A1 is really cool. The continuously variable 1X to 1000X zoom of A1 gives good flexibility. I feel more comfortable with the hexagonal pinhole of A1 that gives better images. Most importantly, the spectral detector has multiple gratings that allows the spectral step size of 2.5nm, 6nm and 10nm. I think only the A1 confocal has fiber connected detectors that is separated from scan head. I have never experienced data loss or scan head induced artifacts or thermal noise. Want to hear the experiences of other users of these machines. Roshma. PS: No commercial interest. On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Pedro J Camello <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi all, |
 
|
Alberto Diaspro |
Re: Olympus FV1000 vs Nikon A1
|
|
In addition to my direct comments, i do agree
AD p.s. the tirf section is also better, from my viewpoint Il giorno 14/feb/2010, alle ore 16.16, Roshma Azeem ha scritto: > > Dear Pedro, > > I have used both the machines and satisfied with the performance of both. However, Nikon A1's built quality and performance is far better than Olympus FV 1000. If you are planning to buy a system with spectral detector, then I would like to say that A1si or A1Rsi would stand apart due to 32 channel multi-anode PMT. > > The image quality and sensitivity of A1 is really cool. The continuously variable 1X to 1000X zoom of A1 gives good flexibility. I feel more comfortable with the hexagonal pinhole of A1 that gives better images. Most importantly, the spectral detector has multiple gratings that allows the spectral step size of 2.5nm, 6nm and 10nm. > > I think only the A1 confocal has fiber connected detectors that is separated from scan head. I have never experienced data loss or scan head induced artifacts or thermal noise. > > Want to hear the experiences of other users of these machines. > > Roshma. > > PS: No commercial interest. > > > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Pedro J Camello <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi all, > > has anybody in the list performed some real comparison between Olympus > FV1000 and Nikon A1? We´re in the proccess of purchase a general-use > confocal, and any input (either on or off-list) will be very wellcome. > > Thanks > > > -- > Dr Pedro J Camello > Dpt Physiology > Faculty of Veterinary Sciences > University of Extremadura > 10071 Caceres > Spain > Ph: 927257000 Extension 51321/51290 > Fax:927257110 > ISTITUTO ITALIANO DI TECNOLOGIA Prof. Alberto Diaspro Scientific Head Nanophysics Via Morego, 30 16163 Genova Tel: +39-010.71.781.503 Fax +39-010-72.03.21 Mobile +39-3666719968 www.iit.it [hidden email] |
|
|
Tim Feinstein-2 |
Re: Olympus FV1000 vs Nikon A1
|
|
Dear Pedro,
In a sense I think that the question is unfair, as the FV1000 feature set should best be compared with its contemporaries such as the Zeiss 510, Nikon C1 and Lieca SP2. In that class I think it stands up quite well. The Nikon A1 includes technical upgrades and modularity options (e.g., resonant scanning with 2-photon, 32-channel spectral detection, integrated TIRF and other detection improvements that Roshma mentioned) which place the A1 among the latest generation such as the Zeiss 710 and Leica SP5. Barring a strong price incentive and assuming you do not have compatibility issues with existing equipment, the A1 seems like a better choice. Just make sure to ask for the most _stable_ software build rather than the most recent. That said, you should ideally ask Olympus and Nikon (and others, if possible) for product demos to see which system best matches your personal needs. This is my personal opinion only; no commercial interest. All the best, Tim On Feb 14, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Alberto Diaspro wrote: > In addition to my direct comments, i do agree > AD > > p.s. the tirf section is also better, from my viewpoint > Il giorno 14/feb/2010, alle ore 16.16, Roshma Azeem ha scritto: > >> >> Dear Pedro, >> >> I have used both the machines and satisfied with the performance of both. However, Nikon A1's built quality and performance is far better than Olympus FV 1000. If you are planning to buy a system with spectral detector, then I would like to say that A1si or A1Rsi would stand apart due to 32 channel multi-anode PMT. >> >> The image quality and sensitivity of A1 is really cool. The continuously variable 1X to 1000X zoom of A1 gives good flexibility. I feel more comfortable with the hexagonal pinhole of A1 that gives better images. Most importantly, the spectral detector has multiple gratings that allows the spectral step size of 2.5nm, 6nm and 10nm. >> >> I think only the A1 confocal has fiber connected detectors that is separated from scan head. I have never experienced data loss or scan head induced artifacts or thermal noise. >> >> Want to hear the experiences of other users of these machines. >> >> Roshma. >> >> PS: No commercial interest. >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Pedro J Camello <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> has anybody in the list performed some real comparison between Olympus >> FV1000 and Nikon A1? We´re in the proccess of purchase a general-use >> confocal, and any input (either on or off-list) will be very wellcome. