Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

dSLR and dust

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 12:08:06 AM

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

So, having agonised for weeks over whether to buy a prosumer compact or a
dSLR, and then which one to go for (and do I want to get dragged into the
Nikon/Canon/Pentax battles<g>) I finally decided to go dSLR. I figured the
dust won't be a major issue for some time as I will only have a standard
lens and, well, a professional clean once a year would probably keep it all
in order.

So I buy the camera and fire a few shots through and - doubtless you already
saw where this was going - start noticing strange spotty haloes on my blue
skies, and I've only had the thing three days! Cleaned sensor with a blower
brush (minus the brush of course, just the blower) and everything seems OK.

All that agonising over nothing?


--
Paul ============}
o o

// Live fast, die old //
PaulsPages and Galleries are at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/

More about : dslr dust

Anonymous
August 18, 2005 12:08:07 AM

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

someone should make dust free changing bags, like those film to
developing canister blackout bags, for changing lenses in.

Wonder if you could just use the blackout bag? Haven't had one of those
for years....
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 12:08:07 AM

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

PcB wrote:

> So, having agonised for weeks over whether to buy a prosumer compact or a
> dSLR, and then which one to go for (and do I want to get dragged into the
> Nikon/Canon/Pentax battles<g>) I finally decided to go dSLR. I figured the
> dust won't be a major issue for some time as I will only have a standard
> lens and, well, a professional clean once a year would probably keep it all
> in order.
>
> So I buy the camera and fire a few shots through and - doubtless you already
> saw where this was going - start noticing strange spotty haloes on my blue
> skies, and I've only had the thing three days! Cleaned sensor with a blower
> brush (minus the brush of course, just the blower) and everything seems OK.
>
> All that agonising over nothing?

I bought a 10D just over 2 years ago. Shortly after I bought it
I started noticing dust. I picked up a pack of 12 Sensor Swabs and a
small vial of Photosol.

I just cleaned my sensor last month. When I did, I noticed that I
have 6 swabs left. So.. Using 6 swabs in two years means I've been
cleaning my camera once every four months on average.

It only takes about 3 minutes to swab the sensor, so spending 18 minutes
over over a two year period wasn't much of a task :-)

I've had the odd dark blobs in some images that I had to clone out. I've
only used my bulb to blow off the sensor off maybe 3 or 4 times.

I've never had a photo ruined because of dust....
Related resources
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 12:08:07 AM

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

>why cant they house the sensor in some
>type of vacum.rgds to all from TBM...

And something has to keep the vacuum...which puts a surface in the path
of the light going to the sensor, so that dust particles can collect on
IT instead of on the sensor?!?!
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 12:08:07 AM

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

>someone should make dust free changing bags, like those film to
>developing canister blackout bags

Obviously you have not experienced the problem of dust accumulating
in the bag. Large Format shooters know the problem of putting
sheetfilm into 4x5 film holders, so the bag is not a solution to the
problem! A bag would certainly reduce the problem of dust blowing
around in the wind when changing lenses outdoors.
If you find a large clear bag (like the vacuum container bags made
for storing sweaters more compactly) and cut a couple of holes for your
hands, that would reduce the problem of wind-blown dust as well as
provide a see-thru cover which you could see what you're doing when
changing lenses.
But the bad news part is that to be safe you'd need to store that bag
in another bag, so that dust doesn't enter the think when it is inside
your camera bag! The good news part is that the bag would generate
static which would attract any dust particles while you're changing
lenses.

