comparison of lasers for MPM

[Pamela Young]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hello List,

Has anyone done any comparisons of MPM lasers?  Most of my experience has been with various versions of the MaiTai and the InSight  DeepSee (and of course many much older lasers).  So if you have thoughts on how these systems compare to the Chameleon and OPO, I would love your thoughts.

Thanks,
Pam

Dr Pamela A. Young | Light and Optical Microscopist
Australian Centre for Microscopy & Microanalysis

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
Rm 116A, Madsen Building F09 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006 | Australia
T [phone] | F [phone]
E [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> | W http://sydney.edu.au/acmm

Incorporating:
Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W http://www.ammrf.org.au<http://www.ammrf.org.au/>
ARC Centre of Excellence for Design in Light Metals | W http://www.arclightmetals.org.au<http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/>

CRICOS 00026A
This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any unauthorised use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please delete it and any attachments.

[Craig Brideau]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

You are asking a bit of an 'apples vs. oranges' question here, in that
different lasers with different accessories achieve different functions.
Different lasers will be appropriate or inappropriate, depending on the
type of imaging you want to do and the types of fluorophores you want to
work with.
I always start by asking the user what non-linear imaging they want to do.
The usual answer is 2-photon, but some also want second harmonic generation
capability (SHG), and some want higher-order 3-photon imaging, although
this is pretty rare. This question gives clues as to what pulse width and
tuning range the user may require.
The next is what sort of tissues the user wants to image, and how deep they
want to go. If they want to go very deep, this indicates that longer
wavelength tuning ranges are appropriate, as well as dispersion control
with shorter pulse widths, pointing to OPO or just a long-tuning Ti:Saph
and pulse compression accessories. For relatively shallower imaging on not
particularly scattering samples, these measures are not necessary.
Then I ask what sort of fluorophores the user is used to working with, and
which ones they plan to use. This will help nail down exactly what
excitation wavelengths will be necessary, indicating what sort of tuning
range will be necessary out of the laser, and whether or not an OPO will be
needed. For multiple fluorophores it is important to determine if all of
them can reasonably be excited by a single wavelength, or whether a second
wavelength would be needed, which again points to an OPO for this
situation. If the dyes the user wants will all work adequately with a
single wavelength than just a basic laser is sufficient.
Finally, the experience level of the user, and whether or not the system
will be a 'core' system for multiple users, influences how user-friendly
and turnkey the system and its accessories need to be.
These are not the only considerations, but I hope it gives you some idea of
the thought processes that go towards selecting a laser.

Craig Brideau


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Pamela Young <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hello List,
>
> Has anyone done any comparisons of MPM lasers?  Most of my experience has
> been with various versions of the MaiTai and the InSight  DeepSee (and of
> course many much older lasers).  So if you have thoughts on how these
> systems compare to the Chameleon and OPO, I would love your thoughts.
>
> Thanks,
> Pam
>
> Dr Pamela A. Young | Light and Optical Microscopist
> Australian Centre for Microscopy & Microanalysis
>
> THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
> Rm 116A, Madsen Building F09 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006 |
> Australia
> T [phone] | F [phone]
> E [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> | W
> http://sydney.edu.au/acmm
>
> Incorporating:
> Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
> http://www.ammrf.org.au<http://www.ammrf.org.au/>
> ARC Centre of Excellence for Design in Light Metals | W
> http://www.arclightmetals.org.au<http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/>
>
> CRICOS 00026A
> This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any unauthorised
> use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please
> delete it and any attachments.
>

[Rosemary.White]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Dear Pamela,

All I can say is, we love our Insight DeepSee! Very easy to use.
Considerably cheaper than OPO alternative and from what I can gather, less
fiddly to use.

cheers,
Rosemary

Dr Rosemary White
CSIRO Plant Industry
GPO Box 1600
Canberra, ACT 2601

T 02 6246 5475
F 02 6246 5334
E [hidden email]


On 18/06/14 12:31 PM, "Pamela Young" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>*****
>To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
>*****
>
>Hello List,
>
>Has anyone done any comparisons of MPM lasers?  Most of my experience has
>been with various versions of the MaiTai and the InSight  DeepSee (and of
>course many much older lasers).  So if you have thoughts on how these
>systems compare to the Chameleon and OPO, I would love your thoughts.
>
>Thanks,
>Pam
>
>Dr Pamela A. Young | Light and Optical Microscopist
>Australian Centre for Microscopy & Microanalysis
>
>THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
>Rm 116A, Madsen Building F09 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006 |
>Australia
>T [phone] | F [phone]
>E [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> | W
>http://sydney.edu.au/acmm
>
>Incorporating:
>Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
>http://www.ammrf.org.au<http://www.ammrf.org.au/>
>ARC Centre of Excellence for Design in Light Metals | W
>http://www.arclightmetals.org.au<http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/>
>
>CRICOS 00026A
>This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any unauthorised
>use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please
>delete it and any attachments.

[Cameron Nowell-3]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi Pamela,
I will back up Rosemary on that. I had a MaiTai previously and thought it was great, now have an InSight DeepSee fully incorporated into a Leica SP8 Upright and it is basically the best thing i have every used.

Everything on it is so fast and having 1W out at 1300nm is really useful

Cheers

Cam




Cameron J. Nowell
Research Facilities Manager

Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences
Monash University
399 Royal Parade
(Mail address: 381 Royal Parade)
Parkville, VIC, 3052
Australia

Email: [hidden email]
Mobile: [phone]
Office: [phone]

LinkedIn: Profile
Research Gate:  Profile


________________________________________
From: Confocal Microscopy List [[hidden email]] on behalf of [hidden email] [[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:03 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: comparison of lasers for MPM

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Dear Pamela,

All I can say is, we love our Insight DeepSee! Very easy to use.
Considerably cheaper than OPO alternative and from what I can gather, less
fiddly to use.

cheers,
Rosemary

Dr Rosemary White
CSIRO Plant Industry
GPO Box 1600
Canberra, ACT 2601

T 02 6246 5475
F 02 6246 5334
E [hidden email]


On 18/06/14 12:31 PM, "Pamela Young" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>*****
>To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
>*****
>
>Hello List,
>
>Has anyone done any comparisons of MPM lasers?  Most of my experience has
>been with various versions of the MaiTai and the InSight  DeepSee (and of
>course many much older lasers).  So if you have thoughts on how these
>systems compare to the Chameleon and OPO, I would love your thoughts.
>
>Thanks,
>Pam
>
>Dr Pamela A. Young | Light and Optical Microscopist
>Australian Centre for Microscopy & Microanalysis
>
>THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
>Rm 116A, Madsen Building F09 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006 |
>Australia
>T [phone] | F [phone]
>E [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> | W
>http://sydney.edu.au/acmm
>
>Incorporating:
>Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
>http://www.ammrf.org.au<http://www.ammrf.org.au/>
>ARC Centre of Excellence for Design in Light Metals | W
>http://www.arclightmetals.org.au<http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/>
>
>CRICOS 00026A
>This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any unauthorised
>use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please
>delete it and any attachments.

[Pamela Young]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Excellent point, Craig!  I¹m running a core facility, so I have a lot of
different users with different applications.  So I guess from that
standpoint, I¹m looking for thoughts on how the systems compare in range
of use, ease of use, and reliability.  Because you are right, each user
will have a different application!

Dr Pamela A. Young
 | Light and Optical Microscopist
Australian Centre for Microscopy & Microanalysis

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
Rm 116A, Madsen Building F09 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006 |
Australia
T [phone] | F [phone]
E [hidden email] | W http://sydney.edu.au/acmm

Incorporating:
Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
http://www.ammrf.org.au <http://www.ammrf.org.au/>
ARC Centre of Excellence for Design in Light Metals | W
http://www.arclightmetals.org.au <http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/>

CRICOS 00026A
This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any unauthorised
use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please
delete it and any attachments.