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> -- >> Dr Pedro J Camello >> Dpt Physiology >> Faculty of Veterinary Sciences >> University of Extremadura >> 10071 Caceres >> Spain >> Ph: 927257000 Extension 51321/51290 >> Fax:927257110 >> > > > > > > > ISTITUTO ITALIANO > DI TECNOLOGIA > > Prof. Alberto Diaspro > Scientific Head > Nanophysics > Via Morego, 30 16163 Genova > Tel: +39-010.71.781.503 > Fax +39-010-72.03.21 > Mobile +39-3666719968 > www.iit.it > [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Pedro Camello
I had several years of experience with FV1000 when we decide to buy the A1Rsi with
VAAS detector. I agree with previous posts and in a few direct comparison tests the A1 performed better, particularly at high spatial resolution. With the VAAS, images at high resolution are even crisper and very impressing. The only down side is the software which still has some growing problems, although most have been fixed since we got the system about 1.5 years ago. One other thing to keep in mind is that the resonant scanner clearly is not always a good substitution for a spinning disc. It is indeed fast and sensitive enough for most live cell imaging needs, but noise is very apparent without averaging, meaning that if you want spatial resolution, speed is significantly reduced by averaging. Bjorn Scientific Advisor, Imaging core, Sanford-Burnham Institute, Orlando, FL On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:31:55 +0100, Alberto Diaspro <[hidden email]> wrote: >In addition to my direct comments, i do agree >AD > >p.s. the tirf section is also better, from my viewpoint >Il giorno 14/feb/2010, alle ore 16.16, Roshma Azeem ha scritto: > >> >> Dear Pedro, >> >> I have used both the machines and satisfied with the performance of both. However, planning to buy a system with spectral detector, then I would like to say that A1si or A1Rsi would stand apart due to 32 channel multi-anode PMT. >> >> The image quality and sensitivity of A1 is really cool. The continuously variable 1X to 1000X zoom of A1 gives good flexibility. I feel more comfortable with the hexagonal pinhole of A1 that gives better images. Most importantly, the spectral detector has multiple gratings that allows the spectral step size of 2.5nm, 6nm and 10nm. >> >> I think only the A1 confocal has fiber connected detectors that is separated from scan head. I have never experienced data loss or scan head induced artifacts or thermal noise. >> >> Want to hear the experiences of other users of these machines. >> >> Roshma. >> >> PS: No commercial interest. >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Pedro J Camello <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> has anybody in the list performed some real comparison between Olympus >> FV1000 and Nikon A1? We´re in the proccess of purchase a general-use >> confocal, and any input (either on or off-list) will be very wellcome. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> -- >> Dr Pedro J Camello >> Dpt Physiology >> Faculty of Veterinary Sciences >> University of Extremadura >> 10071 Caceres >> Spain >> Ph: 927257000 Extension 51321/51290 >> Fax:927257110 >> > > > > > > >ISTITUTO ITALIANO >DI TECNOLOGIA > >Prof. Alberto Diaspro >Scientific Head >Nanophysics >Via Morego, 30 16163 Genova >Tel: +39-010.71.781.503 >Fax +39-010-72.03.21 >Mobile +39-3666719968 >www.iit.it >[hidden email] |
|
|
leoncio vergara |
Re: Olympus FV1000 vs Nikon A1
|
|
In reply to this post by Tim Feinstein-2
I have used both systems and I agree with the opinion that the A1 is a more advanced machine. Both are good and I have had good experience with the FV1000, but as it was said already, the A1 is a more powerfull machine. If you are intersted on spectral imaging, I think the A1 is the best choice. The FV1000 captures one channel at a time which makes spectral imaging non practical for many applications. The software of the FV1000 is limited in comparison with Nikon elements which is the sofwtare that powers the A1. Elements has very powerfull image analysis features. Also the workflow with elements is better than with the FV1000 software. May be an updated model by Olympus is overdue?
