Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Digital SLR Sensor Dust: I Do Believe I've Had Enough

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
June 3, 2005 6:43:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Just a couple of 'thoughts', having recently reignited my interest in
photography, and bought a Nikon D70. Prior to purchase, one very great
man advised me, no don't buy a whiz-bang 35mm film SLR, you'll never
use it, think how many more photos you'll take with a digital; another
great man pooh-pooh'ed digital, mainly focusing on the dangers of dust
getting onto the sensor and subsequently ending up on every picture.
Well, I changed lenses on my D70 a couple of times, and believe me I
was careful. By the way, how does one faitfully follow the 'change
lenses in a dust-free environment' advice? I do not have an Intel
microprocessor lab handy. Anyway I soon found a heavily populated
constellation of dust specks showing up on any photos I took which
included any areas light enough to show them. And now I feel it's
hardly worth taking any more photos if they're going to feature these
ugly grey blobs. I rang Nikon prior to sending the camera in fo a CCD
clean - yes I tried the absurdly named 'Hurricane Blower' to no, or
little, avail - and they now charge £21 even under warranty. One of
the killer features of the SLR system is the ability to change lenses.
Once I get my D70 back, hopefully clean of dust, I can tell you I am
NEVER changing lenses again. What I can't understand is why this
problem is not more forcefully mentioned when the old film vs digital
debate rages?
June 3, 2005 7:24:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Are you for real or did you try to change a lens in a sand box?

Thanks for that. Does being 'for real' mean asking whether someone
'being careful' means they changed the lens in a sand box? And do you
mean did I change the lens in a sand box, or try to change the lens in
a sand box? Ever been in a sand box? Maybe you're in a sand box right
now? Guess what? I was not in a sand box, I did not try to change the
lkens, I actually managed to change it. Sand box or no, I got dust on
my sensor despite taking great care.

What does that mean exactly? Are YOU for real? And you snipped MY
'drivel'? How about you meet me in a sand box? Prick.
June 3, 2005 7:31:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks AK. Yes I always pointed the camera down when changeing lenses,
and I did remove the lens cap of teh new lens first. I have the piss
taken out of me constantly by friends and family for being a very
careful sort, but I still managed to get a load of dust on the sensor
(or the filter). I know there are swabbing methods but I really don't
want to risk trying those - my hands aren't steady enough!
Related resources
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 8:30:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> jc asks ...
>
>What I can't understand is why this problem is not more forcefully
>mentioned when the old film vs digital debate rages?

Once you learn how to clean the sensor it's no big deal, only slightly
more hassle than cleaning off the front of a lens.
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 9:43:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<Drivel Snipped>

Are you for real or did you try to change a lens in a sand box?
June 3, 2005 10:38:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1117835018.626029.128430@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
johncarvill@hotmail.com says...
> Once I get my D70 back, hopefully clean of dust, I can tell you I am
> NEVER changing lenses again. What I can't understand is why this
> problem is not more forcefully mentioned when the old film vs digital
> debate rages?
>


Its not more forcefully mentioned because it isnt that great a problem.

I hesitated for a full year switching to a dslr from a top of the line zlr
because of "dust fear syndrom".

After biting the bullet and making the switch, I think I've cleaned the
sensor on my dslr twice since April 2nd or 3rd.

I do a lot of shooting in a VERY dusty area (horse show ring) and Ive simply
learned not to change lenses unless I NEED too, and when I do, I do it
carefully.

When I do clean it (if something shows up in the picture) I use an ear
syringe to blow it out ($2) and a small eye make up brush that has been
cleaned in boiling water several times before it firs use (gets the "sizing"
out) I only use the brush if the blower leave something behind. (once since I
bought the camera),


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 11:17:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"jc" <johncarvill@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117837475.948071.138940@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >Are you for real or did you try to change a lens in a sand box?
>
> Thanks for that. Does being 'for real' mean asking whether someone
> 'being careful' means they changed the lens in a sand box? And do you
> mean did I change the lens in a sand box, or try to change the lens in
> a sand box? Ever been in a sand box? Maybe you're in a sand box right
> now? Guess what? I was not in a sand box, I did not try to change the
> lkens, I actually managed to change it. Sand box or no, I got dust on
> my sensor despite taking great care.
>
> What does that mean exactly? Are YOU for real? And you snipped MY
> 'drivel'? How about you meet me in a sand box? Prick.
>
If in your Google dilapidated mind you looked at all of the recent posts
about dirty sensors and tips/techniques for cleaning them you might not have
bothered to post yet another newbie post whining about dust on my precious
sensor.

The world is filthy; there is dust everywhere. Learn how to clean it
yourself. You are a big boy now. You want to spring for a plane ticket I'll
meet you in your sand box. Watch your potty mouth sometimes kids read
Usenet.

Use your camera, change your lenses and clean your sensor when it needs it.
It is not a big deal. Or better yet give that precious D70 to someone who
will use it.

There, do you feel better now?
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 12:27:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I had pretty bad dust on my sensor before I ever changed the lens then I
swiped with fluid & pads & changed lenses repeatedly in Death Valley
without any problem.

Make a habit of blowing it off regularly so the stuff doesn't get glued
on by humidity or smoke or use one of those fancy makeup brushes
regularly & I don't think you'll need to have it swiped with fluid very
often.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 1:43:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"jc" <johncarvill@hotmail.com> writes:

> Just a couple of 'thoughts', having recently reignited my interest
> in photography, and bought a Nikon D70. Prior to purchase, one very
> great man advised me, no don't buy a whiz-bang 35mm film SLR, you'll
> never use it, think how many more photos you'll take with a digital;
> another great man pooh-pooh'ed digital, mainly focusing on the
> dangers of dust getting onto the sensor and subsequently ending up
> on every picture. Well, I changed lenses on my D70 a couple of
> times, and believe me I was careful. By the way, how does one
> faitfully follow the 'change lenses in a dust-free environment'
> advice? I do not have an Intel microprocessor lab handy. Anyway I
> soon found a heavily populated constellation of dust specks showing
> up on any photos I took which included any areas light enough to
> show them. And now I feel it's hardly worth taking any more photos
> if they're going to feature these ugly grey blobs. I rang Nikon
> prior to sending the camera in fo a CCD clean - yes I tried the
> absurdly named 'Hurricane Blower' to no, or little, avail - and they
> now charge £21 even under warranty. One of the killer features of
> the SLR system is the ability to change lenses. Once I get my D70
> back, hopefully clean of dust, I can tell you I am NEVER changing
> lenses again. What I can't understand is why this problem is not
> more forcefully mentioned when the old film vs digital debate rages?

