dust prevent devices

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

andy - 30 Aug 2006 10:25 GMT

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/08/24/canon_unveils_eos_400d_digital_slr/

I have just read the above about the new Canon digital camera and its dust
prevention devices built in.

Is dust more of a problem on digital SLRs than 35mm SLRs?

If not, why are there not these devices built into the latter?

Curious Andy

Reply to this Message

Willy Eckerslyke - 30 Aug 2006 10:32 GMT

> Is dust more of a problem on digital SLRs than 35mm SLRs?

Yes. Dust landing on film will be gone by the next frame. Dust landing
on a sensor stays there for all your photos.

Reply to this Message

andy - 30 Aug 2006 11:08 GMT

> Yes. Dust landing on film will be gone by the next frame. Dust landing on
> a sensor stays there for all your photos.

Ah yes, makes sense, cheers.

Reply to this Message

Michael J Davis - 30 Aug 2006 13:09 GMT

andy <timmydottiddles@gmail.com> observed

>http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/08/24/canon_unveils_eos_400d_digital_slr/
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>If not, why are there not these devices built into the latter?

Funny you should say that. Last night I was reviewing some CDs burnt by
professional film processors (Kodak) from my 35mm film (c. 1998-2000).

I was horrified at the amount of dust on films that had just been
through processing.

Mike

[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]

Signature

Michael J Davis
<><
Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused
the meaning of "discussion" with "digression".
<><

Reply to this Message

andy - 30 Aug 2006 15:09 GMT

> Funny you should say that. Last night I was reviewing some CDs burnt by
> professional film processors (Kodak) from my 35mm film (c. 1998-2000).
>
> I was horrified at the amount of dust on films that had just been through
> processing.

I have the same problem with newly processed films as well sometimes. Bad to
have it happen with Kodak.

Reply to this Message

Mark Dunn - 30 Aug 2006 20:47 GMT

That's usually post-process dust which is easier to remove. Usually.

> > Funny you should say that. Last night I was reviewing some CDs burnt by
> > professional film processors (Kodak) from my 35mm film (c. 1998-2000).
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I have the same problem with newly processed films as well sometimes. Bad to
> have it happen with Kodak.

Reply to this Message

Michael J Davis - 30 Aug 2006 21:46 GMT

Mark Dunn <markrhdunn@nospamatgmail.com> observed

>That's usually post-process dust which is easier to remove. Usually.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>to
>> have it happen with Kodak.

Not when it's scanned onto the CD! ;-(

Mike

[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]

Signature

Michael J Davis
<><
Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused
the meaning of "discussion" with "digression".
<><

Reply to this Message