Leoncio -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tim Feinstein Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:21 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Olympus FV1000 vs Nikon A1 Dear Pedro, In a sense I think that the question is unfair, as the FV1000 feature set should best be compared with its contemporaries such as the Zeiss 510, Nikon C1 and Lieca SP2. In that class I think it stands up quite well. The Nikon A1 includes technical upgrades and modularity options (e.g., resonant scanning with 2-photon, 32-channel spectral detection, integrated TIRF and other detection improvements that Roshma mentioned) which place the A1 among the latest generation such as the Zeiss 710 and Leica SP5. Barring a strong price incentive and assuming you do not have compatibility issues with existing equipment, the A1 seems like a better choice. Just make sure to ask for the most _stable_ software build rather than the most recent. That said, you should ideally ask Olympus and Nikon (and others, if possible) for product demos to see which system best matches your personal needs. This is my personal opinion only; no commercial interest. All the best, Tim On Feb 14, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Alberto Diaspro wrote: > In addition to my direct comments, i do agree AD > > p.s. the tirf section is also better, from my viewpoint Il giorno > 14/feb/2010, alle ore 16.16, Roshma Azeem ha scritto: > >> >> Dear Pedro, >> >> I have used both the machines and satisfied with the performance of both. However, Nikon A1's built quality and performance is far better than Olympus FV 1000. If you are planning to buy a system with spectral detector, then I would like to say that A1si or A1Rsi would stand apart due to 32 channel multi-anode PMT. >> >> The image quality and sensitivity of A1 is really cool. The continuously variable 1X to 1000X zoom of A1 gives good flexibility. I feel more comfortable with the hexagonal pinhole of A1 that gives better images. Most importantly, the spectral detector has multiple gratings that allows the spectral step size of 2.5nm, 6nm and 10nm. >> >> I think only the A1 confocal has fiber connected detectors that is separated from scan head. I have never experienced data loss or scan head induced artifacts or thermal noise. >> >> Want to hear the experiences of other users of these machines. >> >> Roshma. >> >> PS: No commercial interest. >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Pedro J Camello <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> has anybody in the list performed some real comparison between >> Olympus FV1000 and Nikon A1? We´re in the proccess of purchase a >> general-use confocal, and any input (either on or off-list) will be very wellcome. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> -- >> Dr Pedro J Camello >> Dpt Physiology >> Faculty of Veterinary Sciences >> University of Extremadura >> 10071 Caceres >> Spain >> Ph: 927257000 Extension 51321/51290 >> Fax:927257110 >> > > > > > > > ISTITUTO ITALIANO > DI TECNOLOGIA > > Prof. Alberto Diaspro > Scientific Head > Nanophysics > Via Morego, 30 16163 Genova > Tel: +39-010.71.781.503 > Fax +39-010-72.03.21 > Mobile +39-3666719968 > www.iit.it > [hidden email] |
|
|
DrSmithMartin@gmail.com |
Re: Olympus FV1000 vs Nikon A1
|
|
Dear Pedro,
I have used both systems and would agree with the general comments above. The Nikon A1 certainly has the edge in the spectral functionality and software. However I would petition that the FV1000 does not loose the fight hands down. On rudimentary tests with the same sample, detection wavelengths, measured laser power and everything we can make the same set the same I measured the FV1000's to have about 30 to 50% higher sensitivity. I have no idea how much of this could be the fiber or other parts of the light path or how representative this may have been. My point is that if you have to buy just one of these 2 systems the FV-1000 still may have some advantages and so would still be worth a demo. Usual no commercial interest.TM Regards - Martin On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Vergara, Leoncio A. <[hidden email]> wrote: I have used both systems and I agree with the opinion that the A1 is a more advanced machine. Both are good and I have had good experience with the FV1000, but as it was said already, the A1 is a more powerfull machine. If you are intersted on spectral imaging, I think the A1 is the best choice. The FV1000 captures one channel at a time which makes spectral imaging non practical for many applications. The software of the FV1000 is limited in comparison with Nikon elements which is the sofwtare that powers the A1. Elements has very powerfull image analysis features. Also the workflow with elements is better than with the FV1000 software. May be an updated model by Olympus is overdue? |
|
|
Alberto Diaspro |
Re: Olympus FV1000 vs Nikon A1
|
|
In reply to this post by leoncio vergara
I do agree with Leoncio, too, following my direct experience both with FV1000 and A1.
