Please, advice on confocal/deconvol plus TIRF system

[Pedro Camello]

Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

Hi all,

I´m planning to find a substitute for our old confocal. Since I´m tired of
maintenance issues with costly short-lived lasers (around 1000 hours Argon
lasers costs 15000 euros in Spain), I was looking for a lamp-based system to
avoid wavelength limitations and costs. Am I wrong or is CARV-II the only
commercial system of these characteristics at the moment? Otherwise, are
recent lasers less expensive and short-lived?.

In addition, could any of you share experiences about commercial TIRF
systems? I would prefer a widefield system incorporating TIRF as an option
(I listened about a ring-shaped filters from Olympus)

Thanks

[Csúcs Gábor]

Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

Dear Pedro.

1) In our facility most of the laser last considerably longer then 1000
hours, so I wouldn't be afraid to by a new laser based system.
Especially because the lamp based systems (of course this depends very
much on the application) are not really comparable with the laser based
scanning confocals.
2) In addition to the CARV-II, Olympus has also a lamp based spinning
disk system.
3) In almost every commercial TIRF system I'm aware of, it is possible
to combine wide-field imaging with TIRF imaging. There are pros and
contras for each system (especially if you have a limited budget).
Nevertheless, I'd say that currently the system offered by Leica is the
most elegant (user friendly etc.) solution (but probably right now this
is also the most expensive one).

Cheers     Gabor

--
Gabor Csucs
Light Microscopy Centre, ETH Zurich
Schafmattstrasse 18, HPM F16
CH-8093, Zurich, Switzerland

Web: www.lmc.ethz.ch
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
e-mail: [hidden email]

[Holly L. AARON]

Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

Hello, Pedro -

In the lamp-based spinning disk confocal arena, you may also consider the
Olympus DSU.

Re lasers - many companies are now offering diode lasers instead of gas
lasers, which last longer but cost more. Well, you didn't expect to get a
win-win, did you? Also, 1000 hours does sound a little short for an argon
laser. Do you have a lot of on/off? We've found we can extend life by
leaving the laser on, even if it won't be used for 2 hours. If you do not
have an auto-mated stand-by feature, it is also good to put it into standby
when not in use.

Cheers,
__________________
Holly L. Aaron
CRL Molecular Imaging Center
http://imaging.berkeley.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Pedro Camello
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 9:02 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Please, advice on confocal/deconvol plus TIRF system

Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

Hi all,

I´m planning to find a substitute for our old confocal. Since I´m tired of
maintenance issues with costly short-lived lasers (around 1000 hours Argon
lasers costs 15000 euros in Spain), I was looking for a lamp-based system to
avoid wavelength limitations and costs. Am I wrong or is CARV-II the only
commercial system of these characteristics at the moment? Otherwise, are
recent lasers less expensive and short-lived?.

In addition, could any of you share experiences about commercial TIRF
systems? I would prefer a widefield system incorporating TIRF as an option
(I listened about a ring-shaped filters from Olympus)

Thanks

[George Peeters-2]

Search the CONFOCAL archive at http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

Dear Pedro:

Generally, the Argon lasers we use with our spinning Disk confocals will last > 3 to 4 years even with intense use. The key it to not under power the system such that you have to  run the laser tube at maximum current in order to image your specimen. For a Yokogawa CSU 10 b spinning disk,  this means 50 mW at 488 and 50 mW at 514.  Nominally you will run this type of laser with less than 8.5 AMPs to get 50 mW. For most GFP or Calcium probes 20 mW is enough so you will run the laser at 1/2 power.   Also a new Argon laser cost less than  9,000 USD in the USA not 15,000 EUs). The DPSS (diode pumped solid state) lasers aquire an option but cost about 50% more for 50 mW power levels and may  last about as long as the Argon laser. The big advantage offered by the DPSS lasers are small size and minimal noise and heat production.  If you need 561 or 640 lines, the solid state lasers will last longer than the Krypton lasers but are priced higher by 50%. 

The new CSUX Confocal series has about twice the excitation efficiency as its predecessor the CSU-10. 

George A. Peeters MD, MS

President,  Solamere Technology Group Inc

1427 Perry Ave

Salt Lake City, UT 84103

www.solameretech.com

801 322-2645 office          801 322-2645 fax

801 232-6911 cell

On May 5, 2008, at 10:01 AM, Pedro Camello wrote:

Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

Hi all,

I´m planning to find a substitute for our old confocal. Since I´m tired of
maintenance issues with costly short-lived lasers (around 1000 hours Argon
lasers costs 15000 euros in Spain), I was looking for a lamp-based system to
avoid wavelength limitations and costs. Am I wrong or is CARV-II the only
commercial system of these characteristics at the moment? Otherwise, are
recent lasers less expensive and short-lived?.

In addition, could any of you share experiences about commercial TIRF
systems? I would prefer a widefield system incorporating TIRF as an option
(I listened about a ring-shaped filters from Olympus)

Thanks

[Michael Weber-4]

Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

Pedro,

an Argon laser should really last longer than 1000 hours. But might be
that your system needs an older version which doesn't have such a long
lifetime. However, new laser based system have a much longer expected one,
as already mentioned. On the other hand, costs for service contracts and
maintenance will always be higher for laser-based systems.

If you are looking for white light solutions:

- Spinning Disc Confocal: CARVII, Olympus DSU, Leica SD6000
- TIRF: Nikon, Olympus

So if you don't want any lasers, Olympus could be the way to go. I haven't
seen a full working solution of White-Light TIRF + Confocal, but if you
need speed, you either need to detect TIRF through the scanhead or use two
cameras. Andor does offer solutions in this direction - but only with
laser-based systems. Leica has the combination of white-light Spinning
Disc plus laser-based TIRF. But both solutions are not cheap at all.

Michael

> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
> Hi all,
>
> I´m planning to find a substitute for our old confocal. Since I´m tired of
> maintenance issues with costly short-lived lasers (around 1000 hours Argon
> lasers costs 15000 euros in Spain), I was looking for a lamp-based system
> to
> avoid wavelength limitations and costs. Am I wrong or is CARV-II the only
> commercial system of these characteristics at the moment? Otherwise, are
> recent lasers less expensive and short-lived?.
>
> In addition, could any of you share experiences about commercial TIRF
> systems? I would prefer a widefield system incorporating TIRF as an option
> (I listened about a ring-shaped filters from Olympus)
>
> Thanks