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.