Alby Il giorno 16/feb/2010, alle ore 16.32, Vergara, Leoncio A. ha scritto: > I have used both systems and I agree with the opinion that the A1 is a more advanced machine. Both are good and I have had good experience with the FV1000, but as it was said already, the A1 is a more powerfull machine. If you are intersted on spectral imaging, I think the A1 is the best choice. The FV1000 captures one channel at a time which makes spectral imaging non practical for many applications. The software of the FV1000 is limited in comparison with Nikon elements which is the sofwtare that powers the A1. Elements has very powerfull image analysis features. Also the workflow with elements is better than with the FV1000 software. May be an updated model by Olympus is overdue? > > Leoncio > > -----Original Message----- > From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tim Feinstein > Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:21 AM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: Olympus FV1000 vs Nikon A1 > > Dear Pedro, > > In a sense I think that the question is unfair, as the FV1000 feature set should best be compared with its contemporaries such as the Zeiss 510, Nikon C1 and Lieca SP2. In that class I think it stands up quite well. The Nikon A1 includes technical upgrades and modularity options (e.g., resonant scanning with 2-photon, 32-channel spectral detection, integrated TIRF and other detection improvements that Roshma mentioned) which place the A1 among the latest generation such as the Zeiss 710 and Leica SP5. Barring a strong price incentive and assuming you do not have compatibility issues with existing equipment, the A1 seems like a better choice. Just make sure to ask for the most _stable_ software build rather than the most recent. > > That said, you should ideally ask Olympus and Nikon (and others, if possible) for product demos to see which system best matches your personal needs. > > This is my personal opinion only; no commercial interest. > > All the best, > > > Tim > > > On Feb 14, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Alberto Diaspro wrote: > >> In addition to my direct comments, i do agree AD >> >> p.s. the tirf section is also better, from my viewpoint Il giorno >> 14/feb/2010, alle ore 16.16, Roshma Azeem ha scritto: >> >>> >>> Dear Pedro, >>> >>> I have used both the machines and satisfied with the performance of both. However, Nikon A1's built quality and performance is far better than Olympus FV 1000. If you are planning to buy a system with spectral detector, then I would like to say that A1si or A1Rsi would stand apart due to 32 channel multi-anode PMT. >>> >>> The image quality and sensitivity of A1 is really cool. The continuously variable 1X to 1000X zoom of A1 gives good flexibility. I feel more comfortable with the hexagonal pinhole of A1 that gives better images. Most importantly, the spectral detector has multiple gratings that allows the spectral step size of 2.5nm, 6nm and 10nm. >>> >>> I think only the A1 confocal has fiber connected detectors that is separated from scan head. I have never experienced data loss or scan head induced artifacts or thermal noise. >>> >>> Want to hear the experiences of other users of these machines. >>> >>> Roshma. >>> >>> PS: No commercial interest. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Pedro J Camello <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> has anybody in the list performed some real comparison between >>> Olympus FV1000 and Nikon A1? We´re in the proccess of purchase a >>> general-use confocal, and any input (either on or off-list) will be very wellcome. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr Pedro J Camello >>> Dpt Physiology >>> Faculty of Veterinary Sciences >>> University of Extremadura >>> 10071 Caceres >>> Spain >>> Ph: 927257000 Extension 51321/51290 >>> Fax:927257110 >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ISTITUTO ITALIANO >> DI TECNOLOGIA >> >> Prof. Alberto Diaspro >> Scientific Head >> Nanophysics >> Via Morego, 30 16163 Genova >> Tel: +39-010.71.781.503 >> Fax +39-010-72.03.21 >> Mobile +39-3666719968 >> www.iit.it >> [hidden email] ISTITUTO ITALIANO DI TECNOLOGIA Prof. Alberto Diaspro Scientific Head Nanophysics Via Morego, 30 16163 Genova Tel: +39-010.71.781.503 Fax +39-010-72.03.21 Mobile +39-3666719968 www.iit.it [hidden email] |
|
|
