Posted by
Craig Brideau on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/comparison-of-lasers-for-MPM-tp7582206p7582207.html
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopyPost images on
http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****
You are asking a bit of an 'apples vs. oranges' question here, in that
different lasers with different accessories achieve different functions.
Different lasers will be appropriate or inappropriate, depending on the
type of imaging you want to do and the types of fluorophores you want to
work with.
I always start by asking the user what non-linear imaging they want to do.
The usual answer is 2-photon, but some also want second harmonic generation
capability (SHG), and some want higher-order 3-photon imaging, although
this is pretty rare. This question gives clues as to what pulse width and
tuning range the user may require.
The next is what sort of tissues the user wants to image, and how deep they
want to go. If they want to go very deep, this indicates that longer
wavelength tuning ranges are appropriate, as well as dispersion control
with shorter pulse widths, pointing to OPO or just a long-tuning Ti:Saph
and pulse compression accessories. For relatively shallower imaging on not
particularly scattering samples, these measures are not necessary.
Then I ask what sort of fluorophores the user is used to working with, and
which ones they plan to use. This will help nail down exactly what
excitation wavelengths will be necessary, indicating what sort of tuning
range will be necessary out of the laser, and whether or not an OPO will be
needed. For multiple fluorophores it is important to determine if all of
them can reasonably be excited by a single wavelength, or whether a second
wavelength would be needed, which again points to an OPO for this
situation. If the dyes the user wants will all work adequately with a
single wavelength than just a basic laser is sufficient.
Finally, the experience level of the user, and whether or not the system
will be a 'core' system for multiple users, influences how user-friendly
and turnkey the system and its accessories need to be.
These are not the only considerations, but I hope it gives you some idea of
the thought processes that go towards selecting a laser.
Craig Brideau
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Pamela Young <
[hidden email]>
wrote:
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy> Post images on
http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hello List,
>
> Has anyone done any comparisons of MPM lasers? Most of my experience has
> been with various versions of the MaiTai and the InSight DeepSee (and of
> course many much older lasers). So if you have thoughts on how these
> systems compare to the Chameleon and OPO, I would love your thoughts.
>
> Thanks,
> Pam
>
> Dr Pamela A. Young | Light and Optical Microscopist
> Australian Centre for Microscopy & Microanalysis
>
> THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
> Rm 116A, Madsen Building F09 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006 |
> Australia
> T +61 2 9351 7527 | F +61 2 9351 7682
> E
[hidden email]<mailto:
[hidden email]> | W
>
http://sydney.edu.au/acmm>
> Incorporating:
> Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
>
http://www.ammrf.org.au<
http://www.ammrf.org.au/>
> ARC Centre of Excellence for Design in Light Metals | W
>
http://www.arclightmetals.org.au<
http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/>
>
> CRICOS 00026A
> This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any unauthorised
> use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please
> delete it and any attachments.
>