Re: Rejected posting to [e-mail]

[kspencer007]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hello all;
        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.
        Kathy
        The Scripps Research Institute
        La Jolla, CA

[Martin Wessendorf-2]

*****
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: [phone]
Assoc Prof, Dept Neuroscience                 lab: [phone]
University of Minnesota             Preferred FAX: [phone]
6-145 Jackson Hall, 321 Church St. SE    Dept Fax: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN  55455                    e-mail: [hidden email]

[Julian Smith III]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Pardon if this is an ignorant question--why simultaneous scanning, when
sequential scanning is likely to be what the users want to avoid
bleedthrough?

In either case, my preference here would be to have each system demo'ed
in my facility for 3-4 days. We own the FV1000 for three years now, and
it works very well for what you describe.  What little of the C2 I've
seen since Nikon integrated the software on the C2 (after we made our
purchase) is also very good.  But you and the other users should get a
chance to compare the two systems in daily operation.
Julian

On 1/28/11 3:00 AM, Martin Wessendorf 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
>

--
Julian P.S. Smith III
Director, Winthrop Microscopy Facility
Dept. of Biology
Winthrop University
520 Cherry Rd.
Rock Hill, SC  29733

803-323-2111 x6427 (vox)
803-323-3448 (fax)
803-524-2347 (cell)
Research Website www.birdnest.org/smithj
Personal Website www.rociada-east.net

[Martin Wessendorf-2]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

On 1/28/2011 12:56 AM, Julian Smith III wrote:

> Pardon if this is an ignorant question--why simultaneous scanning, when
> sequential scanning is likely to be what the users want to avoid
> bleedthrough?

You're right--in practice they'll usually want to use sequential scanning.

I guess my age is showing since I was worrying about something that most
confocals no longer require for sequential scanning!  --My rationale for
suggesting simultaneous scanning in this case was that with simultaneous
scanning they'll avoid having to worry about differences in the precise
position of the beam and the stage between scans.  That's probably not
so much of an issue in x-y, but it would be if they did a complete x-y-z
scan for each color, in sequence--which is what we had to do in the "old
days".  In any case, since we a priori know that the tetraspec beads are
multiple-labeled, bleed-through isn't much of an issue.

With a mirror scan it again wouldn't make much of a difference, as long
as each color were scanned before moving the z-position.  However, with
a mirror scan, you're looking at monochromatic laser light, so again
bleed-through isn't an issue.

Take care--

Martin

--
Martin Wessendorf, Ph.D.                   office: [phone]
Assoc Prof, Dept Neuroscience                 lab: [phone]
University of Minnesota             Preferred FAX: [phone]
6-145 Jackson Hall, 321 Church St. SE    Dept Fax: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN  55455                    e-mail: [hidden email]

[Tim Feinstein-2]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi Kathryn,

Have you invited Nikon and Olympus to bring systems for you to demo?  That will give you an excellent sense both of which system better suits you personal needs.  Equally important, it will also tell you what kind of service to expect in your area.  In my experience vendor service is an oft-overlooked 'intangible' that can make a microscope significantly more or less pleasant to own.  

Also, have you decided on an inverted or an upright base?  If you choose to go inverted, I would consider the Nikon simply because of my preference for the Ti base unit.  The 'Perfect Focus System' (PFS) was by far the most effective focus-lock mechanism at the time that we shopped for a scope two years ago.  This mostly matters for live-cell time-lapse imaging, and it sounds like you don't plan to do much of that, but on the occasions that you do it makes a dramatic difference.  Note that new focus control tech comes out all the time, so Olympus may have a comparable system by now.  

Best of luck!


Tim

Timothy Feinstein, PhD
University of Pittsburgh Dept. of Pharmacology
Pittsburgh, PA

**No commercial interest**

On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:19 PM, Kathryn Spencer wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Hello all;
>        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.
>        Kathy
> The Scripps Research Institute
> La Jolla, CA

[Stanislav Vitha]

*****
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 <[hidden email]> 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: [phone]
>Assoc Prof, Dept Neuroscience                 lab: [phone]
>University of Minnesota             Preferred FAX: [phone]
>6-145 Jackson Hall, 321 Church St. SE    Dept Fax: [phone]
>Minneapolis, MN  55455                    e-mail: [hidden email]

[Carlos A. Valverde]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hello everyone.
Does anyone have an old LSM-GB200
It doesn´t matter if it is working or not.
Thanks.

[kspencer007]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi all;
        I really appreciate the comments sent comparing Olympus and Nikon confocals. We have other systems in our core from both manufacturers, so swapping objectives between systems doesn't give an edge to either. We are in so fortunate to have extremely excellent and prompt service from both companies...if only my centrifuge and incubator companies were so good. We are also in the enviable position of having money NOW to purchase, but in such a short time-frame, we don't have time to do a thorough, well-thought-out, proper and preferred side-by-side demo of each system. Both Olympus and Nikon are offering identical service contracts, identical lasers, and the same system configuration, for the same price.
        This will be an upright scope, to complement the numerous inverteds we have. I'm not looking to expand this system into live-cell, as we also have other systems for that need. This confocal will be a work-horse for fixed tissue, multi-color, multi-point/tiling. Speed, noise, transmission efficiency, and aberration correction  are my main concerns. We also have both software platforms in the building, so users have been exposed to both.
        What a wonderful position to be in. We can't lose. But I do want the best quality...which is why I turn to your advice, instead of a proper demo.

Kathy Spencer
The Scripps Research Institute
La Jolla, CA

[Oshel, Philip Eugene]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Kathy,

Sounds like this is a case where you buy a pizza and sacrifice one
slice - drop it, if it lands toppings up, buy one system, if it lands
toppings down, buy the other.
Pizza so you're not tempted to go 2 out of 3.