It is quite surprising to see that FV1000 measures 30 to 50% higher sensitivity. Over which system? I have done so many crazy comparisons between A1 and FV1000 with the same set of samples and found that A1’s performance is far better. Even with faint dyes, we could see clear images in A1 that was not possible with FV1000. There are clear cut differences in the hardware architecture and the features. As mentioned in Tim’s mail, FV1000 has to be compared with the previous sets of confocal systems like 510, C1 and SP2. As Leoncio said, may be Olympus may challenge the market with a new model in near future. Regarding sensitivity, A1 integrates certain unique features like weak signal sensitivity through dual integration signal processing (DISP) and low incidence 12 degree angle excitation dichroic mirror that enhances 30% more fluorescence efficiency, when compare to conventional 45 degree angle dichroic. In addition, spectral unmixing sensitivity is a riveting experience with A1si, when we use four or more color dyes even in the close range (like Alexa488 and YFP). I came across a review on A1 which is very informative that can be downloaded from: http://www.microscopyu.com/references/pdfs/Light_and_Maverick_Advanced_Biotech_March-36-2008.pdf Roshma. - No commercial interest - On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Alberto Diaspro <[hidden email]> wrote: I do agree with Leoncio, too, following my direct experience both with FV1000 and A1. |
|
|
Tim Feinstein-2 |
Re: Olympus FV1000 vs Nikon A1
|
|
I would stress the need to do an apples-to-apples comparison. The A1 has a very sensitive filter-based detection unit, but I have found that the spectral unit has a noticeably lower sensitivity (for other reasons we generally use spectral anyway). This is not a design flaw, but a limitation inherent in multi-PMT spectral imaging. It would surprise me as well if the A1 lagged significantly behind other scopes when using identical filters and dichroics.
cheers, Tim
- no commercial interest - On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Roshma Azeem wrote:
|
|
|
DrSmithMartin@gmail.com |
Re: Olympus FV1000 vs Nikon A1
|
|
The 30 to 50% higher on the FV1000 was just relative to the A1. I tried as like for like as I could with the spectrally flexible Olympus FV1000 channels and the 32 channel spectral array of the Nikon A1 as I wanted compare the spectrally flexible detection.
For the sample we used plastic test samples that Chroma gives away in their slides boxes and these are extremely bright. Due to the brightness these give a rough idea of system transmission but not of extreme subtleties in the noise at very low signal levels. The imaging speed was around 1FPS so the improved DISP electronics would not factor in as much as if I used a much faster speed. On the main beam splitter side I would be careful how the sensitivity term is used. If you already get 80 or 90% transmission through a reasonably modern beam splitter at 45 degrees then an improvement of 30% is just impossible. I do not doubt there is an improvement but the claim of 30% is also based on a widening of the spectral bandwidth as you no longer have these 40nm dead zones around the laser lines. I think that the real bonus of the narrow angle design is that the laser blocking is much higher, by an order of magnitude or two and so looking at weak samples close to reflective cover slips becomes possible. And this is where the plastic test samples may not always be an ideal test as I cold not rule reflection out from the measurement and this could have biased the results in favour of the FV1000. When I have repeated this type of test more recently I use the same setup in terms of things like gain and spectral bandwidth, use a plane glass slide instead of the fluorescent sample and put the laser power much higher to check to ensure there is no reflection leaking through. I have not had a chance to repeat that on the FV1000 yet though. I know that it was not an option to Pedro but in regard to Tim’s comments I would check out the Zeiss 710 where the 32 channel PMT seems to have caught up with the sensitivity of the single PMT’s so I am not sure quite how inherent the limitation is these days. Regards Martin - No commercial interest On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Tim Feinstein <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Bjorn Tyrberg
Hello everyone,
Well right now I don't have anything substantial to add to the discussion except that we were in similar situation and we are going with Nikon A1. The decision was simply based on our imaging needs and the superiority of Nikon A1. The instrument is being installed as we speak and I'm really excited to use it. It will be pretty big jump from Leica SP2 to this A1 However I do have a question and this comes from the inexperience. What advantage that A1r scanhead provides vis a vis A1? I know it has high speed imaging capabilities but would you say A1 can do most of the job for live cell imaging? Thanks, Amol |
|
|
Danielle Crippen |
Re: Olympus FV1000 vs Nikon A1 vs others
|
|
After reading this entire thread, I'm wondering if anyone has experience comparing the A1R (which is receiving great reviews here) directly to the Zeiss 710 and the Leica SP5??