I'd had my Fuji S2 more than a year before I first noticed any
dust. I've cleaned it twice since then; and I've now had it 2.5
years.

When there *is* visible dust, it's less than the dust spots I have to
cope with on *every single* scanned film image I've ever worked with.
It takes a couple of seconds to dispose of with the healing brush,
whereas that takes 5 minutes or so in the easy cases, and sometimes
hours if there's a real problem.

I've made no special effort (compared to my 30+ years with film SLRs)
to be "careful" changing lenses (but I thought of myself as "careful"
with the film SLRs, compared to many photographers). I change lenses
pretty frequently, especially since I don't have a zoom going wider
than 28mm (real); my 24, 20, and 17mm lenses are individual primes.

I wouldn't be surprised to discover that you take very different
pictures from me. I *very* rarely have the lenses at small apertures,
where the dust shows the most. I'm more likely to be shooting wide
open. And I mostly don't shoot scenes with large bright evenly-lit
areas, which show up dust better than dark or detailed areas.

Anyway -- for me, this "dust" thing is a tempest in a teapot, a
complete non-issue. I spend less time and energy dealing with dust in
digital than I did with film-based images.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
June 4, 2005 1:56:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

A couple of tips that seems to work for me, besides avoiding changing lenses
in dusty and/or windy areas:

Try holding the camera with the lens pointing down before you change lenses
so that the open cavity points down while you replace the lens. Also, remove
the rear lenscap of the the new lens you want to install so that you can put
it on immediately after removing the lens you've just finished using - the
less time the body is open the less time there is for dust to enter.

You will probably still get some dust, but very little, and I've found that
a few puffs of a blower with the body cavity pointing down so the dust
doesn;t just resettle on the sensor seems to work.

For more drastic cleaning techniques, check the web - e.g.,

http://www.visibledust.com/

or

http://www.pbase.com/copperhill/image/15473243

The first time I had this problem I sent the camera in to Nikon - they did a
great job, but it took six (6) weeks (!!) to get the camera back.

Rgds

Alan


"jc" <johncarvill@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117835018.626029.128430@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Just a couple of 'thoughts', having recently reignited my interest in
photography, and bought a Nikon D70. Prior to purchase, one very great
man advised me, no don't buy a whiz-bang 35mm film SLR, you'll never
use it, think how many more photos you'll take with a digital; another
great man pooh-pooh'ed digital, mainly focusing on the dangers of dust
getting onto the sensor and subsequently ending up on every picture.
Well, I changed lenses on my D70 a couple of times, and believe me I
was careful. By the way, how does one faitfully follow the 'change
lenses in a dust-free environment' advice? I do not have an Intel
microprocessor lab handy. Anyway I soon found a heavily populated
constellation of dust specks showing up on any photos I took which
included any areas light enough to show them. And now I feel it's
hardly worth taking any more photos if they're going to feature these
ugly grey blobs. I rang Nikon prior to sending the camera in fo a CCD
clean - yes I tried the absurdly named 'Hurricane Blower' to no, or
little, avail - and they now charge £21 even under warranty. One of
the killer features of the SLR system is the ability to change lenses.
Once I get my D70 back, hopefully clean of dust, I can tell you I am
NEVER changing lenses again. What I can't understand is why this
problem is not more forcefully mentioned when the old film vs digital
debate rages?
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 2:03:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"jc" <johncarvill@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117835018.626029.128430@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
snip
> What I can't understand is why this
> problem is not more forcefully mentioned when the old film vs digital
> debate rages?

Equipment has always had to be kept clean [as had negatives during the printing
process]. And digital doesn't make it any easier. But it doesn't make it
impossible to do it yourself.
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 3:43:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 4/6/05 12:17 am, in article d7qoet$fek@dispatch.concentric.net,
"jimkramer" <Sophomoric1_jim@NOSPAMjlkramer.net> wrote:

(snipped)

> There, do you feel better now?

More to the point, do you - cos them's fighting words boy! Only trouble is,
he didn't know where you were - whereas you know he's in the UK, so your
pretty safe, eh? ...unless he springs for that ticket you wanker. ;]
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 3:43:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
news:BEC6A98C.1650B%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
> On 4/6/05 12:17 am, in article d7qoet$fek@dispatch.concentric.net,
> "jimkramer" <Sophomoric1_jim@NOSPAMjlkramer.net> wrote:
>
> (snipped)
>
>> There, do you feel better now?
>
> More to the point, do you - cos them's fighting words boy! Only trouble
> is,
> he didn't know where you were - whereas you know he's in the UK, so your
> pretty safe, eh? ...unless he springs for that ticket you wanker. ;]
>
I'm in North Carolina, nothing to hide. Watch your language young man. I
haven't been to the UK in 6 years and I could use a vacation, even if J.C.
wants to try and hand me my teeth.
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 4:23:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 4/6/05 12:51 am, in article d7qqde$fe6@dispatch.concentric.net,
"jimkramer" <Sophomoric1_jim@NOSPAMjlkramer.net> wrote:

> "teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
> news:BEC6A98C.1650B%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
>> On 4/6/05 12:17 am, in article d7qoet$fek@dispatch.concentric.net,
>> "jimkramer" <Sophomoric1_jim@NOSPAMjlkramer.net> wrote:
>>
>> (snipped)
>>
>>> There, do you feel better now?
>>
>> More to the point, do you - cos them's fighting words boy! Only trouble
>> is,
>> he didn't know where you were - whereas you know he's in the UK, so your
>> pretty safe, eh? ...unless he springs for that ticket you wanker. ;]
>>
> I'm in North Carolina, nothing to hide. Watch your language young man. I
> haven't been to the UK in 6 years and I could use a vacation, even if J.C.
> wants to try and hand me my teeth.