On 18/06/2014 12:55 pm, "Craig Brideau" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>*****
>To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
>*****
>
>You are asking a bit of an 'apples vs. oranges' question here, in that
>different lasers with different accessories achieve different functions.
>Different lasers will be appropriate or inappropriate, depending on the
>type of imaging you want to do and the types of fluorophores you want to
>work with.
>I always start by asking the user what non-linear imaging they want to do.
>The usual answer is 2-photon, but some also want second harmonic
>generation
>capability (SHG), and some want higher-order 3-photon imaging, although
>this is pretty rare. This question gives clues as to what pulse width and
>tuning range the user may require.
>The next is what sort of tissues the user wants to image, and how deep
>they
>want to go. If they want to go very deep, this indicates that longer
>wavelength tuning ranges are appropriate, as well as dispersion control
>with shorter pulse widths, pointing to OPO or just a long-tuning Ti:Saph
>and pulse compression accessories. For relatively shallower imaging on not
>particularly scattering samples, these measures are not necessary.
>Then I ask what sort of fluorophores the user is used to working with, and
>which ones they plan to use. This will help nail down exactly what
>excitation wavelengths will be necessary, indicating what sort of tuning
>range will be necessary out of the laser, and whether or not an OPO will
>be
>needed. For multiple fluorophores it is important to determine if all of
>them can reasonably be excited by a single wavelength, or whether a second
>wavelength would be needed, which again points to an OPO for this
>situation. If the dyes the user wants will all work adequately with a
>single wavelength than just a basic laser is sufficient.
>Finally, the experience level of the user, and whether or not the system
>will be a 'core' system for multiple users, influences how user-friendly
>and turnkey the system and its accessories need to be.
>These are not the only considerations, but I hope it gives you some idea
>of
>the thought processes that go towards selecting a laser.
>
>Craig Brideau
>
>
>On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Pamela Young <[hidden email]>
>wrote:
>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
>>posting.
>> *****
>>
>> Hello List,
>>
>> Has anyone done any comparisons of MPM lasers?  Most of my experience
>>has
>> been with various versions of the MaiTai and the InSight  DeepSee (and
>>of
>> course many much older lasers).  So if you have thoughts on how these
>> systems compare to the Chameleon and OPO, I would love your thoughts.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pam
>>
>> Dr Pamela A. Young | Light and Optical Microscopist
>> Australian Centre for Microscopy & Microanalysis
>>
>> THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
>> Rm 116A, Madsen Building F09 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006 |
>> Australia
>> T [phone] | F [phone]
>> E [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> | W
>> http://sydney.edu.au/acmm
>>
>> Incorporating:
>> Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
>> http://www.ammrf.org.au<http://www.ammrf.org.au/>
>> ARC Centre of Excellence for Design in Light Metals | W
>> http://www.arclightmetals.org.au<http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/>
>>
>> CRICOS 00026A
>> This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any unauthorised
>> use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please
>> delete it and any attachments.
>>

[Sylvie Le Guyader]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi Pam

If you are into second and third harmonic generation, it can be useful to design the system so that you can split your TiSa before you pump it to higher wavelength. This way you get one line at 900-1000 nm to excite your fluorophore and one line at 1200-1300 for THG to visualize the tissue structure.
Both SP DeepSee and Coherent TiSa/OPO can be split that way but the SP DeepSee delivers a fixed lower wavelength (1040nm which works for RFPs) and a tunable longer wavelength (690-1300nm) whereas in the Coherent system, both wavelength can be tuned (more flexible but more expensive).
The question is then very much if you want to image second and third harmonics.

If you do not need to THG, my understanding is that the SP and Coherent lasers are equivalent although I have only played with the Coherent Ultra II and the question is then if you want some compensation or not as Craig mentioned.

Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards
 
Sylvie
 
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Sylvie Le Guyader
Live Cell Imaging Unit Manager
Dept of Biosciences and Nutrition
Karolinska Institutet
Hälsovägen 7
Novum, G lift, floor 6
14157 Huddinge
Sweden
office: [phone]
LCI room 1: [phone]
LCI room 2: [phone]
mobile: [phone]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pamela Young
> Sent: 18 June 2014 08:48
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: comparison of lasers for MPM
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Excellent point, Craig!  I¹m running a core facility, so I have a lot of different users
> with different applications.  So I guess from that standpoint, I¹m looking for
> thoughts on how the systems compare in range of use, ease of use, and reliability.
> Because you are right, each user will have a different application!
>
> Dr Pamela A. Young
>  | Light and Optical Microscopist
> Australian Centre for Microscopy & Microanalysis
>
> THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
> Rm 116A, Madsen Building F09 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006 | Australia
> T [phone] | F [phone] E [hidden email] | W
> http://sydney.edu.au/acmm
>
> Incorporating:
> Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
> http://www.ammrf.org.au <http://www.ammrf.org.au/> ARC Centre of Excellence
> for Design in Light Metals | W http://www.arclightmetals.org.au
> <http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/>
>
> CRICOS 00026A
> This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any unauthorised use is
> strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please delete it and any
> attachments.
>
>
>
> On 18/06/2014 12:55 pm, "Craig Brideau" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >*****
> >To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> >http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> >Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> >*****
> >
> >You are asking a bit of an 'apples vs. oranges' question here, in that
> >different lasers with different accessories achieve different functions.
> >Different lasers will be appropriate or inappropriate, depending on the
> >type of imaging you want to do and the types of fluorophores you want
> >to work with.
> >I always start by asking the user what non-linear imaging they want to do.
> >The usual answer is 2-photon, but some also want second harmonic
> >generation capability (SHG), and some want higher-order 3-photon
> >imaging, although this is pretty rare. This question gives clues as to
> >what pulse width and tuning range the user may require.
> >The next is what sort of tissues the user wants to image, and how deep
> >they want to go. If they want to go very deep, this indicates that
> >longer wavelength tuning ranges are appropriate, as well as dispersion
> >control with shorter pulse widths, pointing to OPO or just a
> >long-tuning Ti:Saph and pulse compression accessories. For relatively
> >shallower imaging on not particularly scattering samples, these
> >measures are not necessary.
> >Then I ask what sort of fluorophores the user is used to working with,
> >and which ones they plan to use. This will help nail down exactly what
> >excitation wavelengths will be necessary, indicating what sort of
> >tuning range will be necessary out of the laser, and whether or not an
> >OPO will be needed. For multiple fluorophores it is important to
> >determine if all of them can reasonably be excited by a single
> >wavelength, or whether a second wavelength would be needed, which again
> >points to an OPO for this situation. If the dyes the user wants will
> >all work adequately with a single wavelength than just a basic laser is
> >sufficient.
> >Finally, the experience level of the user, and whether or not the
> >system will be a 'core' system for multiple users, influences how
> >user-friendly and turnkey the system and its accessories need to be.
> >These are not the only considerations, but I hope it gives you some
> >idea of the thought processes that go towards selecting a laser.
> >
> >Craig Brideau
> >
> >
> >On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Pamela Young
> ><[hidden email]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> *****
> >> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> >> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> >> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> >>posting.
> >> *****
> >>
> >> Hello List,
> >>
> >> Has anyone done any comparisons of MPM lasers?  Most of my experience
> >>has  been with various versions of the MaiTai and the InSight  DeepSee
> >>(and of  course many much older lasers).  So if you have thoughts on
> >>how these  systems compare to the Chameleon and OPO, I would love your
> >>thoughts.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Pam
> >>
> >> Dr Pamela A. Young | Light and Optical Microscopist Australian Centre
> >> for Microscopy & Microanalysis
> >>
> >> THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
> >> Rm 116A, Madsen Building F09 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006
> >> | Australia T [phone] | F [phone] E
> >> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> | W
> >> http://sydney.edu.au/acmm
> >>
> >> Incorporating:
> >> Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
> >> http://www.ammrf.org.au<http://www.ammrf.org.au/>
> >> ARC Centre of Excellence for Design in Light Metals | W
> >> http://www.arclightmetals.org.au<http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/>
> >>
> >> CRICOS 00026A
> >> This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any
> >> unauthorised use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in
> >> error, please delete it and any attachments.
> >>

[Henthorn, Jim C. (HSC)]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Pam,

I defiantly would not consider Coherent, since we have a Chameleon XR that died with 334 head hours and our only option is to send it to Scotland for repair for $35,000.  I was told that the service with the Mai Tai is much better.

