I wonder if OIS is still offering the same back 6 years later or if they've updated? Just puttin' it out there... j- On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:24 PM, sandor ferenczy <sandorferenczy@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: > 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 > > >