You still got any? Thing is, you liked dealing it out but got annoyed when
it came back. He didn't make a threat, you did - and I can't stand cowards.
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 4:23:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
news:BEC6B2ED.16525%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
> On 4/6/05 12:51 am, in article d7qqde$fe6@dispatch.concentric.net,
> "jimkramer" <Sophomoric1_jim@NOSPAMjlkramer.net> wrote:
>
>> "teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote in message
>> news:BEC6A98C.1650B%teflon@bluebottlefly.com...
>>> On 4/6/05 12:17 am, in article d7qoet$fek@dispatch.concentric.net,
>>> "jimkramer" <Sophomoric1_jim@NOSPAMjlkramer.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> (snipped)
>>>
>>>> There, do you feel better now?
>>>
>>> More to the point, do you - cos them's fighting words boy! Only trouble
>>> is,
>>> he didn't know where you were - whereas you know he's in the UK, so your
>>> pretty safe, eh? ...unless he springs for that ticket you wanker. ;]
>>>
>> I'm in North Carolina, nothing to hide. Watch your language young man.
>> I
>> haven't been to the UK in 6 years and I could use a vacation, even if
>> J.C.
>> wants to try and hand me my teeth.
>
> You still got any? Thing is, you liked dealing it out but got annoyed when
> it came back. He didn't make a threat, you did - and I can't stand
> cowards.
>
I suggest you read the thread again if that is the impression you got.

"How about you meet me in a sand box? Prick." was his line not mine.
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 4:36:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 4/6/05 1:28 am, in article d7qsis$fff@dispatch.concentric.net,
"jimkramer" <Sophomoric1_jim@NOSPAMjlkramer.net> wrote:

> I suggest you read the thread again if that is the impression you got.
>
> "How about you meet me in a sand box? Prick." was his line not mine.

It wasn't a real threat. It was a play on words relating to children falling
out. Anyone with intelligence could see that. It's just that you got nasty.
June 4, 2005 4:39:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

AK wrote:

> A couple of tips that seems to work for me,

What worked for me, was buying a camera where they deal with this problem
instead of ignoring it. Olympus.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 5:19:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

jc wrote:
> Just a couple of 'thoughts', having recently reignited my interest in
> photography, and bought a Nikon D70. Prior to purchase, one very great
> man advised me, no don't buy a whiz-bang 35mm film SLR, you'll never
> use it, think how many more photos you'll take with a digital; another
> great man pooh-pooh'ed digital, mainly focusing on the dangers of dust
> getting onto the sensor and subsequently ending up on every picture.
> Well, I changed lenses on my D70 a couple of times, and believe me I
> was careful. By the way, how does one faitfully follow the 'change
> lenses in a dust-free environment' advice? I do not have an Intel
> microprocessor lab handy. Anyway I soon found a heavily populated
> constellation of dust specks showing up on any photos I took which
> included any areas light enough to show them. And now I feel it's
> hardly worth taking any more photos if they're going to feature these
> ugly grey blobs. I rang Nikon prior to sending the camera in fo a CCD
> clean - yes I tried the absurdly named 'Hurricane Blower' to no, or
> little, avail - and they now charge £21 even under warranty. One of
> the killer features of the SLR system is the ability to change lenses.
> Once I get my D70 back, hopefully clean of dust, I can tell you I am
> NEVER changing lenses again. What I can't understand is why this
> problem is not more forcefully mentioned when the old film vs digital
> debate rages?

Don't torture yourself, buddy. If you're not enjoying your new camera,
and it's not working out for you, then don't accept abuse from anyone
else. Dust on the sensor is one main reason that keeps me off DSLRs.
Reconsider your photographic needs, and see if a durable compact like
the olympus 7070 or the fuji f810 will cover them, and in most cases, a
compact will more than do. Olympus also makes the evolt e300 dslr that
has a supersonic-mechanism self-cleaning sensor, so you may want to
look at that. If you're not happy with your expensive purchase,
consider returning it or putting it on ebay, and get instead one that
gives you pleasure without the hassle.
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 5:30:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"jc" <johncarvill@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117835018.626029.128430@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
SNIP
> Anyway I soon found a heavily populated constellation of dust
> specks showing up on any photos I took which included any
> areas light enough to show them.

Such is life. There is dust, pollen (the majority of all air-borne
fine dust is organic material from the earth's crust), lint,
pollution, in the air. Some places are worse than others. Deal with it
by cleaning your sensor yourself, or pay someone to do it for you.

Bart
June 4, 2005 6:17:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"jc" <johncarvill@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1117835018.626029.128430
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Well, I changed lenses on my D70 a couple of times, and believe me I
> was careful. By the way, how does one faithfully follow the 'change
> lenses in a dust-free environment' advice? I do not have an Intel
> microprocessor lab handy. Anyway I soon found a heavily populated
> constellation of dust specks showing up on any photos I took which
> included any areas light enough to show them. And now I feel it's
> hardly worth taking any more photos if they're going to feature these
> ugly grey blobs. I rang Nikon prior to sending the camera in fo a CCD
> clean - yes I tried the absurdly named 'Hurricane Blower' to no, or
> little, avail - and they now charge £21 even under warranty.

I have never had a warranty on any product which included the cleaning of
the product.

> What I can't understand is why this
> problem is not more forcefully mentioned when the old film vs digital
> debate rages?

Maybe it is because the problem is not universal? I have had my Canon 10D
for just over 2 years and have taken over 17000 photos. I have 4 lenses
and change lenses as needed. A couple of times I have noticed dust spots
on my photos and have used my 'Rocket Blower' to clean the dust of my
sensor. I have looked at buying pec-pads and eclipse cleaning fluid, but
have decided to wait till I need them.

