Jim - We just got v2 of the 1500 back about 6? months ago - we were able to match the final image to the older camera. -sandor On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:36 PM, James Strong <jamesdstrong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 >> >