http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Coverslip-thickness-and-correction-collar-tp591122p591128.html
> Dear George
>
> On a recent test I did, I discovered something that I had not expected.
> A dry objective would significantly underestimate the thickness of a
> glass coverslip.
>
> For a #1 coverslip, a 20x dry objective would measure it as 98microns
> thick, where as a 63oil objective as 138microns thick.
> For a #1.5 coverslip the values were 113microns and 160microns
> respectively.
>
> As I said, I wasn't expecting it because the 20 lens was coverslip
> corrected.
>
> So you have to be very careful when using dry objectives to measure
> anything in Z.
>
> regards
>
> *********************************
> Stamatis Pagakis Ph.D.
> Biological Imaging Unit
> Biomedical Research Foundation, Academy of Athens
>
[hidden email]
>
>
>
>
> > Compared to the cost of the confocal time (or of an LSM510), or of
> > your time to do manual image analysis, or cost of the analysis
> > computer and image analysis software, the extra cost is trivial. Plus,
> > you can sort the "rejects" and use them with lenses each thickness is
> > optimized for.
>
> > George McNamara, Ph.D.
> > University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine
> > Image Core
> > Miami, FL 33010
> >
[hidden email]
> >
[hidden email]
> > 305-243-8436 office
> >
http://home.earthlink.net/~pubspectra/> >
http://home.earthlink.net/~geomcnamara/> >
http://www.sylvester.org/health_pro/shared_resources/index.asp (see
> > Analytical Imaging Core Facility)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1177 - Release Date:
> > 7/12/2007 1:11 PM
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1178 - Release Date:
> > 8/12/2007 11:59 AM
>