Meridian or Noran confocals?
David Knecht
We are planning a grant to purchase a new confocal, presumably one with
faster acquisition (video rate?) and better sensitivity than our MRC600. I
have been rereading some of the old traffic regarding what is the "best"
confocal in current opinion. I have heard virtually nothing about the
Noran and Meridian instruments in comparison to Nikon, Zeiss, BIorad and
Leica. Are they not worth the energy to investigate or do the users not
read this list? Dave
Dr. David Knecht
Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
University of Connecticut
U-125
Storrs, CT 06269
Kne...@uconnvm.uconn.edu
Richard L. Nuccitelli
On the contrary. The Noran Oz is the best "fast" confocal system available.
I have played with it at Woods Hole last summer and was quite impressed.
The software is the best available on any confocal out there and it
routinely does 30 full frames/second. This is ten times faster than the
Leica and 30 times faster than Zeiss or BioRad. While I did not purchase
this machine for my multiuser facility, it is only because the Leica
satisfies a larger user base better. However, as a second machine I would
definitely go for the Noran Oz.
Rich Nuccitelli
Richard Nuccitelli
Molecular and Cellular Biology
University of California, Davis
Davis, CA 95616
(916)752-3152 FAX:(916)752-1449
Jamie Eisenhart
>We are planning a grant to purchase a new confocal, presumably one with
>faster acquisition (video rate?) and better sensitivity than our MRC600. I
>have been rereading some of the old traffic regarding what is the "best"
>confocal in current opinion. I have heard virtually nothing about the
>Noran and Meridian instruments in comparison to Nikon, Zeiss, BIorad and
>Leica. Are they not worth the energy to investigate or do the users not
>read this list? Dave
>
>Dr. David Knecht
>Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
>University of Connecticut
>U-125
>Storrs, CT 06269
>Kne...@uconnvm.uconn.edu
David,
We have a Noran, and it has been no end of trouble. Part of our problem is
that we have a non-standard Mac controller package that we bought instead
of the Noran software. However, Noran has given us absolutely *awful*
customer service. They are consistently rude when we call them, and they
blame every problem that our confocal has (and it has many) on the
software. I wouldn't buy anything from them.
Jamie Eisenhart
UCSD Neuroscience
Dr. Gordon Warren
> David,
>
> We have a Noran, and it has been no end of trouble. Part of our problem is
> that we have a non-standard Mac controller package that we bought instead
> of the Noran software. However, Noran has given us absolutely *awful*
> customer service. They are consistently rude when we call them, and they
> blame every problem that our confocal has (and it has many) on the
> software. I wouldn't buy anything from them.
>
> Jamie Eisenhart
> UCSD Neuroscience
I've had a NORAN Odyssey XL with a SGI for ~1.5 years. My experience
with NORAN has been quite different than that of Jamie's. When we've had
problems, they have been quite responsive both on over-the-phone and in-person
service calls. I consider their support to be superior to that I received in
the past when using BioRad MRC600 and Zeiss LSM systems. NORAN has to pay
attention to the customer otherwise they will be eaten up by the big boys.
As far as a real-time CLSM, I have yet to see one better (though I
haven't seen the latest Meridian versions). (And the new NORAN Oz sounds like
it's a major improvement over the Odyssey.) The Nikon RCM8000 seems to be too
heavily oriented towards UV so that it doesn't do visible light imaging that
well.
--
Gordon L. Warren, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
Muscle Biology Laboratory
158 Read Building
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843-4243
Fax (409) 862-4808
Phone (409) 862-4809 office
e-mail ro...@rangers.tamu.edu
Y.S. Prakash
On Dec 13, 12:54pm, Dr. Gordon Warren wrote:
> Subject: Re: Meridian or Noran confocals?
> I've had a NORAN Odyssey XL with a SGI for ~1.5 years. My experience
> with NORAN has been quite different than that of Jamie's. When we've had
> problems, they have been quite responsive both on over-the-phone and
in-person
> service calls. I consider their support to be superior to that I received in
> the past when using BioRad MRC600 and Zeiss LSM systems. NORAN has to pay
> attention to the customer otherwise they will be eaten up by the big boys.