I don't know if the Nikon CCD sensor is any more likely to attract dust
than Canon's CMOS sensor, but my experience has convinced me that D-SLR
cameras are fantastic, I love mine.



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 10:02:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"jc" <johncarvill@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1117835018.626029.128430
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Just a couple of 'thoughts', having recently reignited my interest in
> photography, and bought a Nikon D70. Prior to purchase, one very great
> man advised me, no don't buy a whiz-bang 35mm film SLR, you'll never
> use it, think how many more photos you'll take with a digital; another
> great man pooh-pooh'ed digital, mainly focusing on the dangers of dust
> getting onto the sensor and subsequently ending up on every picture.
> Well, I changed lenses on my D70 a couple of times, and believe me I
> was careful. By the way, how does one faitfully follow the 'change
> lenses in a dust-free environment' advice? I do not have an Intel
> microprocessor lab handy. Anyway I soon found a heavily populated
> constellation of dust specks showing up on any photos I took which
> included any areas light enough to show them. And now I feel it's
> hardly worth taking any more photos if they're going to feature these
> ugly grey blobs. I rang Nikon prior to sending the camera in fo a CCD
> clean - yes I tried the absurdly named 'Hurricane Blower' to no, or
> little, avail - and they now charge £21 even under warranty. One of
> the killer features of the SLR system is the ability to change lenses.
> Once I get my D70 back, hopefully clean of dust, I can tell you I am
> NEVER changing lenses again. What I can't understand is why this
> problem is not more forcefully mentioned when the old film vs digital
> debate rages?
>

JC, I have been using my D70 for about 9 months now, I change lenses all
the time (not even that carefully), I shoot outdoors in one of the dustiest
countries in the world (Australia) and I have found 1 dust spec on the CCD
twice, which I easily blew off.

One thing you may want to look at is where you have the lenses and camera
stored, maybe the bag has a heap of dust in it, which transfers to the lens
then onto the CCD (guessing here). Or you may even have a static problem
(even more guessing)

It sounds strange to me.

Mick Brown
www.photo.net/photos/mlbrown
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 11:35:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mick Brown wrote:
[]
> One thing you may want to look at is where you have the lenses and
> camera stored, maybe the bag has a heap of dust in it, which
> transfers to the lens then onto the CCD (guessing here). Or you may
> even have a static problem (even more guessing)
>
> It sounds strange to me.

It does to me as well - is there any sort of anti-static coating on top of
the AA filter (which is on top of the sensor) which might have been
omitted on this camera - or a grounding strap?

David
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 12:52:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 3 Jun 2005 14:43:38 -0700, "jc" <johncarvill@hotmail.com> wrote:


>Well, I changed lenses on my D70 a couple of times, and believe me I
>was careful. By the way, how does one faitfully follow the 'change
>lenses in a dust-free environment' advice?


The dust problem is real, though not insurmountable.
There are web sites and tools now to help deal with
it. (Google is your friend.) Common sense helps also.

If it's too much to deal with, consider one of the
high end non-SLR models. The only real disadvantage
of these other cameras is (or may be) shutter lag.

Because the image sensors are almost uniformly small,
the advantage of having a full "family" of inter-
changeable lenses is a bit of an illusion.
A sharp 4:1 optical zoom may be all you need.

I've got a Canon G2 and a 10D, and they get about
equal use. The 10D is my choice for walking,
hiking and general snapshooting.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 1:48:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 3 Jun 2005 14:43:38 -0700, "jc" <johncarvill@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Just a couple of 'thoughts', having recently reignited my interest in
>photography, and bought a Nikon D70. Prior to purchase, one very great
>man advised me, no don't buy a whiz-bang 35mm film SLR, you'll never
>use it, think how many more photos you'll take with a digital; another
>great man pooh-pooh'ed digital, mainly focusing on the dangers of dust
>getting onto the sensor and subsequently ending up on every picture.
>Well, I changed lenses on my D70 a couple of times, and believe me I
>was careful. By the way, how does one faitfully follow the 'change
>lenses in a dust-free environment' advice? I do not have an Intel
>microprocessor lab handy. Anyway I soon found a heavily populated
>constellation of dust specks showing up on any photos I took which
>included any areas light enough to show them. And now I feel it's
>hardly worth taking any more photos if they're going to feature these
>ugly grey blobs. I rang Nikon prior to sending the camera in fo a CCD
>clean - yes I tried the absurdly named 'Hurricane Blower' to no, or
>little, avail - and they now charge £21 even under warranty. One of
>the killer features of the SLR system is the ability to change lenses.
>Once I get my D70 back, hopefully clean of dust, I can tell you I am
>NEVER changing lenses again. What I can't understand is why this
>problem is not more forcefully mentioned when the old film vs digital
>debate rages?
I daresay that you have,by now, received your camera back from Nikon
and yes, you will test it by taking a photo of a clear blue sky at f22
(is that possible in the U.K. at this time of the year?) ,you will see
dust spots are still there. Buy yourself a dust removal
brush,somecleaning fluid and pec pads and do it yourself. It is
simple and safe if you follow the procedure correctly. The initial
supply should last twelve months so it is not expensive. It is no big
issue so learn to live with it the same as the rest of us.
eric phillips
P.S. don't respond to rudeness ,these posters hate being ignored.
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 2:14:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Olympus DSLRs automatically clean the CCD cleaning when you switch them
on. Olympus is the only manufacturer which so far has addressed this
problem - a bit hard to understand why Canon and Nikon haven't followed
suit, since this is a major issue for any DSLR photographer.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
June 4, 2005 2:14:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d0b811db225df8998ab7b@news.supernews.com:

> Olympus DSLRs automatically clean the CCD cleaning when you switch them
> on. Olympus is the only manufacturer which so far has addressed this
> problem - a bit hard to understand why Canon and Nikon haven't followed
> suit, since this is a major issue for any DSLR photographer.

Except of course for the D-SLR photographers that have posted on here
saying that it is not a major issue.