Good luck,

Jim Henthorn
Flow and Image Cytometry Lab
975 NE 10th Street BRC 1317
Stanton L Young Biomedical Research Building
Oklahoma City, OK 73104
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
(405)-271-2035
http://research.ouhsc.edu/core-facilities/




On Jun 18, 2014, at 2:50 AM, Sylvie Le Guyader <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69dd3e4 and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi Pam

If you are into second and third harmonic generation, it can be useful to design the system so that you can split your TiSa before you pump it to higher wavelength. This way you get one line at 900-1000 nm to excite your fluorophore and one line at 1200-1300 for THG to visualize the tissue structure.
Both SP DeepSee and Coherent TiSa/OPO can be split that way but the SP DeepSee delivers a fixed lower wavelength (1040nm which works for RFPs) and a tunable longer wavelength (690-1300nm) whereas in the Coherent system, both wavelength can be tuned (more flexible but more expensive).
The question is then very much if you want to image second and third harmonics.

If you do not need to THG, my understanding is that the SP and Coherent lasers are equivalent although I have only played with the Coherent Ultra II and the question is then if you want some compensation or not as Craig mentioned.

Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards

Sylvie

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Sylvie Le Guyader
Live Cell Imaging Unit Manager
Dept of Biosciences and Nutrition
Karolinska Institutet
Hälsovägen 7
Novum, G lift, floor 6
14157 Huddinge
Sweden
office: [phone]
LCI room 1: [phone]
LCI room 2: [phone]
mobile: [phone]


-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pamela Young
Sent: 18 June 2014 08:48
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: comparison of lasers for MPM

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69dd3e4 and include the link in your posting.
*****

Excellent point, Craig!  I¹m running a core facility, so I have a lot of different users
with different applications.  So I guess from that standpoint, I¹m looking for
thoughts on how the systems compare in range of use, ease of use, and reliability.
Because you are right, each user will have a different application!

Dr Pamela A. Young
| Light and Optical Microscopist
Australian Centre for Microscopy & Microanalysis

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
Rm 116A, Madsen Building F09 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006 | Australia
T [phone] | F [phone] E [hidden email] | W
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://sydney.edu.au/acmm&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=f849f1252085c3ec80735dbe463a3cdda92557e03d096f983db7e157a639195f

Incorporating:
Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7ca6e9e72 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7ca6e9e72> ARC Centre of Excellence
for Design in Light Metals | W https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d97d3cce4594
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d97d3cce4594>

CRICOS 00026A
This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any unauthorised use is
strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please delete it and any
attachments.



On 18/06/2014 12:55 pm, "Craig Brideau" <[hidden email]> wrote:

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69dd3e4 and include the link in your posting.
*****

You are asking a bit of an 'apples vs. oranges' question here, in that
different lasers with different accessories achieve different functions.
Different lasers will be appropriate or inappropriate, depending on the
type of imaging you want to do and the types of fluorophores you want
to work with.
I always start by asking the user what non-linear imaging they want to do.
The usual answer is 2-photon, but some also want second harmonic
generation capability (SHG), and some want higher-order 3-photon
imaging, although this is pretty rare. This question gives clues as to
what pulse width and tuning range the user may require.
The next is what sort of tissues the user wants to image, and how deep
they want to go. If they want to go very deep, this indicates that
longer wavelength tuning ranges are appropriate, as well as dispersion
control with shorter pulse widths, pointing to OPO or just a
long-tuning Ti:Saph and pulse compression accessories. For relatively
shallower imaging on not particularly scattering samples, these
measures are not necessary.
Then I ask what sort of fluorophores the user is used to working with,
and which ones they plan to use. This will help nail down exactly what
excitation wavelengths will be necessary, indicating what sort of
tuning range will be necessary out of the laser, and whether or not an
OPO will be needed. For multiple fluorophores it is important to
determine if all of them can reasonably be excited by a single
wavelength, or whether a second wavelength would be needed, which again
points to an OPO for this situation. If the dyes the user wants will
all work adequately with a single wavelength than just a basic laser is
sufficient.
Finally, the experience level of the user, and whether or not the
system will be a 'core' system for multiple users, influences how
user-friendly and turnkey the system and its accessories need to be.
These are not the only considerations, but I hope it gives you some
idea of the thought processes that go towards selecting a laser.

Craig Brideau


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Pamela Young
<[hidden email]>
wrote:

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69dd3e4 and include the link in your
posting.
*****

Hello List,

Has anyone done any comparisons of MPM lasers?  Most of my experience
has  been with various versions of the MaiTai and the InSight  DeepSee
(and of  course many much older lasers).  So if you have thoughts on
how these  systems compare to the Chameleon and OPO, I would love your
thoughts.

Thanks,
Pam

Dr Pamela A. Young | Light and Optical Microscopist Australian Centre
for Microscopy & Microanalysis

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
Rm 116A, Madsen Building F09 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006
| Australia T [phone] | F [phone] E
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> | W
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://sydney.edu.au/acmm&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=f849f1252085c3ec80735dbe463a3cdda92557e03d096f983db7e157a639195f

Incorporating:
Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7ca6e9e72<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7ca6e9e72>
ARC Centre of Excellence for Design in Light Metals | W
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d97d3cce4594<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d97d3cce4594>

CRICOS 00026A
This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any
unauthorised use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in
error, please delete it and any attachments.

[Armstrong, Brian]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi All, our experience with Coherent is quite the opposite. When our Chameleon Ultra was failing after 2500hrs, Coherent shipped the new LASER and we swapped them so that we did not lose even a single day of function. I think that we have done this three times now. Each time it has been a smooth transition. Several years ago they replaced a Chameleon 210 with an Ultra without charge. I would buy only Coherent for this very reason.

With many products the service seems to vary depending upon the area and service personnel.
Our experiences may be confined to Southern California but I believe Coherent company policies are customer oriented.

Cheers,  

Brian D Armstrong PhD
Associate Research Professor
Director, Light Microscopy Core
Beckman Research Institute
City of Hope
Dept of Neuroscience
1450 E Duarte Rd
Duarte, CA 91010
626-256-4673 x62872



-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Henthorn, Jim C. (HSC)
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:34 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: comparison of lasers for MPM

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Pam,

I defiantly would not consider Coherent, since we have a Chameleon XR that died with 334 head hours and our only option is to send it to Scotland for repair for $35,000.  I was told that the service with the Mai Tai is much better.

Good luck,

Jim Henthorn
Flow and Image Cytometry Lab
975 NE 10th Street BRC 1317
Stanton L Young Biomedical Research Building
Oklahoma City, OK 73104
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
(405)-271-2035
http://research.ouhsc.edu/core-facilities/




On Jun 18, 2014, at 2:50 AM, Sylvie Le Guyader <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69dd3e4 and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi Pam

If you are into second and third harmonic generation, it can be useful to design the system so that you can split your TiSa before you pump it to higher wavelength. This way you get one line at 900-1000 nm to excite your fluorophore and one line at 1200-1300 for THG to visualize the tissue structure.
Both SP DeepSee and Coherent TiSa/OPO can be split that way but the SP DeepSee delivers a fixed lower wavelength (1040nm which works for RFPs) and a tunable longer wavelength (690-1300nm) whereas in the Coherent system, both wavelength can be tuned (more flexible but more expensive).
The question is then very much if you want to image second and third harmonics.

If you do not need to THG, my understanding is that the SP and Coherent lasers are equivalent although I have only played with the Coherent Ultra II and the question is then if you want some compensation or not as Craig mentioned.

Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards

Sylvie

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Sylvie Le Guyader
Live Cell Imaging Unit Manager
Dept of Biosciences and Nutrition
Karolinska Institutet
Hälsovägen 7
Novum, G lift, floor 6
14157 Huddinge
Sweden
office: [phone]
LCI room 1: [phone]
LCI room 2: [phone]
mobile: [phone]


-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pamela Young
Sent: 18 June 2014 08:48
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: comparison of lasers for MPM

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69dd3e4 and include the link in your posting.
*****

Excellent point, Craig!  I¹m running a core facility, so I have a lot of different users
with different applications.  So I guess from that standpoint, I¹m looking for
thoughts on how the systems compare in range of use, ease of use, and reliability.
Because you are right, each user will have a different application!

