 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / March 2007Check out the comments on dust from this poster
Saw this on Dpreview.com: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=22482887 Are you "anti-dust control system" types suuurreee the that they aren't needed? Ha ha, so this guy that has posted exactly once on DP Review is the font of all knowledge, explains a lot about you Rich. > Saw this on Dpreview.com: > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=22482887 > > Are you "anti-dust control system" types suuurreee the that they > aren't needed? Pete--RichA is a lonely person, living in his mother's basement and has nothing to do. Someday, he will get his hands out of his pants and he will buy a camera. > Ha ha, so this guy that has posted exactly once on DP Review is the font > of all knowledge, explains a lot about you Rich. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> Are you "anti-dust control system" types suuurreee the that they >> aren't needed? > Pete--RichA is a lonely person, living in his mother's basement and has > nothing to do. Someday, he will get his hands out of his pants and he will > buy a camera. What camera would you suggest? What do you own? > Ha ha, so this guy that has posted exactly once on DP Review is the font of > all knowledge, explains a lot about you Rich. No, but he has two camera systems, one of which could clearly benefit from an anti-dust system. This isn't the first time we've read about Canons being dust- magnates. The post seemed genuine enough, so why call the guy a liar? >> Ha ha, so this guy that has posted exactly once on DP Review is the font >> of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > magnates. The post seemed genuine enough, > so why call the guy a liar? Never did I call this guy a liar, I I merely pointed out that your assosiation with him makes you the worlds stupidist man, either that or you actually made that post on DP Review just to make some sort of idiot point and that would make you a dirty lying scumbag idiot, probably makes me equally an idiot for even replying to such a stupid post. > >> Ha ha, so this guy that has posted exactly once on DP Review is the font > >> of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and that would make you a dirty lying scumbag idiot, probably makes me > equally an idiot for even replying to such a stupid post. So, er, I posted that on dpreview? Are you Canon whores always so paranoid? In article <45fd91ef$0$17558$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, > >> Ha ha, so this guy that has posted exactly once on DP Review is the font > >> of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and that would make you a dirty lying scumbag idiot, probably makes me > equally an idiot for even replying to such a stupid post. Don't hold back. Let him know how you feel. HFL  SignatureChange hlockwood to hflockwood in email address >> Ha ha, so this guy that has posted exactly once on DP Review is the font >> of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > magnates. The post seemed genuine enough, > so why call the guy a liar? "Dust magnates"? They get rich on dust, do they? Toby >>> Ha ha, so this guy that has posted exactly once on DP Review is the font >>> of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >"Dust magnates"? They get rich on dust, do they? Depends on the dust. The shiny yellow stuff can be useful but it doesn't seem to infest any cameras I use. Maybe I need a Canon if I want to strike lucky when I clean it :-) SignatureJohn Bean > The post seemed genuine enough, > so why call the guy a liar? LOL. The post in an obvious troll bait. You must have a heavy dust buildup in your "genuine post" detector. >> Ha ha, so this guy that has posted exactly once on DP Review is the font of >> all knowledge, explains a lot about you Rich. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >magnates. The post seemed genuine enough, >so why call the guy a liar? I thought you didn't like people who twist things? How do you stand yourself? SignatureBill Clinton said Tuesday the New York Times has been unfair to Hillary and too soft on Barack Obama. Hillary can see it coming. For the second time in her life she is going to be pushed to the background by America's first black president. >> Ha ha, so this guy that has posted exactly once on DP Review is the font >> of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This isn't the first time we've read about Canons being dust- > magnates. It's magnet Rich. And I just spent a very dusty weekend in the desert, changing lenses often, and my Rebel XT is clearly not a dust-magnet. Greg >>> Ha ha, so this guy that has posted exactly once on DP Review is the font >>> of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It's magnet Rich. And I just spent a very dusty weekend in the desert, > changing lenses often, and my Rebel XT is clearly not a dust-magnet. The only dust magnates I could think of who are still around are Mr. Oreck and Mr. Sharper Image. SignatureJohn McWilliams >>>> Ha ha, so this guy that has posted exactly once on DP Review is >>>> the font of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The only dust magnates I could think of who are still around are Mr. > Oreck and Mr. Sharper Image. Well, there are Messr's Dyson and Swiffer and Roomba. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>> Ha ha, so this guy that has posted exactly once on DP Review is >>>>> the font of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Well, there are Messr's Dyson and Swiffer and Roomba. Quite right. I could picture the Dyson ad but couldn't quite come up with the name. Don't know if the latter two qualify as magnates yet, but certainly dust magnets. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > Saw this on Dpreview.com: > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=22482887 > > Are you "anti-dust control system" types suuurreee the that they > aren't needed? It has been 9 months since I cleaned our 20D and 350D and still not dust that is a problem. This may be because I rarely shoot slower then f/16. I use Prime lenses a fair bit so I am always changing lenses and I do this on the beach, and still no dust problems. Why some people seem to have so much trouble is a bit of a mystery. Scott "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1174215490.207249.4360 @b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: >> Saw this on Dpreview.com: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > lenses and I do this on the beach, and still no dust problems. Why > some people seem to have so much trouble is a bit of a mystery. People with big problems probably have lubricants on the sensor. If there is lubricant on the sensor, any dust that hits it will stay there, and never leave, until you clean it. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > "Scott W" <biph...