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 3:11:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Find the "Pixel Sweeper" article at http://www.prime-junta.tk/ which is a
great site in general.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




"jc" <johncarvill@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117835018.626029.128430@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Just a couple of 'thoughts', having recently reignited my interest in
photography, and bought a Nikon D70. Prior to purchase, one very great
man advised me, no don't buy a whiz-bang 35mm film SLR, you'll never
use it, think how many more photos you'll take with a digital; another
great man pooh-pooh'ed digital, mainly focusing on the dangers of dust
getting onto the sensor and subsequently ending up on every picture.
Well, I changed lenses on my D70 a couple of times, and believe me I
was careful. By the way, how does one faitfully follow the 'change
lenses in a dust-free environment' advice? I do not have an Intel
microprocessor lab handy. Anyway I soon found a heavily populated
constellation of dust specks showing up on any photos I took which
included any areas light enough to show them. And now I feel it's
hardly worth taking any more photos if they're going to feature these
ugly grey blobs. I rang Nikon prior to sending the camera in fo a CCD
clean - yes I tried the absurdly named 'Hurricane Blower' to no, or
little, avail - and they now charge £21 even under warranty. One of
the killer features of the SLR system is the ability to change lenses.
Once I get my D70 back, hopefully clean of dust, I can tell you I am
NEVER changing lenses again. What I can't understand is why this
problem is not more forcefully mentioned when the old film vs digital
debate rages?
June 4, 2005 6:30:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin <rafe b at speakeasy dot net> wrote in
news:0g83a1dvijp2she5va9fp67rt1clbcs56m@4ax.com:

> If it's too much to deal with, consider one of the
> high end non-SLR models. The only real disadvantage
> of these other cameras is (or may be) shutter lag.

Would it be rude of me to say that the statement above is absolute
bullshit?

Can you get a non-SLR with good zoom and optical viewfinder?

What about a non-SLR with a large enough sensor to give good low noise
results at ISO 1600?

Are the non-SLR cameras now able to match the AF speed of the D-SLRs?

How many non-SLR digitals have manual zoom as opposed to motorised zoom?

Which high end non-SLR digitals can capture 8.5fps at 8MPix for 40 shots at
max res and shoot at ISO 1600 with low noise and have focal lengths
available of over 600mm (35mm equivalent) and wide angle of 16mm (35mm
equivalent)?

Which high end non-SLR models are you referring to?

--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 6:30:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 14:30:40 GMT, MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:

>rafe bustin <rafe b at speakeasy dot net> wrote in
>news:0g83a1dvijp2she5va9fp67rt1clbcs56m@4ax.com:
>
>> If it's too much to deal with, consider one of the
>> high end non-SLR models. The only real disadvantage
>> of these other cameras is (or may be) shutter lag.
>
>Would it be rude of me to say that the statement above is absolute
>bullshit?


In my opinion? Yes.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 6:36:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 08:52:43 -0400, rafe bustin <rafe b at speakeasy
dot net> wrote:


>I've got a Canon G2 and a 10D, and they get about
>equal use. The 10D is my choice for walking,
>hiking and general snapshooting.

Sorry there, I meant to say that the G2 is
the walking-hiking-snapshooting camera.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 6:46:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <MPG.1d0b811db225df8998ab7b@news.supernews.com>,
Alfred Molon <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Olympus DSLRs automatically clean the CCD cleaning when you switch them
>on. Olympus is the only manufacturer which so far has addressed this
>problem - a bit hard to understand why Canon and Nikon haven't followed
>suit, since this is a major issue for any DSLR photographer.

The answer is obvious - people are still buying Canon and Nikon DSLRs
in droves.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 8:36:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Would it be rude of me to say that the statement above
>is absolute bullshit?

Yes, it's bit rude, and it would also indicate you think *your*
needs/wants are everyone's.

>Can you get a non-SLR with good zoom and optical viewfinder?

Yes, no, and why? Even the much maligned Sony-Zeiss 28-200 is a superb
zoom. The Oly C8080, which I own, has probably the best zoom ever
stuck on a digital, and is used to not only compare to, but also
out-gun, most 6Mp DSLRs at dpreview. It's only 28-140, but that serves
95% of my needs. Optical viewfinders are nice, but a non-issue for me,
and I actually appreciate having all my exposure information and just
about every setting available without moving my eye.

>What about a non-SLR with a large enough sensor to give good
>low noise results at ISO 1600?

I have shot maybe one roll of film at 800 or above in my non-digital
life. For all my work, the camera is set at ISO 50-100, and noise
simply isn't visible on any print up to 11x8, or even a 13x19 viewed at
arms' length (as they usually are).

>Are the non-SLR cameras now able to match the AF speed of the D-SLRs?

Some are - the newer Sony's for example. Mine isn't that fast, and I
agree that this is one area where non-DSLRs can bite. But if you learn
how to anticipate and pre-focus, again it is a non-issue (even with my
19 month old grandson!) Why, some of us old-timers used to manage with
manual focus - did you know that?

>How many non-SLR digitals have manual zoom as opposed to motorised zoom?

Not many, but some. Again, it's 'nice' to have a manual zoom ring, but
how exactly is that critical? Maybe to you, but not to me. A good
manual focus might make for a better point...

>Which high end non-SLR digitals can capture 8.5fps at 8MPix for 40 shots at
>max res..

Well, gee, that would be handy for my landscapes and portraits......

>and shoot at ISO 1600 with low noise

Repeating an issue doesn't make it worse.

>and have focal lengths available of over 600mm
>(35mm equivalent) and wide angle of 16mm

...umm, in a small lightweight single package? And at what cost? Mine
has a native range from 28-140, and with two very compact adapters it
reaches 18mm through 280, with very acceptable resolution indeed. All
fitted in a bag no bigger than a small shoebox.. And I very rarely use
those adapters..

>Which high end non-SLR models are you referring to?

Well, at the risk of repeating *myself*.. you see the thing is, not all
of us actually *need* what a high-end SLR gives. And not all of us
call other opinions 'rubbish' for having a slightly different view of
the world.
June 4, 2005 8:45:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>You should have the guts to make that kind of statement posting with
>your real name.