Dr Pamela A. Young
| Light and Optical Microscopist
Australian Centre for Microscopy & Microanalysis

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
Rm 116A, Madsen Building F09 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006 | Australia
T [phone] | F [phone] E [hidden email] | W
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://sydney.edu.au/acmm&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=f849f1252085c3ec80735dbe463a3cdda92557e03d096f983db7e157a639195f

Incorporating:
Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7ca6e9e72 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7ca6e9e72> ARC Centre of Excellence
for Design in Light Metals | W https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d97d3cce4594
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d97d3cce4594>

CRICOS 00026A
This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any unauthorised use is
strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please delete it and any
attachments.



On 18/06/2014 12:55 pm, "Craig Brideau" <[hidden email]> wrote:

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69dd3e4 and include the link in your posting.
*****

You are asking a bit of an 'apples vs. oranges' question here, in that
different lasers with different accessories achieve different functions.
Different lasers will be appropriate or inappropriate, depending on the
type of imaging you want to do and the types of fluorophores you want
to work with.
I always start by asking the user what non-linear imaging they want to do.
The usual answer is 2-photon, but some also want second harmonic
generation capability (SHG), and some want higher-order 3-photon
imaging, although this is pretty rare. This question gives clues as to
what pulse width and tuning range the user may require.
The next is what sort of tissues the user wants to image, and how deep
they want to go. If they want to go very deep, this indicates that
longer wavelength tuning ranges are appropriate, as well as dispersion
control with shorter pulse widths, pointing to OPO or just a
long-tuning Ti:Saph and pulse compression accessories. For relatively
shallower imaging on not particularly scattering samples, these
measures are not necessary.
Then I ask what sort of fluorophores the user is used to working with,
and which ones they plan to use. This will help nail down exactly what
excitation wavelengths will be necessary, indicating what sort of
tuning range will be necessary out of the laser, and whether or not an
OPO will be needed. For multiple fluorophores it is important to
determine if all of them can reasonably be excited by a single
wavelength, or whether a second wavelength would be needed, which again
points to an OPO for this situation. If the dyes the user wants will
all work adequately with a single wavelength than just a basic laser is
sufficient.
Finally, the experience level of the user, and whether or not the
system will be a 'core' system for multiple users, influences how
user-friendly and turnkey the system and its accessories need to be.
These are not the only considerations, but I hope it gives you some
idea of the thought processes that go towards selecting a laser.

Craig Brideau


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Pamela Young
<[hidden email]>
wrote:

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69dd3e4 and include the link in your
posting.
*****

Hello List,

Has anyone done any comparisons of MPM lasers?  Most of my experience
has  been with various versions of the MaiTai and the InSight  DeepSee
(and of  course many much older lasers).  So if you have thoughts on
how these  systems compare to the Chameleon and OPO, I would love your
thoughts.

Thanks,
Pam

Dr Pamela A. Young | Light and Optical Microscopist Australian Centre
for Microscopy & Microanalysis

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
Rm 116A, Madsen Building F09 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006
| Australia T [phone] | F [phone] E
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> | W
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://sydney.edu.au/acmm&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=f849f1252085c3ec80735dbe463a3cdda92557e03d096f983db7e157a639195f

Incorporating:
Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7ca6e9e72<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7ca6e9e72>
ARC Centre of Excellence for Design in Light Metals | W
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d97d3cce4594<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d97d3cce4594>

CRICOS 00026A
This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any
unauthorised use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in
error, please delete it and any attachments.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
*SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data, financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive further e-mail from the sender. (fpc5p)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Alison J. North]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Is the difference perhaps according to whether you have a service
contract or not?  We have 3 Coherent MP lasers and like Brian, have
always had excellent and fast service.  I recently took one of them off
service contract because it is hardly ever used at the moment, so we can
afford downtime more than we can afford the cost of the service
contract, but I am fully aware that if it goes wrong it will now mean a
lengthy and expensive repair back in Scotland.
Jim, was your laser under service contract?
Best,
Alison


On 6/18/2014 5:56 PM, Armstrong, Brian wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hi All, our experience with Coherent is quite the opposite. When our Chameleon Ultra was failing after 2500hrs, Coherent shipped the new LASER and we swapped them so that we did not lose even a single day of function. I think that we have done this three times now. Each time it has been a smooth transition. Several years ago they replaced a Chameleon 210 with an Ultra without charge. I would buy only Coherent for this very reason.
>
> With many products the service seems to vary depending upon the area and service personnel.
> Our experiences may be confined to Southern California but I believe Coherent company policies are customer oriented.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian D Armstrong PhD
> Associate Research Professor
> Director, Light Microscopy Core
> Beckman Research Institute
> City of Hope
> Dept of Neuroscience
> 1450 E Duarte Rd
> Duarte, CA 91010
> 626-256-4673 x62872
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Henthorn, Jim C. (HSC)
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:34 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: comparison of lasers for MPM
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Pam,
>
> I defiantly would not consider Coherent, since we have a Chameleon XR that died with 334 head hours and our only option is to send it to Scotland for repair for $35,000.  I was told that the service with the Mai Tai is much better.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Jim Henthorn
> Flow and Image Cytometry Lab
> 975 NE 10th Street BRC 1317
> Stanton L Young Biomedical Research Building
> Oklahoma City, OK 73104
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
> (405)-271-2035
> http://research.ouhsc.edu/core-facilities/
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 18, 2014, at 2:50 AM, Sylvie Le Guyader <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
> Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69dd3e4 and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hi Pam
>
> If you are into second and third harmonic generation, it can be useful to design the system so that you can split your TiSa before you pump it to higher wavelength. This way you get one line at 900-1000 nm to excite your fluorophore and one line at 1200-1300 for THG to visualize the tissue structure.
> Both SP DeepSee and Coherent TiSa/OPO can be split that way but the SP DeepSee delivers a fixed lower wavelength (1040nm which works for RFPs) and a tunable longer wavelength (690-1300nm) whereas in the Coherent system, both wavelength can be tuned (more flexible but more expensive).
> The question is then very much if you want to image second and third harmonics.
>
> If you do not need to THG, my understanding is that the SP and Coherent lasers are equivalent although I have only played with the Coherent Ultra II and the question is then if you want some compensation or not as Craig mentioned.
>
> Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards
>
> Sylvie
>
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> Sylvie Le Guyader
> Live Cell Imaging Unit Manager
> Dept of Biosciences and Nutrition
> Karolinska Institutet
> Hälsovägen 7
> Novum, G lift, floor 6
> 14157 Huddinge
> Sweden
> office: [phone]
> LCI room 1: [phone]
> LCI room 2: [phone]
> mobile: [phone]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pamela Young
> Sent: 18 June 2014 08:48
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: comparison of lasers for MPM
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
> Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69dd3e4 and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Excellent point, Craig!  I¹m running a core facility, so I have a lot of different users
> with different applications.  So I guess from that standpoint, I¹m looking for
> thoughts on how the systems compare in range of use, ease of use, and reliability.
> Because you are right, each user will have a different application!
>
> Dr Pamela A. Young
> | Light and Optical Microscopist
> Australian Centre for Microscopy & Microanalysis
>
> THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
> Rm 116A, Madsen Building F09 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006 | Australia
> T [phone] | F [phone] E [hidden email] | W
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://sydney.edu.au/acmm&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=f849f1252085c3ec80735dbe463a3cdda92557e03d096f983db7e157a639195f
>
> Incorporating:
> Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7ca6e9e72 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7ca6e9e72> ARC Centre of Excellence
> for Design in Light Metals | W https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d97d3cce4594
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d97d3cce4594>
>
> CRICOS 00026A
> This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any unauthorised use is
> strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please delete it and any
> attachments.
>
>
>
> On 18/06/2014 12:55 pm, "Craig Brideau" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
> Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69dd3e4 and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> You are asking a bit of an 'apples vs. oranges' question here, in that
> different lasers with different accessories achieve different functions.
> Different lasers will be appropriate or inappropriate, depending on the
> type of imaging you want to do and the types of fluorophores you want
> to work with.
> I always start by asking the user what non-linear imaging they want to do.
> The usual answer is 2-photon, but some also want second harmonic
> generation capability (SHG), and some want higher-order 3-photon
> imaging, although this is pretty rare. This question gives clues as to
> what pulse width and tuning range the user may require.
> The next is what sort of tissues the user wants to image, and how deep
> they want to go. If they want to go very deep, this indicates that
> longer wavelength tuning ranges are appropriate, as well as dispersion
> control with shorter pulse widths, pointing to OPO or just a
> long-tuning Ti:Saph and pulse compression accessories. For relatively
> shallower imaging on not particularly scattering samples, these
> measures are not necessary.
> Then I ask what sort of fluorophores the user is used to working with,
> and which ones they plan to use. This will help nail down exactly what
> excitation wavelengths will be necessary, indicating what sort of
> tuning range will be necessary out of the laser, and whether or not an
> OPO will be needed. For multiple fluorophores it is important to
> determine if all of them can reasonably be excited by a single
> wavelength, or whether a second wavelength would be needed, which again
> points to an OPO for this situation. If the dyes the user wants will
> all work adequately with a single wavelength than just a basic laser is
> sufficient.
> Finally, the experience level of the user, and whether or not the
> system will be a 'core' system for multiple users, influences how
> user-friendly and turnkey the system and its accessories need to be.
> These are not the only considerations, but I hope it gives you some
> idea of the thought processes that go towards selecting a laser.
>
> Craig Brideau
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Pamela Young
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
> Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69dd3e4 and include the link in your
> posting.
> *****
>
> Hello List,
>
> Has anyone done any comparisons of MPM lasers?  Most of my experience
> has  been with various versions of the MaiTai and the InSight  DeepSee
> (and of  course many much older lasers).  So if you have thoughts on
> how these  systems compare to the Chameleon and OPO, I would love your
> thoughts.
>
> Thanks,
> Pam
>
> Dr Pamela A. Young | Light and Optical Microscopist Australian Centre
> for Microscopy & Microanalysis
>
> THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
> Rm 116A, Madsen Building F09 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006
> | Australia T [phone] | F [phone] E
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> | W
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://sydney.edu.au/acmm&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=f849f1252085c3ec80735dbe463a3cdda92557e03d096f983db7e157a639195f
>
> Incorporating:
> Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7ca6e9e72<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7ca6e9e72>
> ARC Centre of Excellence for Design in Light Metals | W
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d97d3cce4594<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d97d3cce4594>
>
> CRICOS 00026A
> This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any
> unauthorised use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in
> error, please delete it and any attachments.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> *SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:
> This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data, financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive further e-mail from the sender. (fpc5p)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Alison J. North, Ph.D.,
Senior Director of the Bio-Imaging Resource Center and
Research Associate Professor,
The Rockefeller University,
1230 York Avenue,
New York,
NY 10065.
Tel: office ++ 212 327 7488
Tel: lab    ++ 212 327 7486
Fax:        ++ 212 327 7489