Phil

>*****
>To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>*****
>
>Hi all;
> I really appreciate the comments sent comparing Olympus and
>Nikon confocals. We have other systems in our core from both
>manufacturers, so swapping objectives between systems doesn't give
>an edge to either. We are in so fortunate to have extremely
>excellent and prompt service from both companies...if only my
>centrifuge and incubator companies were so good. We are also in the
>enviable position of having money NOW to purchase, but in such a
>short time-frame, we don't have time to do a thorough,
>well-thought-out, proper and preferred side-by-side demo of each
>system. Both Olympus and Nikon are offering identical service
>contracts, identical lasers, and the same system configuration, for
>the same price.
> This will be an upright scope, to complement the numerous
>inverteds we have. I'm not looking to expand this system into
>live-cell, as we also have other systems for that need. This
>confocal will be a work-horse for fixed tissue, multi-color,
>multi-point/tiling. Speed, noise, transmission efficiency, and
>aberration correction  are my main concerns. We also have both
>software platforms in the building, so users have been exposed to
>both.
> What a wonderful position to be in. We can't lose. But I do
>want the best quality...which is why I turn to your advice, instead
>of a proper demo.
>
>Kathy Spencer
>The Scripps Research Institute
>La Jolla, CA

--
Philip Oshel
Microscopy Facility Supervisor
Biology Department
024C Brooks Hall
Central Michigan University
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859
[phone]

[Craig Brideau]

*****
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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: [phone]
> >Assoc Prof, Dept Neuroscience                 lab: [phone]
> >University of Minnesota             Preferred FAX: [phone]
> >6-145 Jackson Hall, 321 Church St. SE    Dept Fax: [phone]
> >Minneapolis, MN  55455                    e-mail: [hidden email]
>

[Glen MacDonald-2]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Hi Kathryn,
Gee, tough position, buy a confocal or buy a confocal.  
Our FV-1000/IX-81 4-dectector confocal has logged 14,000 hrs. in 4 years. My experience has been similar to Stan's.  It has the older laser configuration, argon ion and 3 solid state, only service has been replacing the argon laser and the 405 nm diode.  Most of my complaints have been resolved with the newer models and software, like getting rid of the dual monitors.  Its very easy for new users to learn.  It has some photoactivation/FRAP capabilities, even without the SIM scanner.  All manufacturers have a focus drift system of some sort. The ones that work from the coverslip don't help when the specimen is changing shape.  I know others who really like the Nikon, but I became wary of Nikon confocals in their early days an haven't overcome it.  

Regards,
Glen
On Jan 28, 2011, at 8:04 AM, Kathryn Spencer wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Hi all;
> I really appreciate the comments sent comparing Olympus and Nikon confocals. We have other systems in our core from both manufacturers, so swapping objectives between systems doesn't give an edge to either. We are in so fortunate to have extremely excellent and prompt service from both companies...if only my centrifuge and incubator companies were so good. We are also in the enviable position of having money NOW to purchase, but in such a short time-frame, we don't have time to do a thorough, well-thought-out, proper and preferred side-by-side demo of each system. Both Olympus and Nikon are offering identical service contracts, identical lasers, and the same system configuration, for the same price.
> This will be an upright scope, to complement the numerous inverteds we have. I'm not looking to expand this system into live-cell, as we also have other systems for that need. This confocal will be a work-horse for fixed tissue, multi-color, multi-point/tiling. Speed, noise, transmission efficiency, and aberration correction  are my main concerns. We also have both software platforms in the building, so users have been exposed to both.
> What a wonderful position to be in. We can't lose. But I do want the best quality...which is why I turn to your advice, instead of a proper demo.
>
> Kathy Spencer
> The Scripps Research Institute
> La Jolla, CA

[leoncio vergara]

*****
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:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Brideau
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 10:23 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Rejected posting to [hidden email]

*****
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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: [phone]
> >Assoc Prof, Dept Neuroscience                 lab: [phone]
> >University of Minnesota             Preferred FAX: [phone]
> >6-145 Jackson Hall, 321 Church St. SE    Dept Fax: [phone]
> >Minneapolis, MN  55455                    e-mail: [hidden email]
>

[Sylvie Le Guyader-2]

*****
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: [phone] new number!
LCI room: [phone] new number!
mobile: [phone]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Vergara,
> Leoncio A.
> Sent: 28 January 2011 19:20
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Rejected posting to [hidden email]
>
> *****
> 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:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Brideau
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 10:23 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Rejected posting to [hidden email]
>
> *****
> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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: [phone]
> > >Assoc Prof, Dept Neuroscience                 lab: [phone]
> > >University of Minnesota             Preferred FAX: [phone]
> > >6-145 Jackson Hall, 321 Church St. SE    Dept Fax: [phone]
> > >Minneapolis, MN  55455                    e-mail: [hidden email]
> >

[leoncio vergara]

*****
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 [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Sylvie LeGuyader [[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 2:17 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Rejected posting to [hidden email]

*****
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: [phone] new number!
LCI room: [phone] new number!
mobile: [phone]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Vergara,
> Leoncio A.
> Sent: 28 January 2011 19:20
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Rejected posting to [hidden email]
>
> *****
> 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:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Brideau
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 10:23 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Rejected posting to [hidden email]
>
> *****
> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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: [phone]
> > >Assoc Prof, Dept Neuroscience                 lab: [phone]
> > >University of Minnesota             Preferred FAX: [phone]
> > >6-145 Jackson Hall, 321 Church St. SE    Dept Fax: [phone]
> > >Minneapolis, MN  55455                    e-mail: [hidden email]
> >