We are planning to purchase one of these instruments specifically for slice and intravital imaging and I'd greatly appreciate any feedback on these systems this list has to offer!! Many thanks and kind regards! danielle Danielle Crippen Morphology and Imaging Core Manager Buck Institute for Age Research -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Amol Karwa Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 1:43 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Olympus FV1000 vs Nikon A1 Hello everyone, Well right now I don't have anything substantial to add to the discussion except that we were in similar situation and we are going with Nikon A1. The decision was simply based on our imaging needs and the superiority of Nikon A1. The instrument is being installed as we speak and I'm really excited to use it. It will be pretty big jump from Leica SP2 to this A1 However I do have a question and this comes from the inexperience. What advantage that A1r scanhead provides vis a vis A1? I know it has high speed imaging capabilities but would you say A1 can do most of the job for live cell imaging? Thanks, Amol -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Olympus-FV1000-vs-Nikon-A1-tp4567055p4635601.html Sent from the Confocal Microscopy List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
|
|
leoncio vergara |
Re: Olympus FV1000 vs Nikon A1
|
|
In reply to this post by Amol Karwa
Depends on what you want to do.
Obviously the resonant scanned allows you to capture images at higher speed, this does not mean only the ability to follow up faster events, but also you can capture faster z-stacks and multi-location experiments. The resonant scanner can also be used for fast FRAP experiments, you can image with the resonant scanner while using the conventional scanner to photobleachwithout having to interrupt image capture. I only ried it once and it seems to work well. The limitation os that it only works with 405nm as I understand. Other than that, you need to have in moind the limitations: faster scanning means worst signal to noise ratio and you don't have all the versatility of conventional scanners... ...unfortunately I understand that you have to make the decision at the moment of purchase, I don't think you can add it later... (?) -----Original Message----- From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Amol Karwa Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 3:43 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Olympus FV1000 vs Nikon A1 Hello everyone, Well right now I don't have anything substantial to add to the discussion except that we were in similar situation and we are going with Nikon A1. The decision was simply based on our imaging needs and the superiority of Nikon A1. The instrument is being installed as we speak and I'm really excited to use it. It will be pretty big jump from Leica SP2 to this A1 However I do have a question and this comes from the inexperience. What advantage that A1r scanhead provides vis a vis A1? I know it has high speed imaging capabilities but would you say A1 can do most of the job for live cell imaging? Thanks, Amol -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Olympus-FV1000-vs-Nikon-A1-tp4567055p4635601.html Sent from the Confocal Microscopy List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
|
|
A1 with spectral detector can do most of the job for live cell imaging related applications. Noise is unavoidable when we go for high speed. Moreover, resonant scanner is inherently prone to make noise. Noise correction averaging has to be tuned to get better signals. This would come in due course by practicing. A1R is a different machine from A1 in terms of the scan head. There is no possibility to upgrade the A1 into A1R in future. The decision need to be taken at the time of purchase. This is a limitation for those who are looking for future upgradation. Roshma. On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Vergara, Leoncio A. <[hidden email]> wrote: Depends on what you want to do. |
|
|
Tim Feinstein-2 |
Re: Olympus FV1000 vs Nikon A1
|
|
It is worth noting that a two photon module now exists for the A1 resonance head. This might make for a very fast intravital/tissue slice imaging rig. I would be interested to know whether anyone has demoed it yet. cheers, Tim
On Feb 26, 2010, at 11:45 PM, Roshma Azeem wrote:
|
|
|
Roshma Azeem |
Re: Olympus FV1000 vs Nikon A1 vs others
|
|
In reply to this post by Danielle Crippen
Hello Danielle,
Leica SP5 is slightly outdated when compare to LSM 710 and A1. In addition, it is a prism based system. However, both LSM710 and A1 are diffraction grating based systems. SP5 has certain unique features like - FOV 21, 8X8K resolution and AOBS. AOBS is optional. One need to pay extra for this that adds up the price too high. However, Nikon's low angle incidence dichroic mirror gives almost the same effect (but without extra cost). A1 gives 4X4K image size, whereas LSM 710 gives 6X6K. SP5's 8X8K image ends up in photo bleaching. A1 has continuously variable zoom up to 1000X but LSM 710 is limited to 50X. LSM 710 uses conventional rectangular pinhole but A1 has it's unique hexagonal pinhole resulting better images. The spectral detector of LSM 710 has 34 channels with simultaneously acquisition unlike the previous model LSM 510 that was with 4x8=32. However, the spectral