Hello
We’re deciding between a Yokogawa CV8000 vs PE Opera Phenix Plus.
They’re both top of the line instruments. I was curious in the community if anyone has had any issues or feedback about them.
Thanks so much!
Antonio
Hi - I am somewhat familiar with both, more so the CV8000 as we have a ‘related’ instrument, the CV1000 (baby brother to the CV8000) in our core facility. A colleague has an Opera Phenix. They are both great. I don’t know the exact build specs, but what I’ve heard from a service engineer about the CV8000 (they have serviced it for years) is very impressive and my experience with our CV1000 shows me its very robust and durable, so I assume the CV8000 will be similar. I’ve wished me had an 8000 based on our experience with the 1000. I know this isn’t very technical, hope it helps. Most places I know that have a Phenix it seems its being serviced a few times a year for software or focus issues. I don’t have any experience with the spinning disk unit in the PE, but of course Yokogawa is and has been an industry leader and in my experience their spinning disk units run forever.
Thanks! This was helpful. It’s difficult to make a decision about such expensive instruments.
There is no substitute for trying both instruments on realistic samples, either in your lab or remotely. Typically, the Yokogawa technology has less light throughput but a darker background, so it is better at very dim samples. When I had a first generation Yokogawa (CSU10) and a first generation high content screening system (Pathway HT) in my core, the Pathway was very heavily used, while the Yokogawa sat idle. This was because the GFP expressing plants that were the focus of most of the work were very bright, and could be screened by eye (or screen) on the PathwayHT. Whereas the Yokogawa had a very mean field of view and was almost impossibly dim through its eyepiece. The ergonomics of the Yokogawa were also uncomfortable, so it was no fun to use. I have not yet evaluated the CV8000 or the Opera. Hope this helps, David oQQQQQ@