>
> As far as a real-time CLSM, I have yet to see one better (though I
> haven't seen the latest Meridian versions). (And the new NORAN Oz sounds like
> it's a major improvement over the Odyssey.) The Nikon RCM8000 seems to be too
> heavily oriented towards UV so that it doesn't do visible light imaging that
> well.
>
> --
I concur with Dr. Warren's opinion on Noran's good service and support. We
have been using the Odyssey XL for the past 1.2 yrs, and every time we had a
question or problem, there has always been someone at Noran to help us out.
Their technical staff is very well-informed, and they are willing to listen to
suggestions for improvements. In spite of being a smaller company compared to
most of the other confocal dealers, I think Noran has managed to survive quite
well. Part of the appeal for their confocal system is the super video rate
acquisition. And things seem to be getting even better with their new product.
Prakash
--
______________________________________________________________________
Y.S. Prakash, Ph.D.
4-176 W. Joseph SMH 211 15th St. NE #205
Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN 55906
Rochester, MN 55905 (507) 280-8199
(507) 255-7560
----------------------------------
Knowledge is Power; Time is Money.
Power=Work/Time => Knowledge=Work/Money => Money=Work/Knowledge
As Knowledge -> 0, Money -> Infinity
i.e. The More You Know, The Less Money You Make!!!!
_______________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: These opinions are MINE, MINE, MINE! I was a spoiled kid!
_______________________________________________________________________
Richard Hotchkiss
In regards to the best "fast" confocal system , I would like to put my
vote in for the Nikon RCM 8000. We have had this system for 2 years and
it has been an exciting and fun time working with the instrument. It will
also do 30 full frames /second of true confocal images. We have obtained
excellent in vivo images at video rates and we intend to put these movies
on the net in the near future. The RCM has several other advantages
including the fact that it only illuminates the specimen during actual
data acquisition thus decreasing photodamage. Service has also been very
good for the instrument.
Richard Hotchkiss MD
Washington University School of Medicine
On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Richard L. Nuccitelli wrote:
> On the contrary. The Noran Oz is the best "fast" confocal system available.
> I have played with it at Woods Hole last summer and was quite impressed.
> The software is the best available on any confocal out there and it
> routinely does 30 full frames/second. This is ten times faster than the
> Leica and 30 times faster than Zeiss or BioRad. While I did not purchase
> this machine for my multiuser facility, it is only because the Leica
> satisfies a larger user base better. However, as a second machine I would
> definitely go for the Noran Oz.
> Rich Nuccitelli
>
> At 11:49 PM 12/12/96 -0500, you wrote:
> >We are planning a grant to purchase a new confocal, presumably one with
> >faster acquisition (video rate?) and better sensitivity than our MRC600. I
> >have been rereading some of the old traffic regarding what is the "best"
> >confocal in current opinion. I have heard virtually nothing about the
> >Noran and Meridian instruments in comparison to Nikon, Zeiss, BIorad and
> >Leica. Are they not worth the energy to investigate or do the users not
> >read this list? Dave
> >
> >Dr. David Knecht
> >Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
> >University of Connecticut
> >U-125
> >Storrs, CT 06269
> >Kne...@uconnvm.uconn.edu
> >
> >
Cork, Robert, John
At 10:51 AM 12/13/96 -0800, you wrote:
>>We are planning a grant to purchase a new confocal, presumably one with
>>faster acquisition (video rate?) and better sensitivity than our MRC600. I
>>have been rereading some of the old traffic regarding what is the "best"
>>confocal in current opinion. I have heard virtually nothing about the
>>Noran and Meridian instruments in comparison to Nikon, Zeiss, BIorad and
>>Leica. Are they not worth the energy to investigate or do the users not
>>read this list? Dave
>>
>>Dr. David Knecht
>>Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
>>University of Connecticut
>>U-125
>>Storrs, CT 06269
>>Kne...@uconnvm.uconn.edu
>
>
>We have a Noran, and it has been no end of trouble. Part of our problem is
>that we have a non-standard Mac controller package that we bought instead
>of the Noran software. However, Noran has given us absolutely *awful*
>customer service. They are consistently rude when we call them, and they
>blame every problem that our confocal has (and it has many) on the
>software. I wouldn't buy anything from them.