Oh man. Thanks for joining in, Alf. That your real name? Your sentence
doesn't really hang together gramatically, but I get the gist. My real
name is John Carvill. Ok? Ooof... that took guts!

Jesus, am I going to keep using this forum!
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 11:47:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"jc" <johncarvill@hotmail.com> writes:

>>You should have the guts to make that kind of statement posting with
>>your real name.
>
> Oh man. Thanks for joining in, Alf. That your real name? Your sentence
> doesn't really hang together gramatically, but I get the gist. My real
> name is John Carvill. Ok? Ooof... that took guts!

And I had rather suspected as much from your email address :-)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
June 4, 2005 11:53:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Prior to purchase, one very great man advised
> me, no don't buy a whiz-bang 35mm film
> SLR, you'll never use it, think how many more
> photos you'll take with a digital;

>another great man pooh-pooh'ed digital,
> mainly focusing on the dangers of dust
>getting onto the sensor and subsequently
> ending up on every picture.

Is your point that your dust problem is because you have a digital or
because you have an SLR? Dust can get in to a 35mm film SLR when you
change lenses, too.
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 1:56:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>Dust can get in to a 35mm film SLR when you
>>change lenses, too.
>
>yes, but the film does an awfully good job of keeping the surface where the
>image goes reasonably clean from one shot to the next...

yes again, but only while it is in camera/film canister. Once it is
out....a new ball game begins. Do you honestly not have any problem
with dust on negatives/slides? And if No is the answer, can I ask how
much effort you must put in to keep them spotless?

I'm not necessarily backing up the OP (who seems to have a slight
attitude problem, just like those he criticises (which will now include
me, heheh!)), but I do think it is an 'issue', and I am happy to wait
for a decent DSLR to come along that includes sensor cleaning. The
E-300 is close, but not quite close enough... (I'm waiting for
in-camera IS, and a little better noise control).
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 2:33:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> writes:

> Speaking of names, are you any relation to Richard Dyer-Bennet?

Yes, he was my uncle.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
June 5, 2005 3:00:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin <rafe b at speakeasy dot net> wrote in
news:s4p3a1d933kabmlptnsu6gdgg9ovptm2jk@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 14:30:40 GMT, MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:
>
>>rafe bustin <rafe b at speakeasy dot net> wrote in
>>news:0g83a1dvijp2she5va9fp67rt1clbcs56m@4ax.com:
>>
>>> If it's too much to deal with, consider one of the
>>> high end non-SLR models. The only real disadvantage
>>> of these other cameras is (or may be) shutter lag.
>>
>>Would it be rude of me to say that the statement above is absolute
>>bullshit?
>
> In my opinion? Yes.

And yet you don't answer my points about why I think your statement is
untrue, interesting.

Honestly, I think you must be trolling with such an obviously false
statement.



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 4:41:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:00:19 GMT, MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:


>And yet you don't answer my points about why I think your statement is
>untrue, interesting.

I didn't think a sensible, reasoned answer
was called for, given the nature of your
response.

>Honestly, I think you must be trolling with such an obviously false
>statement.

It wasn't a statement, but a suggestion.
If it doesn't apply to you, fine. No need
to get rude about it.

Not everyone needs a (D)SLR. There are
certain advantages to non-SLRs. They're
smaller, lighter, and they don't have
the dust problem (such as it is.)

AFAIK, the largest sensors are in DSLRs,
so that's a big point in their favor.

OTOH, some non-SLRs have beautiful,
sharp integrated lenses with enough
zoom range to cover most needs.

The tilt/swivel LCD on my G2 makes
for some unique photo angles that
would be difficult or impossible
with a 10D or D70.

To each his(her) own.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
June 5, 2005 4:51:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin <rafe b at speakeasy dot net> wrote:


> To each his(her) own.
>


Oh please..

We all know you MUST own a canon or.... well... you might as well slash your
wrist..

--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 5:17:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Speaking of names, are you any relation to Richard Dyer-Bennet?
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 6:43:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Sorry about rather OT reply, folks...

>>>Would it be rude of me to say that the statement above
>>>is absolute bullshit?
>
>> Yes, it's bit rude, and it would also indicate you think *your*
>> needs/wants are everyone's.
>
>How would it indicate that?

Sigh. Do read on, but I'm clearly wasting my time.... Why don't I
just concede that everyone wants *all* the features in your original
list, and that other types of cameras are just useless objects of
derision - rubbish, in fact.

>...blah blah...
>Why? I am just explaining one of the advantages of D-SLR cameras.
> My point is that there are some advantages.

And MINE is that their are disadvantages as well, and that prosumers
and compacts have advantages of their own.

> If those advantages don't matter to you then how does that nullify my point?

I'm not nullifying your point, I am BALANCING it, and objecting to your
use of the term 'rubbish'.

>...blahblah...
>How is that relevant to my point? Just because you don't need this
>feature does not make it a non-feature that is of no benefit to anyone.
>Stop being so arrogant.

Arrogant? *I* didn't use the term 'rubbish'. *I* didn't reel off a
whole pile of advantages, with ZERO disadvantages (that was.. you).
*I* thought it might be appropriate to point out that their are many
sides to a camera choice equation. How EXACTLY is that 'arrogant'?
Maybe by explaining it to me, I'll change my ways.

>>>Are the non-SLR cameras now able to match the AF speed of the D-SLRs?
>> Some are - the newer Sony's for example. Mine isn't that fast....
>..How is that relevant to my point?

Did you actually READ what I said? Look again - you asked if a
non-dslr could match a dslr AF speed. OK so far? I said, correctly,
that some of the newer prosumers *are* as fast! How could I possibly
be more relevant? I even happily told you that *my* camera isn't very
fast.. Sheesh, you don't like being debated, do you? Why did you ask
the question if you didn't want to know?

> You may not need fast AF, but some people do.