[Adrian Smith-6]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****


Hi all,

We have three Mai Tai, one Insight DeepSee, one Chameleon Ultra II and one (APE) OPO.

Service (in Sydney, Australia) has been good on all of them.

However, from my perspective there appears to be a significant difference in the service philosophy between Coherent and Spectra Physics that should be considered when purchasing lasers. Which is better will probably depend on your particularly circumstances.

Coherent appears biased towards repairs at the factory in Scotland. That can work well if you are under service contract and in some cases (as with Brian) downtime can be minimal. Of course, if the laser is completely down (or just not functioning well enough for experiments) then there will still be some interruption to your microscopy. Coherent have a standard turn-around time that they strive to meet (and as far as I can tell usually do). However, if you are not under service contract then it seems that your options are limited - once the fault goes beyond a particular level it has to go back to the factory and you are up for an expensive and/or lengthy process.

On the other hand Spectra Physics seems to be biased towards more in-field service - e.g. we’ve have had work done on our Mai Tais that I’m sure would have a required a factory-return if it had been a Coherent laser. If you have a good service engineer then that can be really good as a non-functioning laser can potentially be fully-operational again in a shorter time that a Coherent swap. In my experience this has also been cost effective.

In my case I would feel comfortable not having a service contract on my Spectra Physics lasers because I have a service fund that can be used to pay for service as I go and I know that most issues can be dealt with in situ. With Coherent I don’t feel that same flexibility. That is not necessarily a problem but I think it is worth weighing up before purchase.

(Personally, I’m working towards being able to effectively "self-insure” across the majority of instruments in my cytometry and imaging facility rather than have individual service contracts so at this point Spectra Physics fits better in that model).
__

Adrian Smith
Centenary Institute, Sydney, AU


On 19 June 2014 at 8:02:24 am, Alison North ([hidden email]) wrote:

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Is the difference perhaps according to whether you have a service
contract or not? We have 3 Coherent MP lasers and like Brian, have
always had excellent and fast service. I recently took one of them off
service contract because it is hardly ever used at the moment, so we can
afford downtime more than we can afford the cost of the service
contract, but I am fully aware that if it goes wrong it will now mean a
lengthy and expensive repair back in Scotland.
Jim, was your laser under service contract?
Best,
Alison