>
>Jamie Eisenhart
>UCSD Neuroscience
I have just caught up on this thread, and realise that a number of others
have already replied, but I would like to say that my experience with Noran
is quite the opposite. We have a Odyssey which has been very little trouble.
Noran Technical support have always been very helpful and have responded
quickly when needed.
Regarding the merits of the Noran machine I have not compared it with many
others but it seems to me that one of the big advantages of it is the software.
Dr. John Cork,
Calcium Imaging Facility
Department of Anatomy, LSUMC,
1901 Perdido St., New Orleans
LA 70112
e-mail: jc...@lsumc.edu
tel: (504) 568 7059 FAX: (504) 568 4392
Sam Wang
Here at Duke University Neurobiology, we use a Noran Odyssey
with a Silicon Graphics Indy front-end (Noran standard). We have
technically intensive needs -- focal uncaging, patch clamping, and
calcium imaging in brain slices -- and we are constantly testing the
limits of Noran's software and hardware.
Throughout this process, our contacts at Noran have been very
pleasant and helpful. When a problem arises, they always make
efforts to identify the source, sometimes over the phone and
sometimes by logging in to the machine remotely.
The system software is complex, and when problems arise they are
more often with that than with hardware. I am guessing that the story
would be the same for the home-grown software used at at UCSD.
Unfortunately, since they did not develop it, the Noran
people might not be in the best position to be helpful in that regard.
If I were buying from Noran (which I would!) I'd get the whole
schmear. And tell them Sam sent you.
Dr. Sam Wang
Laboratory of Dr. George Augustine
Dept. of Neurobiology, Box 3209
Duke University Medical Center
Durham, NC 27710
Jacques Paysan
I completely agree with Sam. As the person who probably suffered most from
the dysfunctional NORAN confocal at UCSD I know this story well.
We use the Macintosh Version of Odyssey that is not produced (but
commissioned, as I understand) by NORAN. We had the following problem:
Upon start-up several interactions take place between the CLSM and the
computer. One of those is needed to calculate the right astigmatism
correction factor - important if you are trying to do double labeling
experiments. For more than a year, this single event didn't happen on our
machine, resulting in one of the two images (with either the 488nm or 529nm
exciter filter) being terribly distorted. After almost one year of
problems the bug was finally fixed by the programmer of the Mac Odyssey
software - who found that one of our system extensions was not compatible
with his hypercard written program.
It is correct that this wasn't a NORAN problem in the narrow sense.
However, if they had agreed to send over an expert 9 months earlier to
diagnose the problem (which was obviously beyond our skills) this would
have prevented much damage to my scientific project.
I am not really criticizing NORAN, and I had very good interactions with
their engineers who always appeared helpful and friendly to me.
Nevertheless, I would have greatly appreciated if NORAN gave us a little
more help with this particular problem even though it was not exactly their
fault.
Besides that I think the NORAN confocal is a fine instrument. I would also
strongly recommend to buy the entire package from them - including software
and computer - rather than the CLSM only.
I hope this helps to finish the discussion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jacques Paysan, Ph.D.
Address: Dep. Biology, 0357
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, CA 92093-0357
Phone: ( 619 ) 534 47 47
Fax: ( 619 ) 534 03 01
Webpage: http://crayfish.ucsd.edu/~paysan
Jamie Eisenhart
Dear Confocalists,
Ok, I do not want to get into a public trashing of Noran, but since this is
about the 5th email to reference mine I feel that I should say something
more about our experiences.
Here in the Neurobiology group at UCSD, we have a Noran Odyssey that was
purchased about 4 years ago. I was not involved in the purchase, so my
understanding of those events is based on what other people have told me.
The root of our problems seems to be that we bought a non-standard Macintosh
controller package rather than the authorized PC package than Noran usually
sells. The Mac package was not written by us. It comes from a very nice,
extremely smart local guy who uses it to control his own Odyssey. I gather
that the reasons for chosing it were that 1) there were some limitations in
Noran's own software at the time, 2) we are mostly Mac-based here, and 3) no
one thought that the software was a very big deal.
