Re: Olympus FV1000 vs Nikon A1

Posted by on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Olympus-FV1000-vs-Nikon-A1-tp4567055p4582693.html

The 30 to 50% higher on the FV1000 was just relative to the A1. I tried as like for like as I could with the spectrally flexible Olympus FV1000 channels and the 32 channel spectral array of the Nikon A1 as I wanted compare the spectrally flexible detection.
For the sample we used plastic test samples that Chroma gives away in their slides boxes and these are extremely bright. Due to the brightness these give a rough idea of system transmission but not of extreme subtleties in the noise at very low signal levels.
The imaging speed was around 1FPS so the improved DISP electronics would not factor in as much as if I used a much faster speed.
On the main beam splitter side I would be careful how the sensitivity term is used. If you already get 80 or 90% transmission through a reasonably modern beam splitter at 45 degrees then an improvement of 30% is just impossible. I do not doubt there is an improvement but the claim of 30% is also based on a widening of the spectral bandwidth as you no longer have these 40nm dead zones around the laser lines.
I think that the real bonus of the narrow angle design is that the laser blocking is much higher, by an order of magnitude or two and so looking at weak samples close to reflective cover slips becomes possible. And this is where the plastic test samples may not always be an ideal test as I cold not rule reflection out from the measurement and this could have biased the results in favour of the FV1000. When I have repeated this type of test more recently I use the same setup in terms of things like gain and spectral bandwidth, use a plane glass slide instead of the fluorescent sample and put the laser power much higher to check to ensure there is no reflection leaking through. I have not had a chance to repeat that on the FV1000 yet though.
I know that it was not an option to Pedro but in regard to Tim’s comments I would check out the Zeiss 710 where the 32 channel PMT seems to have caught up with the sensitivity of the single PMT’s so I am not sure quite how inherent the limitation is these days.

Regards
Martin

 - No commercial interest

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Tim Feinstein <[hidden email]> wrote:

I would stress the need to do an apples-to-apples comparison.  The A1 has a very sensitive filter-based detection unit, but I have found that the spectral unit has a noticeably lower sensitivity (for other reasons we generally use spectral anyway).  This is not a design flaw, but a limitation inherent in multi-PMT spectral imaging.  It would surprise me as well if the A1 lagged significantly behind other scopes when using identical filters and dichroics.  

cheers, 

Tim

- no commercial interest -

On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Roshma Azeem wrote:

It is quite surprising to see that FV1000 measures 30 to 50% higher sensitivity. Over which system? I have done so many crazy comparisons between A1 and FV1000 with the same set of samples and found that A1’s performance is far better. Even with faint dyes, we could see clear images in A1 that was not possible with FV1000.

There are clear cut differences in the hardware architecture and the features. As mentioned in Tim’s mail, FV1000 has to be compared with the previous sets of confocal systems like 510, C1 and SP2. As Leoncio said, may be Olympus may challenge the market with a new model in near future.

Regarding sensitivity, A1 integrates certain unique features like weak signal sensitivity through dual integration signal processing (DISP) and low incidence 12 degree angle excitation dichroic mirror that enhances 30% more fluorescence efficiency, when compare to conventional 45 degree angle dichroic.

In addition, spectral unmixing sensitivity is a riveting experience with A1si, when we use four or more color dyes even in the close range (like Alexa488 and YFP).

I came across a review on A1 which is very informative that can be downloaded from:

http://www.microscopyu.com/references/pdfs/Light_and_Maverick_Advanced_Biotech_March-36-2008.pdf


Roshma.

- No commercial interest -

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Alberto Diaspro <[hidden email]> wrote:

I do agree with Leoncio, too, following my direct experience both with FV1000 and A1.
Alby


Il giorno 16/feb/2010, alle ore 16.32, Vergara, Leoncio A. ha scritto:

> I have used both systems and I agree with the opinion that the A1 is a more advanced machine. Both are good and I have had good experience with the FV1000, but as it was said already, the A1 is a more powerfull machine. If you are intersted on spectral imaging, I think the A1 is the best choice. The FV1000 captures one channel at a time which makes spectral imaging non practical for many applications. The software of the FV1000 is limited in comparison with Nikon elements which is the sofwtare that powers the A1. Elements has very powerfull image analysis features. Also the workflow with elements is better than with the FV1000 software. May be an updated model by Olympus is overdue?
>
> Leoncio
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tim Feinstein
> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:21 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Olympus FV1000 vs Nikon A1
>
> Dear Pedro,
>
> In a sense I think that the question is unfair, as the FV1000 feature set should best be compared with its contemporaries such as the Zeiss 510, Nikon C1 and Lieca SP2.  In that class I think it stands up quite well.  The Nikon A1 includes technical upgrades and modularity options (e.g., resonant scanning with 2-photon, 32-channel spectral detection, integrated TIRF and other detection improvements that Roshma mentioned) which place the A1 among the latest generation such as the Zeiss 710 and Leica SP5.  Barring a strong price incentive and assuming you do not have compatibility issues with existing equipment, the A1 seems like a better choice.  Just make sure to ask for the most _stable_ software build rather than the most recent.
>
> That said, you should ideally ask Olympus and Nikon (and others, if possible) for product demos to see which system best matches your personal needs.
>
> This is my personal opinion only; no commercial interest.
>
> All the best,
>
>
> Tim
>
>
> On Feb 14, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Alberto Diaspro wrote:
>
>> In addition to my direct comments, i do agree AD
>>
>> p.s. the tirf section is also better, from my viewpoint Il giorno
>> 14/feb/2010, alle ore 16.16, Roshma Azeem ha scritto:
>>
>>>
>>> Dear Pedro,
>>>
>>> I have used both the machines and satisfied with the performance of both. However, Nikon A1's built quality and performance is far better than Olympus FV 1000. If you are planning to buy a system with spectral detector, then I would like to say that A1si or A1Rsi would stand apart due to 32 channel multi-anode PMT.
>>>
>>> The image quality and sensitivity of A1 is really cool. The continuously variable 1X to 1000X zoom of A1 gives good flexibility. I feel more comfortable with the hexagonal pinhole of A1 that gives better images. Most importantly, the spectral detector has multiple gratings that allows the spectral step size of 2.5nm, 6nm and 10nm.
>>>
>>> I think only the A1 confocal has fiber connected detectors that is separated from scan head. I have never experienced data loss or scan head induced artifacts or thermal noise.
>>>
>>> Want to hear the experiences of other users of these machines.
>>>
>>> Roshma.
>>>
>>> PS: No commercial interest.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Pedro J Camello <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> has anybody in the list performed some real comparison between
>>> Olympus FV1000 and Nikon A1? We´re in the proccess of purchase a
>>> general-use confocal, and any input (either on or off-list) will be very wellcome.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr Pedro J Camello
>>> Dpt Physiology
>>> Faculty of Veterinary Sciences
>>> University of Extremadura
>>> 10071 Caceres
>>> Spain
>>> Ph: 927257000 Extension 51321/51290
>>> Fax:[phone]
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ISTITUTO ITALIANO
>> DI TECNOLOGIA
>>
>> Prof. Alberto Diaspro
>> Scientific Head
>> Nanophysics
>> Via Morego, 30 16163 Genova
>> Tel: [phone]
>> Fax [phone]
>> Mobile [phone]
>> www.iit.it
>> [hidden email]






ISTITUTO ITALIANO
DI TECNOLOGIA

Prof. Alberto Diaspro
Scientific Head
Nanophysics
Via Morego, 30 16163 Genova
Tel: [phone]
Fax [phone]
Mobile [phone]
www.iit.it
[hidden email]