Which is EXACTLY my point. This *isn't* about one advantage or
disadvantage. Different people have different needs. (read that
sentence again)

To say those needs are 'rubbish', is rather rude (gee, some might even
use the term 'arrogant', but not me, oh no). Do you get it... yet?

>The fast AF of most D-SLRs is and advantage compared to the
>majority of non-SLRs, that is what I was saying and I stand by it.

And you are *right*, but that *isn't* what you asked in the post above.
I answered what you asked. And tried (clearly without success) to
make an overall point about different needs.

(more pointless argument snipped)

>I was not making a list of features that you needed, not everything
>is about you, get over yourself.

Sighs loudly. LOOK at your original post. YOU posted a whole pile of
one-sided advantages. Not a sign of any disadvantages. And then YOU
called other needs 'rubbish'. But *I* should get over myself.
Right-o.

>At the same time someone suggesting that there is no disadvantage
>to a non-SLR camera except shutter lag is somehow not being conceited
>and failing to consider anyone else's requirements.

Let's briefly look at what he actually said..

>If it's too much to deal with, consider one of the
>high end non-SLR models. The only real disadvantage
>of these other cameras is (or may be) shutter lag.

Did you see the bit in brackets? 'or may be'? Did you read the
preceding sentence, in which he points out that the OP was clearly not
happy with his dslr experience? Did you read the original post, in
which the OP had decided to *no longer use interchangable lenses*! Oh
dear, there goes several of your advantages right there. Did you
forget that bit? And I note *you* selectively cut out the rest of
Rafe's post, when you called his offhand suggestion not just 'rubbish',
but *absolute* rubbish..


So, we disagree then. I don't think it was an 'absolute rubbish'
suggestion, but one the OP should think about. Considering *all* the
advantages *and* the disadvantages.

Anyway, it clearly isn't going to get through - go on alone if you
wish.

I strongly suggest you show this whole thread to someone else, without
extra commentary, explanation or bias, and ask them if I'm the arrogant
party...
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 7:14:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tiffany Silver" <NiceTiffany@webtv.net> wrote in message news:4561-42A23EE8-

>Is your point that your dust problem is because you have a digital or
>because you have an SLR? Dust can get in to a 35mm film SLR when you
>change lenses, too.

yes, but the film does an awfully good job of keeping the surface where the
image goes reasonably clean from one shot to the next...
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 10:18:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:

> Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> writes:
>
>> Speaking of names, are you any relation to Richard Dyer-Bennet?
>
> Yes, he was my uncle.

That's very interesting. I have a number of his old recordings. He and John
Jacob Niles were two early influences on me as a folk musician.
June 5, 2005 10:59:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

chrlz@go.com wrote in
news:1117928206.112763.56600@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Well, at the risk of repeating *myself*.. you see the thing is, not
> all of us actually *need* what a high-end SLR gives. And not all of
> us call other opinions 'rubbish' for having a slightly different view
> of the world.

Oh dear, you seem to have completely missed the point I was making.

I was responding to this quote:
> If it's too much to deal with, consider one of the
> high end non-SLR models. The only real disadvantage
> of these other cameras is (or may be) shutter lag.

I was not saying that everyone needed the advantages that I mentioned. I
don't know why you thought I was saying that, I am not too sure how you
could misunderstand so badly.

There are in fact many advantages to non-SLR digitals over the D-SLRs. Such
as:
Smaller size
Lighter weight
Lower price
Live preview on LCD
No need to change lenses


But to say that the only disadvantage of these cameras is shutter lag is
just a load of baloney. An honest and fair minded person could understand
that there are many advantages to the D-SLR cameras over the currently
available non-SLRs. Whether or not those advantages matter to you is a
different matter altogether.



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
June 5, 2005 11:18:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

chrlz@go.com wrote in
news:1117928206.112763.56600@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>>Would it be rude of me to say that the statement above
>>is absolute bullshit?
>
> Yes, it's bit rude, and it would also indicate you think *your*
> needs/wants are everyone's.

How would it indicate that?

>>Can you get a non-SLR with good zoom and optical viewfinder?
>
> Yes, no, and why? Even the much maligned Sony-Zeiss 28-200 is a
> superb zoom. The Oly C8080, which I own, has probably the best zoom
> ever stuck on a digital, and is used to not only compare to, but also
> out-gun, most 6Mp DSLRs at dpreview. It's only 28-140, but that
> serves 95% of my needs. Optical viewfinders are nice, but a non-issue
> for me, and I actually appreciate having all my exposure information
> and just about every setting available without moving my eye.

Why? I am just explaining one of the advantages of D-SLR cameras. My
point is that there are some advantages. If those advantages don't
matter to you then how does that nullify my point?

>>What about a non-SLR with a large enough sensor to give good
>>low noise results at ISO 1600?
>
> I have shot maybe one roll of film at 800 or above in my non-digital
> life. For all my work, the camera is set at ISO 50-100, and noise
> simply isn't visible on any print up to 11x8, or even a 13x19 viewed
> at arms' length (as they usually are).

How is that relevant to my point? Just because you don't need this
feature does not make it a non-feature that is of no benefit to anyone.
Stop being so arrogant.

>>Are the non-SLR cameras now able to match the AF speed of the D-SLRs?
>
> Some are - the newer Sony's for example. Mine isn't that fast, and I
> agree that this is one area where non-DSLRs can bite. But if you
> learn how to anticipate and pre-focus, again it is a non-issue (even
> with my 19 month old grandson!) Why, some of us old-timers used to
> manage with manual focus - did you know that?

How is that relevant to my point? You may not need fast AF, but some
people do. The fast AF of most D-SLRs is and advantage compared to the
majority of non-SLRs, that is what I was saying and I stand by it.

>>How many non-SLR digitals have manual zoom as opposed to motorised
>>zoom?
>
> Not many, but some. Again, it's 'nice' to have a manual zoom ring,
> but how exactly is that critical? Maybe to you, but not to me. A
> good manual focus might make for a better point...

