http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/comparison-of-lasers-for-MPM-tp7582206p7582223.html
After posting the email below, I got a call from Coherent Sweden who was worried that I was not happy with them. I explained that this is not the case of course and they told me that Coherent has changed this unpopular policy: customers with a full service contract do not need to pay for shipment anymore. That's good news! :)
This also shows how efficient posting things on the confocal server can be! :):)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List
> [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Sylvie Le
> Guyader
> Sent: 19 June 2014 08:16
> To:
[hidden email]
> Subject: Re: comparison of lasers for MPM
>
> *****
> 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.
> *****
>
> Hi again
>
> I agree that the service quality is area dependent and we are super happy with our
> Swedish Coherent service.
>
> However the policy that the customer pays for shipping the laser back comes from
> Coherent so i would strongly advise scrutinizing the warranty conditions and asking
> about this if nothing is specified.
>
> We paid 3000€ to ship a defective laser despite a full service contract last year.
>
> I do not know if SP applies the same policy.
>
> Sylvie
>
> On 18 jun 2014, at 23:57, "Armstrong, Brian" <
[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.
> *****
>
> Hi All, our experience with Coherent is quite the opposite. When our Chameleon
> Ultra was failing after 2500hrs, Coherent shipped the new LASER and we swapped
> them so that we did not lose even a single day of function. I think that we have
> done this three times now. Each time it has been a smooth transition. Several
> years ago they replaced a Chameleon 210 with an Ultra without charge. I would buy
> only Coherent for this very reason.
>
> With many products the service seems to vary depending upon the area and
> service personnel.
> Our experiences may be confined to Southern California but I believe Coherent
> company policies are customer oriented.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian D Armstrong PhD
> Associate Research Professor
> Director, Light Microscopy Core
> Beckman Research Institute
> City of Hope
> Dept of Neuroscience
> 1450 E Duarte Rd
> Duarte, CA 91010
> 626-256-4673 x62872
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List
> [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Henthorn, Jim
> C. (HSC)
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:34 AM
> To:
[hidden email]
> Subject: Re: comparison of lasers for MPM
>
> *****
> 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.
> *****
>
> Pam,
>
> I defiantly would not consider Coherent, since we have a Chameleon XR that died
> with 334 head hours and our only option is to send it to Scotland for repair for
> $35,000. I was told that the service with the Mai Tai is much better.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Jim Henthorn
> Flow and Image Cytometry Lab
> 975 NE 10th Street BRC 1317
> Stanton L Young Biomedical Research Building
> Oklahoma City, OK 73104
>
[hidden email]<mailto:
[hidden email]>
> (405)-271-2035
>
http://research.ouhsc.edu/core-facilities/>
>
>
>
> On Jun 18, 2014, at 2:50 AM, Sylvie Le Guyader
> <
[hidden email]<mailto:
[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-> bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0
> A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2
> WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe
> 60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
> Post images on
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9I> hC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKA
> pjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%
> 3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69d
> d3e4 and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hi Pam
>
> If you are into second and third harmonic generation, it can be useful to design the
> system so that you can split your TiSa before you pump it to higher wavelength.
> This way you get one line at 900-1000 nm to excite your fluorophore and one line at
> 1200-1300 for THG to visualize the tissue structure.
> Both SP DeepSee and Coherent TiSa/OPO can be split that way but the SP
> DeepSee delivers a fixed lower wavelength (1040nm which works for RFPs) and a
> tunable longer wavelength (690-1300nm) whereas in the Coherent system, both
> wavelength can be tuned (more flexible but more expensive).
> The question is then very much if you want to image second and third harmonics.
>
> If you do not need to THG, my understanding is that the SP and Coherent lasers
> are equivalent although I have only played with the Coherent Ultra II and the
> question is then if you want some compensation or not as Craig mentioned.
