The spining disk is limited to one pinhole size but the 2D array scanning Infinity3 has sever different pinholes. We have the Infinity3 and find the choice of pinholes is very important. For some samples, thinner optical sections (with smaller pinholes) is important and for some samples more intensity (with larger pinholes) is important. Don't forget the camera, I would recommend the most sensitive you can get. Most samples have too few photons! The Hamamatsu backthinned C9100-13 works well for us.
Subject: Re: Spinning disk requirement ... consider alternative array scan confocal
> Hi Charu,
>
> Check out VT-Infinity and VT-Hawk at Visitech
>
http://www.visitech.co.uk/site/products.php The VT-Hawk adds
> FRAP/photoactivation capability to the Infinity. Visitech sold
> Yokogawa's for a long time - Steve Coleman told me in April 2009
> that
> their company was selling off its remaining spinning disk
> inventory
> to focus exclusively on their array scanners. A VT with the
> right
> EMCCD would be a great combination. My biggest concern with
> Visitech
> is how do they support overseas: they are a British company, so
> I am
> referring to both here (USA) and you.
>
> As for Calcium ion flux, the "standard of care" is Fura-2 for
> its
> dynamic range. However, the excitation light path of most
> fluorescence microscopes are such that UV is usually not
> parfocal
> with visible. Until recently, even violet (405 nm) was not
> parfocal
> with green and
red (and now only a few expensive objective
> lenses
> are). Parfocality is not critical in widefield Fura-2, but would
> be
> for confocal. The dynamic range of fluorescent protein based
> biosensors is not anywhere near Fura-2, but are getting better,
> for
> example, GCaMP-3, and can be targeted to specific location(s) by
> appropriate targeting sequences.
>
> CARV II - I manage a BD pathway 855 that has a CARV (I?) inside.
> Nice
> to be able to see confocal by eye, but the BD (formerly ATTO)
> software is bad. If you buy a CARV II, be sure to evaluate the
> software that you will be using with it.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George
>
> At 02:36 AM 12/30/2009, you wrote:
> >Dear All
> >
> >I request all the members to please help me to decide for a
> spinning disk
> >confocal
microscope for our facility which is a multiuser
> facility for the
> >whole university. We already have a point scanning confocal
> system from
> >Olympus. We will have another point scanning confocal soon with
> all the live
> >cell imaging accessories (laser based).
> >For very fast phenomenon like measuring Calcium Flux in the
> cells, we want
> >to have a multi point scanning system. But i am unable to
> decide whether i
> >should take a fluorescence based spinning disk or laser based
> spinning disk
> >confocal.
> >Also, please give me some feedback for CARV II (multi point confocal,
> >fluorescence based).
> >Please help.
> >Thanks in advance.
> >
> >Charu Tanwar
> >Imaging Specialist
> >Advanced Instrumentation Research Facility
> >Jawaharlal Nehru
University
> >New Delhi
> >India.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> George McNamara, Ph.D.
> Image Core Manager
> Analytical Imaging Core Facility
> University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine
> Miami, FL 33136
>
[hidden email]>
[hidden email]> 305-243-8436 office
> http://www.sylvester.org/AICF (Analytical Imaging Core Facility)
> http://www.sylvester.org/AICF/pubspectra.zip (the entire 2000+
> spectra .xlsx file is in the zip file)
> http://home.earthlink.net/~geomcnamara
>
>
> --
> BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 980990647) is spam:
> Spam:
> https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=980990647&m=9f951fb53215&c=sNot
>
spam: https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=980990647&m=9f951fb53215&c=n
> Forget vote:
> https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=980990647&m=9f951fb53215&c=f----
> --------------------------------------------------
> END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
>
Richard W. Burry, Ph.D.