On 6/18/2014 5:56 PM, Armstrong, Brian wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hi All, our experience with Coherent is quite the opposite. When our Chameleon Ultra was failing after 2500hrs, Coherent shipped the new LASER and we swapped them so that we did not lose even a single day of function. I think that we have done this three times now. Each time it has been a smooth transition. Several years ago they replaced a Chameleon 210 with an Ultra without charge. I would buy only Coherent for this very reason.
>
> With many products the service seems to vary depending upon the area and service personnel.
> Our experiences may be confined to Southern California but I believe Coherent company policies are customer oriented.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian D Armstrong PhD
> Associate Research Professor
> Director, Light Microscopy Core
> Beckman Research Institute
> City of Hope
> Dept of Neuroscience
> 1450 E Duarte Rd
> Duarte, CA 91010
> 626-256-4673 x62872
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Henthorn, Jim C. (HSC)
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:34 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: comparison of lasers for MPM
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Pam,
>
> I defiantly would not consider Coherent, since we have a Chameleon XR that died with 334 head hours and our only option is to send it to Scotland for repair for $35,000. I was told that the service with the Mai Tai is much better.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Jim Henthorn
> Flow and Image Cytometry Lab
> 975 NE 10th Street BRC 1317
> Stanton L Young Biomedical Research Building
> Oklahoma City, OK 73104
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
> (405)-271-2035
> http://research.ouhsc.edu/core-facilities/
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 18, 2014, at 2:50 AM, Sylvie Le Guyader <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
> Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69dd3e4 and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hi Pam
>
> If you are into second and third harmonic generation, it can be useful to design the system so that you can split your TiSa before you pump it to higher wavelength. This way you get one line at 900-1000 nm to excite your fluorophore and one line at 1200-1300 for THG to visualize the tissue structure.
> Both SP DeepSee and Coherent TiSa/OPO can be split that way but the SP DeepSee delivers a fixed lower wavelength (1040nm which works for RFPs) and a tunable longer wavelength (690-1300nm) whereas in the Coherent system, both wavelength can be tuned (more flexible but more expensive).
> The question is then very much if you want to image second and third harmonics.
>
> If you do not need to THG, my understanding is that the SP and Coherent lasers are equivalent although I have only played with the Coherent Ultra II and the question is then if you want some compensation or not as Craig mentioned.
>
> Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards
>
> Sylvie
>
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> Sylvie Le Guyader
> Live Cell Imaging Unit Manager
> Dept of Biosciences and Nutrition
> Karolinska Institutet
> Hälsovägen 7
> Novum, G lift, floor 6
> 14157 Huddinge
> Sweden
> office: [phone]
> LCI room 1: [phone]
> LCI room 2: [phone]
> mobile: [phone]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pamela Young
> Sent: 18 June 2014 08:48
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: comparison of lasers for MPM
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
> Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69dd3e4 and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Excellent point, Craig! I¹m running a core facility, so I have a lot of different users
> with different applications. So I guess from that standpoint, I¹m looking for
> thoughts on how the systems compare in range of use, ease of use, and reliability.
> Because you are right, each user will have a different application!
>
> Dr Pamela A. Young
> | Light and Optical Microscopist
> Australian Centre for Microscopy & Microanalysis
>
> THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
> Rm 116A, Madsen Building F09 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006 | Australia
> T [phone] | F [phone] E [hidden email] | W
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://sydney.edu.au/acmm&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=f849f1252085c3ec80735dbe463a3cdda92557e03d096f983db7e157a639195f
>
> Incorporating:
> Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7ca6e9e72 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7ca6e9e72> ARC Centre of Excellence
> for Design in Light Metals | W https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d97d3cce4594
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d97d3cce4594>
>
> CRICOS 00026A
> This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any unauthorised use is
> strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please delete it and any
> attachments.
>
>
>
> On 18/06/2014 12:55 pm, "Craig Brideau" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
> Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69dd3e4 and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> You are asking a bit of an 'apples vs. oranges' question here, in that
> different lasers with different accessories achieve different functions.
> Different lasers will be appropriate or inappropriate, depending on the
> type of imaging you want to do and the types of fluorophores you want
> to work with.
> I always start by asking the user what non-linear imaging they want to do.
> The usual answer is 2-photon, but some also want second harmonic
> generation capability (SHG), and some want higher-order 3-photon
> imaging, although this is pretty rare. This question gives clues as to
> what pulse width and tuning range the user may require.
> The next is what sort of tissues the user wants to image, and how deep
> they want to go. If they want to go very deep, this indicates that
> longer wavelength tuning ranges are appropriate, as well as dispersion
> control with shorter pulse widths, pointing to OPO or just a
> long-tuning Ti:Saph and pulse compression accessories. For relatively
> shallower imaging on not particularly scattering samples, these
> measures are not necessary.
> Then I ask what sort of fluorophores the user is used to working with,
> and which ones they plan to use. This will help nail down exactly what
> excitation wavelengths will be necessary, indicating what sort of
> tuning range will be necessary out of the laser, and whether or not an
> OPO will be needed. For multiple fluorophores it is important to
> determine if all of them can reasonably be excited by a single
> wavelength, or whether a second wavelength would be needed, which again
> points to an OPO for this situation. If the dyes the user wants will
> all work adequately with a single wavelength than just a basic laser is
> sufficient.
> Finally, the experience level of the user, and whether or not the
> system will be a 'core' system for multiple users, influences how
> user-friendly and turnkey the system and its accessories need to be.
> These are not the only considerations, but I hope it gives you some
> idea of the thought processes that go towards selecting a laser.
>
> Craig Brideau
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Pamela Young
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
> Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69dd3e4 and include the link in your
> posting.
> *****
>
> Hello List,
>
> Has anyone done any comparisons of MPM lasers? Most of my experience
> has been with various versions of the MaiTai and the InSight DeepSee
> (and of course many much older lasers). So if you have thoughts on
> how these systems compare to the Chameleon and OPO, I would love your
> thoughts.
>
> Thanks,
> Pam
>
> Dr Pamela A. Young | Light and Optical Microscopist Australian Centre
> for Microscopy & Microanalysis
>
> THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
> Rm 116A, Madsen Building F09 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006
> | Australia T [phone] | F [phone] E
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> | W
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://sydney.edu.au/acmm&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=f849f1252085c3ec80735dbe463a3cdda92557e03d096f983db7e157a639195f
>
> Incorporating:
> Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7ca6e9e72<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7ca6e9e72>
> ARC Centre of Excellence for Design in Light Metals | W
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d97d3cce4594<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d97d3cce4594>
>
> CRICOS 00026A
> This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any
> unauthorised use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in
> error, please delete it and any attachments.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> *SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:
> This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data, financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive further e-mail from the sender. (fpc5p)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Alison J. North, Ph.D.,
Senior Director of the Bio-Imaging Resource Center and
Research Associate Professor,
The Rockefeller University,
1230 York Avenue,
New York,
NY 10065.
Tel: office ++ 212 327 7488
Tel: lab ++ 212 327 7486
Fax: ++ 212 327 7489

[Sylvie Le Guyader]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi again

I agree that the service quality is area dependent and we are super happy with our Swedish Coherent service.

However the policy that the customer pays for shipping the laser back comes from Coherent so i would strongly advise scrutinizing the warranty conditions and asking about this if nothing is specified.

We paid 3000€ to ship a defective laser despite a full service contract last year.

I do not know if SP applies the same policy.

Sylvie

On 18 jun 2014, at 23:57, "Armstrong, Brian" <[hidden email]> wrote:

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi All, our experience with Coherent is quite the opposite. When our Chameleon Ultra was failing after 2500hrs, Coherent shipped the new LASER and we swapped them so that we did not lose even a single day of function. I think that we have done this three times now. Each time it has been a smooth transition. Several years ago they replaced a Chameleon 210 with an Ultra without charge. I would buy only Coherent for this very reason.

With many products the service seems to vary depending upon the area and service personnel.
Our experiences may be confined to Southern California but I believe Coherent company policies are customer oriented.

Cheers,  

Brian D Armstrong PhD
Associate Research Professor
Director, Light Microscopy Core
Beckman Research Institute
City of Hope
Dept of Neuroscience
1450 E Duarte Rd
Duarte, CA 91010
626-256-4673 x62872



-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Henthorn, Jim C. (HSC)
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:34 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: comparison of lasers for MPM

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Pam,

I defiantly would not consider Coherent, since we have a Chameleon XR that died with 334 head hours and our only option is to send it to Scotland for repair for $35,000.  I was told that the service with the Mai Tai is much better.

Good luck,

Jim Henthorn
Flow and Image Cytometry Lab
975 NE 10th Street BRC 1317
Stanton L Young Biomedical Research Building
Oklahoma City, OK 73104
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
(405)-271-2035
http://research.ouhsc.edu/core-facilities/




On Jun 18, 2014, at 2:50 AM, Sylvie Le Guyader <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69dd3e4 and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi Pam

If you are into second and third harmonic generation, it can be useful to design the system so that you can split your TiSa before you pump it to higher wavelength. This way you get one line at 900-1000 nm to excite your fluorophore and one line at 1200-1300 for THG to visualize the tissue structure.
Both SP DeepSee and Coherent TiSa/OPO can be split that way but the SP DeepSee delivers a fixed lower wavelength (1040nm which works for RFPs) and a tunable longer wavelength (690-1300nm) whereas in the Coherent system, both wavelength can be tuned (more flexible but more expensive).
The question is then very much if you want to image second and third harmonics.

If you do not need to THG, my understanding is that the SP and Coherent lasers are equivalent although I have only played with the Coherent Ultra II and the question is then if you want some compensation or not as Craig mentioned.

Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards

Sylvie

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Sylvie Le Guyader
Live Cell Imaging Unit Manager
Dept of Biosciences and Nutrition
Karolinska Institutet
Hälsovägen 7
Novum, G lift, floor 6
14157 Huddinge
Sweden
office: [phone]
LCI room 1: [phone]
LCI room 2: [phone]
mobile: [phone]


-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pamela Young
Sent: 18 June 2014 08:48
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: comparison of lasers for MPM

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69dd3e4 and include the link in your posting.
*****

Excellent point, Craig!  I¹m running a core facility, so I have a lot of different users
with different applications.  So I guess from that standpoint, I¹m looking for
thoughts on how the systems compare in range of use, ease of use, and reliability.
Because you are right, each user will have a different application!

Dr Pamela A. Young
| Light and Optical Microscopist
Australian Centre for Microscopy & Microanalysis

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
Rm 116A, Madsen Building F09 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006 | Australia
T [phone] | F [phone] E [hidden email] | W
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://sydney.edu.au/acmm&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=f849f1252085c3ec80735dbe463a3cdda92557e03d096f983db7e157a639195f

Incorporating:
Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7ca6e9e72 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7ca6e9e72> ARC Centre of Excellence
for Design in Light Metals | W https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d97d3cce4594
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d97d3cce4594>

CRICOS 00026A
This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any unauthorised use is
strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please delete it and any
attachments.