>
> Med vänlig hälsning / Best regards
>
> Sylvie
>
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> Sylvie Le Guyader
> Live Cell Imaging Unit Manager
> Dept of Biosciences and Nutrition
> Karolinska Institutet
> Hälsovägen 7
> Novum, G lift, floor 6
> 14157 Huddinge
> Sweden
> office: +46 (0) 8 5248 1107
> LCI room 1: +46 (0) 8 5248 1172
> LCI room 2: +46 (0) 8 5248 3542
> mobile: +46 (0) 73 733 5008
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List
> [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pamela Young
> Sent: 18 June 2014 08:48
> To:
[hidden email]
> Subject: Re: comparison of lasers for MPM
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-> bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0
> A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2
> WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe
> 60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
> Post images on
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9I> hC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKA
> pjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%
> 3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69d
> d3e4 and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Excellent point, Craig! I¹m running a core facility, so I have a lot of different users
> with different applications. So I guess from that standpoint, I¹m looking for
> thoughts on how the systems compare in range of use, ease of use, and reliability.
> Because you are right, each user will have a different application!
>
> 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] | W
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://sydney.edu.au/acmm&k=7DHVT2> 2D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxl
> hKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEv
> E8%3D%0A&s=f849f1252085c3ec80735dbe463a3cdda92557e03d096f983db7e157
> a639195f
>
> Incorporating:
> Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22> D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlh
> KApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE
> 8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7c
> a6e9e72
> <
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT2> 2D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxl
> hKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEv
> E8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7
> ca6e9e72> ARC Centre of Excellence
> for Design in Light Metals | W
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7D> HVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZau
> YVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDP
> IJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d
> 97d3cce4594
> <
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7> DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZ
> auYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2B
> DPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec161
> 40d97d3cce4594>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> On 18/06/2014 12:55 pm, "Craig Brideau" <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-> bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0
> A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2
> WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe
> 60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
> Post images on
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9I> hC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKA
> pjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%
> 3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69d
> d3e4 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:
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-> bin/wa?A0%3Dconfocalmicroscopy&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0
> A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2
> WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=fc183722604d7fe
> 60506cf9250269115d1070ad5350ff06a79a944fd50e6de56
> Post images on
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.imgur.com/&k=7DHVT22D9I> hC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKA
> pjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%
> 3D%0A&s=706afea7c33045a319dcc5d39cb6b2c04cd9436deeeaed263e88114fe69d
> d3e4 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
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://sydney.edu.au/acmm&k=7DHVT2> 2D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxl
> hKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEv
> E8%3D%0A&s=f849f1252085c3ec80735dbe463a3cdda92557e03d096f983db7e157
> a639195f
>
> Incorporating:
> Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) | W
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=7DHVT22> D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZauYVxlh
> KApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE
> 8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d1862bbb7c
> a6e9e72<
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ammrf.org.au/&k=> 7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYK
> ZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2
> BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=0648608bd4e23a9257f00ae91080e53eb965199939e8fb3d
> 1862bbb7ca6e9e72>
> ARC Centre of Excellence for Design in Light Metals | W
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals.org.au/&k=7D> HVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0sSGcQrYKZau
> YVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y3ZW3f%2BDP
> IJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb58302ec16140d
> 97d3cce4594<
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.arclightmetals> .org.au/&k=7DHVT22D9IhC0F3WohFMBA%3D%3D%0A&r=svlHKECXtjjwqCHo3w0
> sSGcQrYKZauYVxlhKApjyKRQ%3D%0A&m=tRcSo2WLH62w4Fv3gfoe6werNhQ3Y
> 3ZW3f%2BDPIJEvE8%3D%0A&s=8d03c521cfb6f750b46e300a96927efaa7a0acfb5
> 8302ec16140d97d3cce4594>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> *SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING:
> This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity
> to which they are addressed. This communication may contain information that is
> privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law (e.g.,
> personal health information, research data, financial information). Because this e-
> mail has been sent without encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient
> may be able to view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the
> information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are not the
> intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for delivering the
> message to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of
> the communication is strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in
> error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and
> deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If, due to the
> security risks, you do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please
> reply to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive further
> e-mail from the sender. (fpc5p)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------