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1174215490.207249.4360 > @b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > is lubricant on the sensor, any dust that hits it will stay there, and > never leave, until you clean it. I would think that any lubricants on the sensor (well cover glass) would put a fair bit of haze in the photo. For what it is worth I notice a big differance between shooting at f/ 16 or lower and f/22 to higher. If I insisted on being able to shoot at f/22 I would no doubt have to do a lot more cleaning of the sensor. But I very rarely find the need to show slower then f/16 so life is good. Scott > I would think that any lubricants on the sensor (well cover glass) > would put a > fair bit of haze in the photo. Not with a thin film The dispersion should be quite minor, and the AA filter is already dispersing a little, anyway. > For what it is worth I notice a big differance between shooting at f/ > 16 or lower and f/22 to higher. If I > insisted on being able to shoot at f/22 I would no doubt have to do a > lot more cleaning of the sensor. > But I very rarely find the need to show slower then f/16 so life is > good. It would be nice if cameras had real user-programmable modes; then it would be easy to keep the lenses in the f-stop range that you really want, in an auto-exposure mode. I can not use Av-pri when I am shooting birds hand-held in low light, for example. I'd rather shoot at ISO 1600, in Tv-pri-mode, with a generous positive EC to get an exposure index of about ISO 800 when light is sufficient, and suffer a bit of under-exposure when the light isn't, without getting blurred images. When, however, I catch a hawk or eagle flying above in open sunlight or against bright clouds, any change of mode would mean a lost opportunity, so what I wind up getting is too low of a shutter speed, and too high of an f-stop, emphasizing any dust or oil on the sensor. With true user-programmability (and I can't think of any excuse for cameras not having this, after years of digital cameras), I could fine- tune a mode for my lens and uses, trying to keep the f-stop in a certain range, limiting exposure time, and increasing ISO for lower light levels, and then perhaps letting the lens open up all the way at a certain point where under-exposure causes more loss of detail than wide-open optics. Dust could become a much more minor issue. Happily, once I removed the lubricants from my XTi sensor, it hasn't been collecting dust like it used to. I haven't had to clean my XTi sensor in about three months now (I have read warnings of XTi coatings coming off with eclipse, though; I don't know how true they are). My 20D is a nightmare for dust; even with a 1.4x TC attached almost permanently, it still gets an occasional big fiber on it, usually about 5 shots into a day of several hundred shots. It seems to be the mirror stop deteriorating. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >Saw this on Dpreview.com: > >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=22482887 > >Are you "anti-dust control system" types suuurreee the that they >aren't needed? I am a little suspicious of a woman who "makes her living as photography [sic]" having problems like this. I'm even more suspicious of a professional who doesn't know how to avoid, minimize, and correct a problem like this. I also have to wonder why she chose the E-500 instead of the Canon 400D/Rebel XTi. Nothing againts the E-500, but changing platforms is pretty drastic. And her set of Oly lenses is a strange choice for a professional. You have a bigger problem with dust in the cameras you don't own than I have with the Rebel that I've been shooting for three years. In that time I have had to clean the sensor only once. I took a "dust" shot just yesterday, and I didn't see anything worth messing with. TR > >Saw this on Dpreview.com: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of a professional who doesn't know how to avoid, minimize, and correct > a problem like this. So, given the camera doesn't have dust-control internally, what would you suggest to avoid dust, a changing bag for lenses like changing film in cassettes of a large-format camera? >> >Saw this on Dpreview.com: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > you suggest to avoid dust, a changing bag for lenses like changing > film in cassettes of a large-format camera? The first DSLR I bought has still only ever been blown out with a Hurricane Bulb, nothing else has ever been requiered and that has included several extended trips into the Australian desert. >> >Saw this on Dpreview.com: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >you suggest to avoid dust, a changing bag for lenses like changing >film in cassettes of a large-format camera? If you need a changing bag, use a changing bag. Whatever works for you. I've never needed to go to such extremes. Also, when I change lenses I'm more concerned about damaging a lens than getting dust on the sensor. What method to you use to avoid dust ... when you're outside the safe, sanitary confines of Henry's Camera? TR > > >Saw this on Dpreview.com: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > you suggest to avoid dust, a changing bag for lenses like changing > film in cassettes of a large-format camera? I shoot primes with my D200, Nikon has antistatic coating on the AA filter, it is not the sensor you're cleaning, and this seems to work well, 2 blow outs in a year, that is it. Change lenses all the time and I'm not all that careful about the changing. There are several other similar threads going around, looked at my last picture with sky in it, cranked levels, clean at 200%. Tom > > > >Saw this on Dpreview.com: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Tom That's great for you, but does this reduce the importance of those who have had dust problems? Besides, the Canons (not Nikons) have been known for sometime as dust magnets, especially the 5D. > ... > That's great for you, but does this reduce the importance of those who > have had dust problems? > Besides, the Canons (not Nikons) have been known for sometime as dust > magnets, especially the 5D. > ... 5D is known for the dust-in-the-viewfinder problem, which, of course, doesn't affect images and has noting to do with dust-on-the-sensor problem. As for the latter, all digital SLRs suffer from it to exactly the same degree. Canons have not been known as "as dust magnets" any more than any other brand. > > > > >Saw this on Dpreview.com: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Besides, the Canons (not Nikons) have been known for sometime as dust > magnets, especially the 5DI think someone who is reporting their direct experience with dust is far more valuable then someone reporting on what their read someone else said. If you were to tell us you had problems with dust we could ask questions and get a better idea of just how bad the problem was. Instead you tell use that someone else, who you don't know, had reported that they have problems with dust. But from what they wrote it is hard to tell just how big the problems they are having really are. As an example if you are the type of person who checks for dust by shooting the sky at f/32 you are going to find a lot of dust a lot of the time. If on the other hand you simple use you camera and worry about dust when you see it starting to show up in your images you will likely have a lot less problems. You don't see to want to accept that for most of us dust is simply not an issue, even those of use shooting with Canon camera and changing lenses often. Scott |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.