On 18/06/2014 12:55 pm, "Craig Brideau" <[hidden email]> wrote:

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69dd3e4 and include the link in your posting.
*****

You are asking a bit of an 'apples vs. oranges' question here, in that
different lasers with different accessories achieve different functions.
Different lasers will be appropriate or inappropriate, depending on the
type of imaging you want to do and the types of fluorophores you want
to work with.
I always start by asking the user what non-linear imaging they want to do.
The usual answer is 2-photon, but some also want second harmonic
generation capability (SHG), and some want higher-order 3-photon
imaging, although this is pretty rare. This question gives clues as to
what pulse width and tuning range the user may require.
The next is what sort of tissues the user wants to image, and how deep
they want to go. If they want to go very deep, this indicates that
longer wavelength tuning ranges are appropriate, as well as dispersion
control with shorter pulse widths, pointing to OPO or just a
long-tuning Ti:Saph and pulse compression accessories. For relatively
shallower imaging on not particularly scattering samples, these
measures are not necessary.
Then I ask what sort of fluorophores the user is used to working with,
and which ones they plan to use. This will help nail down exactly what
excitation wavelengths will be necessary, indicating what sort of
tuning range will be necessary out of the laser, and whether or not an
OPO will be needed. For multiple fluorophores it is important to
determine if all of them can reasonably be excited by a single
wavelength, or whether a second wavelength would be needed, which again
points to an OPO for this situation. If the dyes the user wants will
all work adequately with a single wavelength than just a basic laser is
sufficient.
Finally, the experience level of the user, and whether or not the
system will be a 'core' system for multiple users, influences how
user-friendly and turnkey the system and its accessories need to be.
These are not the only considerations, but I hope it gives you some
idea of the thought processes that go towards selecting a laser.

Craig Brideau


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Pamela Young
<[hidden email]>
wrote:

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
Post images on https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69dd3e4 and include the link in your
posting.
*****

Hello List,

Has anyone done any comparisons of MPM lasers?  Most of my experience
has  been with various versions of the MaiTai and the InSight  DeepSee
(and of  course many much older lasers).  So if you have thoughts on
how these  systems compare to the Chameleon and OPO, I would love your
thoughts.

Thanks,
Pam

Dr Pamela A. Young | Light and Optical Microscopist Australian Centre
for Microscopy & Microanalysis

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
Rm 116A, Madsen Building F09 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006
| Australia T [phone] | F [phone] E
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> | W
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://sydney.edu.au/acmm&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=f849f1252085c3ec80735dbe463a3cdda92557e03d096f983db7e157a639195f

Incorporating:
Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7ca6e9e72<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7ca6e9e72>
ARC Centre of Excellence for Design in Light Metals | W
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d97d3cce4594<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d97d3cce4594>

CRICOS 00026A
This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any
unauthorised use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in
error, please delete it and any attachments.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
*SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data, financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive further e-mail from the sender. (fpc5p)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sylvie Le Guyader]

Dear all

After posting the email below, I got a call from Coherent Sweden who was worried that I was not happy with them. I explained that this is not the case of course and they told me that Coherent has changed this unpopular policy: customers with a full service contract do not need to pay for shipment anymore. That's good news! :)

This also shows how efficient posting things on the confocal server can be! :):)

Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards
 
Sylvie
 
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Sylvie Le Guyader
Live Cell Imaging Unit Manager
Dept of Biosciences and Nutrition
Karolinska Institutet
Hälsovägen 7
Novum, G lift, floor 6
14157 Huddinge
Sweden
office: [phone]
LCI room 1: [phone]
LCI room 2: [phone]
mobile: [phone]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Sylvie Le
> Guyader
> Sent: 19 June 2014 08:16
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: comparison of lasers for MPM
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hi again
>
> I agree that the service quality is area dependent and we are super happy with our
> Swedish Coherent service.
>
> However the policy that the customer pays for shipping the laser back comes from
> Coherent so i would strongly advise scrutinizing the warranty conditions and asking
> about this if nothing is specified.
>
> We paid 3000€ to ship a defective laser despite a full service contract last year.
>
> I do not know if SP applies the same policy.
>
> Sylvie
>
> On 18 jun 2014, at 23:57, "Armstrong, Brian" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hi All, our experience with Coherent is quite the opposite. When our Chameleon
> Ultra was failing after 2500hrs, Coherent shipped the new LASER and we swapped
> them so that we did not lose even a single day of function. I think that we have
> done this three times now. Each time it has been a smooth transition. Several
> years ago they replaced a Chameleon 210 with an Ultra without charge. I would buy
> only Coherent for this very reason.
>
> With many products the service seems to vary depending upon the area and
> service personnel.
> Our experiences may be confined to Southern California but I believe Coherent
> company policies are customer oriented.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian D Armstrong PhD
> Associate Research Professor
> Director, Light Microscopy Core
> Beckman Research Institute
> City of Hope
> Dept of Neuroscience
> 1450 E Duarte Rd
> Duarte, CA 91010
> 626-256-4673 x62872
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Henthorn, Jim
> C. (HSC)
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:34 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: comparison of lasers for MPM
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Pam,
>
> I defiantly would not consider Coherent, since we have a Chameleon XR that died
> with 334 head hours and our only option is to send it to Scotland for repair for
> $35,000.  I was told that the service with the Mai Tai is much better.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Jim Henthorn
> Flow and Image Cytometry Lab
> 975 NE 10th Street BRC 1317
> Stanton L Young Biomedical Research Building
> Oklahoma City, OK 73104
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
> (405)-271-2035
> http://research.ouhsc.edu/core-facilities/
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 18, 2014, at 2:50 AM, Sylvie Le Guyader
> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-
> bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0
> A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2
> WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe
> 60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
> Post images on
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9I
> hC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKA
> pjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%
> 3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69d
> d3e4 and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hi Pam
>
> If you are into second and third harmonic generation, it can be useful to design the
> system so that you can split your TiSa before you pump it to higher wavelength.
> This way you get one line at 900-1000 nm to excite your fluorophore and one line at
> 1200-1300 for THG to visualize the tissue structure.
> Both SP DeepSee and Coherent TiSa/OPO can be split that way but the SP
> DeepSee delivers a fixed lower wavelength (1040nm which works for RFPs) and a
> tunable longer wavelength (690-1300nm) whereas in the Coherent system, both
> wavelength can be tuned (more flexible but more expensive).
> The question is then very much if you want to image second and third harmonics.
>
> If you do not need to THG, my understanding is that the SP and Coherent lasers
> are equivalent although I have only played with the Coherent Ultra II and the
> question is then if you want some compensation or not as Craig mentioned.
>
> Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards
>
> Sylvie
>
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> Sylvie Le Guyader
> Live Cell Imaging Unit Manager
> Dept of Biosciences and Nutrition
> Karolinska Institutet
> Hälsovägen 7
> Novum, G lift, floor 6
> 14157 Huddinge
> Sweden
> office: [phone]
> LCI room 1: [phone]
> LCI room 2: [phone]
> mobile: [phone]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pamela Young
> Sent: 18 June 2014 08:48
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: comparison of lasers for MPM
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-
> bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0
> A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2
> WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe
> 60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
> Post images on
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9I
> hC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKA
> pjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%
> 3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69d
> d3e4 and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Excellent point, Craig!  I¹m running a core facility, so I have a lot of different users
> with different applications.  So I guess from that standpoint, I¹m looking for
> thoughts on how the systems compare in range of use, ease of use, and reliability.
> Because you are right, each user will have a different application!
>
> Dr Pamela A. Young
> | Light and Optical Microscopist
> Australian Centre for Microscopy & Microanalysis
>
> THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
> Rm 116A, Madsen Building F09 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006 | Australia
> T [phone] | F [phone] E [hidden email] | W
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://sydney.edu.au/acmm&k=7DHVT2
> 2D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxl
> hKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEv
> E8%3D%0A&s=f849f1252085c3ec80735dbe463a3cdda92557e03d096f983db7e157
> a639195f
>
> Incorporating:
> Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22
> D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlh
> KApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE
> 8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7c
> a6e9e72
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT2
> 2D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxl
> hKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEv
> E8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7
> ca6e9e72> ARC Centre of Excellence
> for Design in Light Metals | W
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7D
> HVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZau
> YVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDP
> IJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d
> 97d3cce4594
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7
> DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZ
> auYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2B
> DPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec161
> 40d97d3cce4594>
>
> CRICOS 00026A
> This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any unauthorised use is
> strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please delete it and any
> attachments.
>
>
>
> On 18/06/2014 12:55 pm, "Craig Brideau" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-
> bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0
> A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2
> WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe
> 60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
> Post images on
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9I
> hC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKA
> pjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%
> 3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69d
> d3e4 and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> You are asking a bit of an 'apples vs. oranges' question here, in that
> different lasers with different accessories achieve different functions.
> Different lasers will be appropriate or inappropriate, depending on the
> type of imaging you want to do and the types of fluorophores you want
> to work with.
> I always start by asking the user what non-linear imaging they want to do.
> The usual answer is 2-photon, but some also want second harmonic
> generation capability (SHG), and some want higher-order 3-photon
> imaging, although this is pretty rare. This question gives clues as to
> what pulse width and tuning range the user may require.
> The next is what sort of tissues the user wants to image, and how deep
> they want to go. If they want to go very deep, this indicates that
> longer wavelength tuning ranges are appropriate, as well as dispersion
> control with shorter pulse widths, pointing to OPO or just a
> long-tuning Ti:Saph and pulse compression accessories. For relatively
> shallower imaging on not particularly scattering samples, these
> measures are not necessary.
> Then I ask what sort of fluorophores the user is used to working with,
> and which ones they plan to use. This will help nail down exactly what
> excitation wavelengths will be necessary, indicating what sort of
> tuning range will be necessary out of the laser, and whether or not an
> OPO will be needed. For multiple fluorophores it is important to
> determine if all of them can reasonably be excited by a single
> wavelength, or whether a second wavelength would be needed, which again
> points to an OPO for this situation. If the dyes the user wants will
> all work adequately with a single wavelength than just a basic laser is
> sufficient.
> Finally, the experience level of the user, and whether or not the
> system will be a 'core' system for multiple users, influences how
> user-friendly and turnkey the system and its accessories need to be.
> These are not the only considerations, but I hope it gives you some
> idea of the thought processes that go towards selecting a laser.
>
> Craig Brideau
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Pamela Young
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-
> bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0
> A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2
> WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe
> 60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
> Post images on
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9I
> hC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKA
> pjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%
> 3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69d
> d3e4 and include the link in your
> posting.
> *****
>
> Hello List,
>
> Has anyone done any comparisons of MPM lasers?  Most of my experience
> has  been with various versions of the MaiTai and the InSight  DeepSee
> (and of  course many much older lasers).  So if you have thoughts on
> how these  systems compare to the Chameleon and OPO, I would love your
> thoughts.
>
> Thanks,
> Pam
>
> Dr Pamela A. Young | Light and Optical Microscopist Australian Centre
> for Microscopy & Microanalysis
>
> THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
> Rm 116A, Madsen Building F09 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006
> | Australia T [phone] | F [phone] E
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> | W
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://sydney.edu.au/acmm&k=7DHVT2
> 2D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxl
> hKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEv
> E8%3D%0A&s=f849f1252085c3ec80735dbe463a3cdda92557e03d096f983db7e157
> a639195f
>
> Incorporating:
> Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22
> D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlh
> KApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE
> 8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7c
> a6e9e72<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=
> 7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYK
> ZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2
> BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d
> 1862bbb7ca6e9e72>
> ARC Centre of Excellence for Design in Light Metals | W
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7D
> HVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZau
> YVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDP
> IJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d
> 97d3cce4594<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals
> .org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0
> sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y
> 3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb5
> 8302ec16140d97d3cce4594>
>
> CRICOS 00026A
> This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any
> unauthorised use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in
> error, please delete it and any attachments.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> *SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:
> This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity
> to which they are addressed. This communication may contain information that is
> privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law (e.g.,
> personal health information, research data, financial information). Because this e-
> mail has been sent without encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient
> may be able to view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the
> information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are not the
> intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for delivering the
> message to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of
> the communication is strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in
> error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and
> deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If, due to the
> security risks, you do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please
> reply to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive further
> e-mail from the sender. (fpc5p)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Kate Luby-Phelps]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