In retrospect, all parties now admit that this was a serious mistake. The
Mac package has a worldwide installed user base of 2, with us being number
2. That's ok for the guy who wrote it; if there's a problem he can just dive
into the code and fix it. But it's not so great for us; our user base is
constantly turning over, and it is not to great for all of us to have to
deal with so many purely technical hassles.
So far none of this is Noran's fault. Here's where my & all of our problems
with them start. First, although Noran didn't write the Mac package, we did
actaully buy it from them. I gather that they licensed it from the author.
We believe that this means they have some obligation to stand behind the
product. Second, we have been paying about $10k/year for a service contract
with Noran. For this, we believe that we have a right to expect some service.
Instead, Noran has taken the position that because we didn't buy their
software, we are on our own. Whenever we have a problem, they tell us that
it is software rather than hardware, and we need to talk to the guy who
wrote it. I gather that initially they may have tried to work with us on
setup problems, but they have become frustrated with how often we call them.
However, this has not stopped them from taking our $10k/year (although it
now looks like they may not want to renew our service contract). Rather they
just refer us to this poor guy who is not getting paid anything to deal with
our problems and can't always drop whatever he is doing to come help us out.
In Noran's defense, I should say that most of our problems *have* been
caused by software rather than the hardware, and when our microscope
actually works the image quality is great. In my view, the problem is one of
attitude. We made this mistake (with their acquiescence) by buying a
non-standard setup. We can't buy their controller package now because it
costs $20k, even at wholesale. So what are we going to do about it? We here
have been trying our best to troubleshoot problems as they come up and get
them fixed so we can get on with our work. Noran seems to be mostly
interested in getting us out of their hair.
On the issue of rudeness, I gather that Noran also feels that a lot of our
problems come about because we are a bunch of silly biologists who don't
know anything about computers or microscopes. I will freely admit to being
quite silly, and I am trying very hard to become a biologist. BUT it happens
that I already know a lot about computers and have put a ton of effort into
learning about microscopes & confocals. So I have been exasperated when
people at Noran have refused to even listen to me describe a problem, but
instead have assumed that I just don't know what I'm talking about. This
happened in particular on an occasion when I spent an entire day on the
microscope preparing documentation of a serious image defect, only to find
out that our representative at Noran would not even look at the pictures
that I had sent him. The ostensible reason for this was that no one from
Noran he trained me on how to use the microscope, but the subtext clearly
was that the problem was me and not the microscope. I do not think that this
is an appropriate response from a company that we are paying $10k/year for
service. Moreover, there *was* a significant problem with the microscope
(software again, not hardware), and if the guy would have just spent 5
minutes looking at the pictures and talking to me he would have seen that.
Perhaps then he would have been able to offer some constructive suggestion
on how we might fix the problem. Instead, the microscope was down for
several months, and it has only gotten fixed through the personal, virtually
non-stop efforts of the chair of the biology department and one of his
postdocs over a 2 week period.
So that's been my & our experience. I would like to emphasize again that 1)
it was a mistake to buy a non-standard software package, 2) most of our
problems have been caused by this software rather than the Noran hardware,
and 3) we have no reason to think that anyone who does buy a complete
package from Noran would have as many problems as we have had. However,
Noran has not dealt with these problems very well, and it is as a
consequence of this that I say I wouldn't buy anything from them. Clearly
other people's experiences have been different, and it may be that if we had
a different representative or if we had set up a better mechanism for
communicating with them, things would have gone more smoothly. But our
experience here has been so frustrating and negative that I feel obliged to
say something. Hopefully no one else will have these problems, and Noran
will continue to make innovative microscopes for many years to come.
Sincerely,
Jamie Eisenhart
UCSD Neuroscience/Biology
Dilhuydy Hugo
It's the end of the year and that means it is time to renew the service contract
on the confocal... For the external laser (Omnichrome Ar/Kr 488-568-647) I have to
pay 4500 CAN $, is that fair ? What is the average lifetime of such laser and the
cost for a new one ?
