Re: My finanl Report: Artefacts in digital photographic images. (Coolpix-problem)

At least you should have referenced the work others did months before you
got aware of this problem. (BTW, Gordon was the focal point of a lot of this
activity). Many investigations show strong evidence that the Coolpix 990 is
indeed a camera that is excellently suited for photomicrography. And that
with this camera, these artifacts are only visible if the user is not
capable of setting up Koehler illumination correctly. Therefore, in case of
the Coolpix 990, it is mainly a user problem rather than a problem of this
camera.

Gregor



"Klaus Henkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> GTO wrote:
>
> > The "famous" Coolpix series is discontinued. Also the 4500 are only sold
out
> > of inventory. Nikon does not produce them since quite some time now.
This
> > could explain why you did not receive any response. It seems that Nikon
does
> > not worry too much about discontinued product lines. This company is
> > currently fighting an uphill battle against Canon.
> >
> "Die Coolpix 5000 soll angeblich keine Ringe machen ..."
> (The coolpix 5000 is said to produce no rings ...)
>
> "Sie sollte vielleicht keine Ringe mehr machen, tut es aber. Ich hatte
> eine zur Probe ..."
> (Maybe it ought to produce no rings, but it does. I had one on trial ...)
>
> From: http://www.mikroskopie-forum.de/
>
> (A microscopy discussion forum on the web in German language)
>
> Gregor, you see, that "rings caused in the image by digital cameras"
> will be on-topic for quite a while.
>
> > Nevertheless, your report seems to overemphasize this problem. I have a
> > Nikon 990, which barely shows this artifact.
>
> Be assured that I fully dis(!)agree with you. Otherwise I would not
> have been crazy enough to spend so much effort on this matter. There
> are so many disappointed coolpix-users! During my investigations I
> learned to know many micro-photographers, amateurs and profs, who
> never had read or posted in newsgroups in the usenet, or in
> web-forums, thus the artifacts problem is totally under-estimated in
> the NG, and especially by happy persons using a Cp 990 barely showing
> the artifacts. In my report I clearly pointed out, that many Cp 990
> are not concerned. Therefore it would be methodically incorrect to
> judge this problem by taking a few happy 990-users for a basis. A lot
> of microscopists using a digital zoom-camera cannot afford to put
> their camera away, and buy another one, and another one ... They try
> to find out, what causes those da ... circles, and they are glad of
> any hints for their understanding of what happens in their camera.
>
>
> > But they show up
> > with SONY cameras as well.
>
> Sic!
>
> Greetings from overseas!
>