In our core facility at UT Southwestern, we have three Coherent lasers: a refurbished Ultra
that was a replacement for our Chameleon XR, an Ultra II and a Vision. We carry service
contracts on all of them. We have found them to be very reliable and have experienced no
more than a day or two of down time since 2005, and none since we got rid of the XR. Our
head hours are in the thousands. The built in compensation on the Vision does give some
improvement in deep penetration but there is a time lag in the adjustment (through Zeiss
Zen software) that makes difficult to tweak it precisely. Don't know whether it is the laser or
the software that dictates this. In 10 years we have only had to ship a laser back twice and
both times Coherent sent us a replacement first. If we had to pay for shipping to Scotland I
am not aware of it. We have found that two photon excitation of mcherry is barely possible
with these lasers and cy5 is impossible, so if your users want to have a cy5 two photon
channel, an OPO will be necessary. Not sure whether the DeepSee can do far red? A Watt at
1300 nm sounds like it might do the job. Although I have no personal experience with SP,
what I hear via the grapevine suggests that the coherent and sp lasers are equally good
these days. My two cents.

[ChrisWilms]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi Kate,

Have you tried using a wavelength around 800 nm to excite mCherry? Most red RFPs have a strong excitation peak around 800 nm and in our hands mCherry is very bright under those circumstances.

Best, Chris

> We have found that two photon excitation of mcherry is barely possible
> with these lasers and cy5 is impossible, so if your users want to have a cy5 two photon
> channel, an OPO will be necessary.

[Pamela Young]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Thanks Kate!  I¹ve found it very difficult to excite mCherry with the
MaiTai at the higher wavelengths, but actually down at 780nm, it excites
so well, that it photobleaches extremely quickly.  But yes, I think for
more stable excitation, you really need to OPO or InSight for mCherry.
Haven¹t used Cy5 much so can¹t comment on it.  But this is exactly why I¹m
more inclined to get the OPO or InSight instead of just another Ti-Saph.
So many more options!

Dr Pamela A. Young
 | Light and Optical Microscopist
Australian Centre for Microscopy & Microanalysis

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
Rm 116A, Madsen Building F09 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006 |
Australia
T [phone] | F [phone]
E [hidden email] | W http://sydney.edu.au/acmm

Incorporating:
Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
http://www.ammrf.org.au <http://www.ammrf.org.au/>
ARC Centre of Excellence for Design in Light Metals | W
http://www.arclightmetals.org.au <http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/>

CRICOS 00026A
This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any unauthorised
use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please
delete it and any attachments.



On 19/06/2014 11:25 pm, "Kate Luby-Phelps"
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>*****
>To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
>*****
>
>In our core facility at UT Southwestern, we have three Coherent lasers: a
>refurbished Ultra
>that was a replacement for our Chameleon XR, an Ultra II and a Vision. We
>carry service
>contracts on all of them. We have found them to be very reliable and have
>experienced no
>more than a day or two of down time since 2005, and none since we got rid
>of the XR. Our
>head hours are in the thousands. The built in compensation on the Vision
>does give some
>improvement in deep penetration but there is a time lag in the adjustment
>(through Zeiss
>Zen software) that makes difficult to tweak it precisely. Don't know
>whether it is the laser or
>the software that dictates this. In 10 years we have only had to ship a
>laser back twice and
>both times Coherent sent us a replacement first. If we had to pay for
>shipping to Scotland I
>am not aware of it. We have found that two photon excitation of mcherry
>is barely possible
>with these lasers and cy5 is impossible, so if your users want to have a
>cy5 two photon
>channel, an OPO will be necessary. Not sure whether the DeepSee can do
>far red? A Watt at
>1300 nm sounds like it might do the job. Although I have no personal
>experience with SP,
>what I hear via the grapevine suggests that the coherent and sp lasers
>are equally good
>these days. My two cents.