TIA.
Hugo Dilhuydy.
Ed Monberg
>It's the end of the year and that means it is time to renew the service
>contract
>on the confocal... For the external laser (Omnichrome Ar/Kr 488-568-647) I have
>to
>pay 4500 CAN $, is that fair ?
Sounds like a lot, but medium and large frame ion lasers last only 2000-3000
hours before needing a new tube which can cost as much as $30,000.
The $4500 may actually be "pre-payment" on the installment plan.
Smaller lasers should be a slightly different matter, although the "wear"
mechanisms in the tube (bore erosion, cathode depletion) are analogous.
Still, you might want to try a firm we use to do our ion laser work, and
whose opinions we respect:
CAMBRIDGE LASERS LABORATORIES
Att: Brian Bohan
853 Brown Road
Fremont, CA 94539
510-651-0110
510-651-1690
Cheers & Regards,
(signed) Ed Monberg
510-429-1060 Fax 429-1065
LMDC, (Laser & Motion Development Co.)
3101 Whipple Road
Union City, CA 94587-1216
TO BE ON OUR LIST AND BE THE FIRST
TO KNOW ABOUT BARGAIN PRICED TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT,
Just send an empty e-mail containing
"Join Equipment List" in the header line.
Our web page: http://www.lasermotion.com
Our e-mail: off...@lasermotion.com
Pekka Katila
At 22:21 18.12.1996 GMT, you wrote:
>It's the end of the year and that means it is time to renew the service
>contract
>on the confocal... For the external laser (Omnichrome Ar/Kr 488-568-647) I have
>to
>the
>cost for a new one ?
>
>TIA.
>
>Hugo Dilhuydy.
>
>
tube (~11000 USD) 5470 ArKr would last 1500 hours or 1 year. And
that the separate tube costs 5000 USD.
Pekka Katila
VTT Electronics
David Knecht
Ours lasted around 2000 hours and was still running when we replaced it
because of a weak rhodamine line. Dave
Dr. David Knecht
Brett Schroeder
At 10:21 PM 12/18/96 GMT, you wrote:
>It's the end of the year and that means it is time to renew the service
>contract
>on the confocal... For the external laser (Omnichrome Ar/Kr 488-568-647) I have
>to
>pay 4500 CAN $, is that fair ? What is the average lifetime of such laser and
>the
>cost for a new one ?
>
>TIA.
>
>Hugo Dilhuydy.
>
>
Hugo,
$4500 seems like a fair amount that you are probably paying to have the tube
replaced with a "recharged" one for the Kr/Ar laser. We had our tube
replaced by ILT last year for about the same amount although I am not
familiar with the Canadian to US conversion. In most cases with the Kr/Ar
lasers you will have to replace the tubes every year depending on use. In
the past we have gotten anywhere from 300 (sometimes you get a bad one) to
1000 hours of use for each new recharge replacement. I have seen on a post
since your message that ILT now guarantees their lasers for 1500 hours for
$11,000. This price I think, is for a brand new laser which includes the new
tube and housing. I am not sure what their guarantee is for replacement
tubes but ours has been going for 500+ strong.
Usually the first line to go on the lasers in the 647 line. The 488 and 568
line can last longer and if you aren't using the 647 line much, you can get
by longer without replacement although the 488 and 568 lines also degrade in
intensity but not as fast.
The post about a Kr/Ar laser lasting over 2000 hours is something I think
that is very rare as we have never had a Kr/Ar laser last much past 1000
hours of use with ALL three lines still functioning correctly. Improvements
may have been made to Kr/Ar lasers since our last replacement, but I have
yet to see them.
Good Luck,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Brett Schroeder - Biomedical Engineer "Common sense is +
+ Director of Image Core Facility genius dressed in +
+ Dept. of Cellular Biology & Anatomy its working clothes."+
+ Medical College of Wisconsin -Ralph Waldo Emerson +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ 8701 Watertown Plank Road EMAIL: schr...@post.its.mcw.edu +
+ P.O. BOX 26509 +
+ Milwaukee, WI 53226-0509 Phone:(414) 456-8504 +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++