Posted by
leoncio vergara on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Olympus-FV1000-vs-Nikon-A1-tp4567055p4635785.html
Depends on what you want to do.
Obviously the resonant scanned allows you to capture images at higher speed, this does not mean only the ability to follow up faster events, but also you can capture faster z-stacks and multi-location experiments.
The resonant scanner can also be used for fast FRAP experiments, you can image with the resonant scanner while using the conventional scanner to photobleachwithout having to interrupt image capture. I only ried it once and it seems to work well. The limitation os that it only works with 405nm as I understand.
Other than that, you need to have in moind the limitations: faster scanning means worst signal to noise ratio and you don't have all the versatility of conventional scanners...
...unfortunately I understand that you have to make the decision at the moment of purchase, I don't think you can add it later... (?)
-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Amol Karwa
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 3:43 PM
To:
[hidden email]
Subject: Re: Olympus FV1000 vs Nikon A1
Hello everyone,
Well right now I don't have anything substantial to add to the discussion except that we were in similar situation and we are going with Nikon A1. The decision was simply based on our imaging needs and the superiority of Nikon A1. The instrument is being installed as we speak and I'm really excited to use it. It will be pretty big jump from Leica SP2 to this A1
However I do have a question and this comes from the inexperience. What advantage that A1r scanhead provides vis a vis A1? I know it has high speed imaging capabilities but would you say A1 can do most of the job for live cell imaging?
Thanks,
Amol
--
View this message in context:
http://n2.nabble.com/Olympus-FV1000-vs-Nikon-A1-tp4567055p4635601.htmlSent from the Confocal Microscopy List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.