step size is 3nm (3x34=102nm wavelength resolution) and it is not flexible like A1 that has 2.5nm, 6nm and 32nm (resulting 2.5x32=80nm, 6x32=192nm and 10x32= 320nm wavelength resolution). A1 has surprisingly effective unmixing efficiency even in the close range. In LSM710 high wavelength range up to 1100 nm is possible for optimized transmission. I am not sure if the A1 has the same capability. In our experience, 710 gives wonderful sensitivity. Their software Zen 2009 is compatible with Vista/Windows 7. Even anisotropy imaging is possible with LSM 710 (do not know about A1). Nikon software has almost all of the regular modules. However, for Zen we need to pay extra for the add on modules. For simultaneous photo activation and imaging, one need to incorporate Duo system (two heads) into LSM 710 that adds up the cost. However, A1R scan head serves this purpose without any cumbersome modifications and the speed and performance is relatively incomparable. If you are regularly going for live cell imaging/long time multipoint imaging, I feel A1 has so many features and it is not bleaching the dyes or induce unexpected phototoxicity. Though, we found 710 has slightly better sensitivity, we often face bleaching and laser induced toxicity problems for the same set of experiments. No commercial interest. Roshma. On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Danielle Crippen <[hidden email]> wrote: After reading this entire thread, I'm wondering if anyone has experience comparing the A1R (which is receiving great reviews here) directly to the Zeiss 710 and the Leica SP5?? |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tim Feinstein-2
We are in the process of buying one (grant approved, awaiting
accounting paperwork). We plan on attaching a Ti:Saph to it for multiphoton. I will let the list know how it all works out... Craig Brideau Hotchkiss Brain Institute University of Calgary On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Tim Feinstein <[hidden email]> wrote: > It is worth noting that a two photon module now exists for the A1 resonance > head. This might make for a very fast intravital/tissue slice imaging rig. > I would be interested to know whether anyone has demoed it yet. > cheers, > > Tim > > > On Feb 26, 2010, at 11:45 PM, Roshma Azeem wrote: > > A1 with spectral detector can do most of the job for live cell imaging > related applications. > > Noise is unavoidable when we go for high speed. Moreover, resonant scanner > is inherently prone to make noise. Noise correction averaging has to be > tuned to get better signals. This would come in due course by practicing. > > A1R is a different machine from A1 in terms of the scan head. There is no > possibility to upgrade the A1 into A1R in future. The decision need to be > taken at the time of purchase. This is a limitation for those who are > looking for future upgradation. > > Roshma. > > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Vergara, Leoncio A. <[hidden email]> > wrote: >> >> Depends on what you want to do. >> >> Obviously the resonant scanned allows you to capture images at higher >> speed, this does not mean only the ability to follow up faster events, but >> also you can capture faster z-stacks and multi-location experiments. >> >> The resonant scanner can also be used for fast FRAP experiments, you can >> image with the resonant scanner while using the conventional scanner to >> photobleachwithout having to interrupt image capture. I only ried it once >> and it seems to work well. The limitation os that it only works with 405nm >> as I understand. >> >> Other than that, you need to have in moind the limitations: faster >> scanning means worst signal to noise ratio and you don't have all the >> versatility of conventional scanners... >> >> ...unfortunately I understand that you have to make the decision at the >> moment of purchase, I don't think you can add it later... (?) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] >> On Behalf Of Amol Karwa >> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 3:43 PM >> To: [hidden email] >> Subject: Re: Olympus FV1000 vs Nikon A1 >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> Well right now I don't have anything substantial to add to the discussion >> except that we were in similar situation and we are going with Nikon A1. The >> decision was simply based on our imaging needs and the superiority of Nikon >> A1. The instrument is being installed as we speak and I'm really excited to >> use it. It will be pretty big jump from Leica SP2 to this A1 >> >> However I do have a question and this comes from the inexperience. What >> advantage that A1r scanhead provides vis a vis A1? I know it has high speed >> imaging capabilities but would you say A1 can do most of the job for live >> cell imaging? >> >> Thanks, >> Amol >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://n2.nabble.com/Olympus-FV1000-vs-Nikon-A1-tp4567055p4635601.html >> Sent from the Confocal Microscopy List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > |
|
|
Thank you Craig. Eager to know more about the performance with MP. Roshma. On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Craig Brideau <[hidden email]> wrote: We are in the process of buying one (grant approved, awaiting |
«
Return to Confocal Microscopy List
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |