We've been using it for almost 6 years. Images look good, clinically there has never been any difference found for us between SLO FAF (Heidelberg) and fundus camera FAF (OIS). This has been substantiated in the JOP (see below). "The Readers <from DARC> in this comparison study determined that clinically useful autofluorescence imaging can be performed with either the cSLO or with a modified digital fundus camera." Orlock DA, Lakner JS, Yannuzzi L, Curtin R, Novalis C, Eandi C. A comparison of fundus camera and cSLO autofluorescence images. J Ophthamlic Photography 2007;29:72-73. Speaking to the camera itself, we are still using the same digital back fro 2006 and it is still growing strong. A newer camera, with the newer version of the back, was relatively simple to set up and produces matching images to the older camera. We shoot FAF on every posterior seg patient that comes through the clinic. -sandor Sandor Ferenczy, CRA, OCTc Ophthalmic Photographer Ocular Oncology Service Wills Eye Institute 840 Walnut Street, 14th Floor Philadelphia, Pa 19107 www.fighteyecancer.com On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Peter Hay <peterhay@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Would anyone have a opinion of the autofluorescence imaging > > and capture back that OIS offers ? > > > Peter > > _________________________ > Peter Hay,BA,CRA,FOPS > Retina Vitreous Surgeons of CNY > 3107 East Genesee Street > Syracuse, NY, 13224 > peterhay@xxxxxxx > > > > > > >