If you say that this feature maybe important to me then you obviously
concede that it is an advantage in some way, that is my point. I can
zoom from the equivalent of 45mm to the equivalent of 216mm in less than
a second, how is this not an advantage? In fact this ability is
critical for getting the shot quite often, for some people at least.

>>Which high end non-SLR digitals can capture 8.5fps at 8MPix for 40
>>shots at max res..
>
> Well, gee, that would be handy for my landscapes and portraits......

Where did I say that you needed this feature? I was not making a list
of features that you needed, not everything is about you, get over
yourself.

>>and shoot at ISO 1600 with low noise
>
> Repeating an issue doesn't make it worse.

You broke up my paragraph, why? I was listing a bunch of features
available on one particular camera. These are features which matter to
plenty of people, I can't see how you can deny that they are advantages
to that system.

>>and have focal lengths available of over 600mm
>>(35mm equivalent) and wide angle of 16mm
>
> ..umm, in a small lightweight single package? And at what cost? Mine
> has a native range from 28-140, and with two very compact adapters it
> reaches 18mm through 280, with very acceptable resolution indeed. All
> fitted in a bag no bigger than a small shoebox.. And I very rarely
> use those adapters..

When did I say this was available in a small lightweight single package?

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth and accusing me of things
that I did not say!

I have never said that there is no advantage to a small camera, there is
no need for you to suggest that I somehow claim there is no advantage to
non-SLR cameras.

Please understand that your needs/wants are not everyone's and that
there may be people who buy differently to you based on their
needs/wants.

You are foolish to say that 'I don't need a feature' = 'the feature is
not an advantage'. It only suggests that you may not need to buy a
camera with that feature.

I just don't understand how my pointing out that there are some
advantages to D-SLR cameras is somehow a sign that I am conceited and
don't think about anyone else's needs. At the same time someone
suggesting that there is no disadvantage to a non-SLR camera except
shutter lag is somehow not being conceited and failing to consider
anyone else's requirements.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
June 5, 2005 11:35:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin <rafe b at speakeasy dot net> wrote in
news:eov4a1lf0egivkk4qm3phbqjsm7prej2ns@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:00:19 GMT, MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:
>
>
>>And yet you don't answer my points about why I think your statement is
>>untrue, interesting.
>
> I didn't think a sensible, reasoned answer
> was called for, given the nature of your
> response.
>
>>Honestly, I think you must be trolling with such an obviously false
>>statement.
>
> It wasn't a statement, but a suggestion.
> If it doesn't apply to you, fine. No need
> to get rude about it.

How is "The only real disadvantage of these other cameras is (or may be)
shutter lag" a suggestion? It sounds like a statement, and an incorrect
one at that.

> Not everyone needs a (D)SLR. There are
> certain advantages to non-SLRs. They're
> smaller, lighter, and they don't have
> the dust problem (such as it is.)

This is true.

> AFAIK, the largest sensors are in DSLRs,
> so that's a big point in their favor.

Also true.

> OTOH, some non-SLRs have beautiful,
> sharp integrated lenses with enough
> zoom range to cover most needs.

I agree (and never did disagree).

> The tilt/swivel LCD on my G2 makes
> for some unique photo angles that
> would be difficult or impossible
> with a 10D or D70.

I agree with this too.

> To each his(her) own.

This is the exact opposite of your original statement, why don't you
make up your mind?

You suggested that apart from shutter lag there was no advantage to a D-
SLR, now you have conceded that there are other advantages and that each
person can buy what they want/need to get what they want.

You said:
> If it's too much to deal with, consider one of the
> high end non-SLR models. The only real disadvantage
> of these other cameras is (or may be) shutter lag.

But now you admit that the larger sensor in the D-SLR cameras is a big
point in their favour. Therefore the real disadvantages of the high end
non-SLR camera are more numerous than your original statement admitted.

I believe that there are many advantages and also many disadvantages to
the non-SLR cameras. Now because of your change of mind I am not too
sure whether you believe that there is only one disadvantage to a non-
SLR or maybe you now believe that there are more disadvantages (this
seems to be the case now).

Honestly for someone that owns both a D-SLR and a non-SLR digital I
would have expected you to understand that there are quite a few
disadvantages of each camera compared to the other.

The DoF of each is different, surely the G2 has an advantage with the
greater DoF, but also a disadvantage with the greater DoF?

The G2 must have an advantage with size, weight and purchase price.
Also with the live preview and swivel LCD.

The G2 must also have disadvantages with things like not being able to
change lenses, slower AF, slower time to zoom, greater shutter lag, more
limited ISO range, more noise at ISO 200 & 400, etc.

My point is to each his/her own. Thankfully you now seem to understand
that point.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 11:35:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 07:35:52 GMT, MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:

>> The tilt/swivel LCD on my G2 makes
>> for some unique photo angles that
>> would be difficult or impossible
>> with a 10D or D70.
>
>I agree with this too.

I don't.
For some reason, I'm able to tell if the camera is aimed reasonably
close to the way I want, even if I can't see the viewfinder.
One of the neat things about digital is that cropping is so easily
done; a reasonable shot can be cropped to make it much better.

--
Big Bill
Replace "g" with "a"
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 11:38:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 4 Jun 2005 21:56:24 -0700, chrlz@go.com wrote:

>>>Dust can get in to a 35mm film SLR when you
>>>change lenses, too.
>>
>>yes, but the film does an awfully good job of keeping the surface where the
>>image goes reasonably clean from one shot to the next...
>
>yes again, but only while it is in camera/film canister. Once it is
>out....a new ball game begins. Do you honestly not have any problem
>with dust on negatives/slides? And if No is the answer, can I ask how
>much effort you must put in to keep them spotless?

After each film exposure is made, a new piece of the film roll is
advanced to the focal plane; with digital, the sensor is always in the
focal plane. Any dust that would fall on film wouldn't be in the next
shot, but any dust on the digital sensor stays on the sensor for each
subsequent shot.
Dust on the film during processing hasn't been an issue at all for me.
Has it beenfor you?

--
Big Bill
Replace "g" with "a"
!