I think an easier way to minimize interior dust is merely to hold
the body with the lens opening facing downward so that any dust falls
toward the ground rather than on an interior surface, and change lenses
with the camera held downwind when you're outside. In 40 years of
shooting with SLR's I cannot think of a time when I worried about dust
collecting on the reflex mirror, so I wonder why all these people are
having dust problems now, when the sensor itself is shielded by the
shutter!
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 12:31:24 AM

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

So I buy the camera and fire a few shots through and - doubtless you already
saw where this was going - start noticing strange spotty haloes on my blue
skies, and I've only had the thing three days! >Cleaned sensor with a blower
>brush (minus the brush of course, just the >blower) and everything seems OK

i cant understand why the manufacturer ie canon/nikon can not do something about this problem.why cant they house the sensor in some
type of vacum.rgds to all from TBM...
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 1:40:55 AM

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

<snip>

> All that agonising over nothing?

Yup. :) 

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 1:56:02 AM

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

> All that agonising over nothing?

CANT REALLY SAY THE POST IS ABOUT NOTHING! IT IS RELEVANT AND TIME SOMETHING OR SOMEONE DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT.SAY SOMEONE WITH A
BIT OF INTELLIGENCE UNLIKE YOURSELF.RGDS TO ALL FROM TBM...
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 2:01:16 AM

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

> > All that agonising over nothing?
>
> CANT REALLY SAY THE POST IS ABOUT NOTHING! IT IS RELEVANT AND TIME
SOMETHING OR SOMEONE DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT.SAY SOMEONE WITH A
> BIT OF INTELLIGENCE UNLIKE YOURSELF.RGDS TO ALL FROM TBM...

Who are you ranting at?

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 2:01:59 AM

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

> >why cant they house the sensor in some
> >type of vacum.rgds to all from TBM...
>
> And something has to keep the vacuum...which puts a surface in the path
> of the light going to the sensor, so that dust particles can collect on
> IT instead of on the sensor?!?!

Just house the transparent vacuum chamber in a vacuum. Duh. <g>

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 3:59:04 AM

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

In article <w8NMe.3684$914.1693@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>, tbm says...

> i cant understand why the manufacturer ie canon/nikon can not do something about this problem.why cant they house the sensor in some
> type of vacum.rgds to all from TBM...

Olympus DSLRs automatically shake away the dust, when you switch them
on. It's the only manufacturer who is doing something about this
problem.
Their cameras BTW also have pixel mapping (i.e. map away dead pixels in
the CCD), and here again they are the only ones offering this feature.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 4:18:04 AM

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

"PcB" <pcbradley@no_spam_lineone.net> wrote in message
news:GOMMe.12534$Mf6.3565@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> So, having agonised for weeks over whether to buy a prosumer compact or a
> dSLR, and then which one to go for (and do I want to get dragged into the
> Nikon/Canon/Pentax battles<g>) I finally decided to go dSLR. I figured the
> dust won't be a major issue for some time as I will only have a standard
> lens and, well, a professional clean once a year would probably keep it
> all
> in order.
>
> So I buy the camera and fire a few shots through and - doubtless you
> already
> saw where this was going - start noticing strange spotty haloes on my blue
> skies, and I've only had the thing three days! Cleaned sensor with a
> blower
> brush (minus the brush of course, just the blower) and everything seems
> OK.
>
> All that agonising over nothing?


There is more sheer rubbish talked about sensor cleaning than just about any
other digital photography topic.

If you read the 'Copperhill' pages you can be forgiven for thinking that the
author is describing Nuero-surgery, rather than cleaning a sensor! -
'Extracting the PecPads with tweezers'!, performing the procedure in a
bathroom after first running a cold shower to remove dust from the
air!,......what a load of old tosh!

The first thing to remember is that the sensor is covered by a glass plate -
and is *very" unlikely to be damaged by anyone with more skill than an
Orang-Utang, the second thing to remember is do not use more than a couple
of drops of cleaning fluid per swabbing - the greatest danger is that the
sensor might not be 100% sealed, and alcohol will find its way between the
sensor and the glass cover. If fluid does seep in there you might be well
and truly stuffed - otherwise, it's a childishly simple operation that has
deliberately been turned into an exacting science by people who make a
fortune from selling wildly overpriced cleaning kits.

The other important thing to remember is to blow off loose dust with a bulb
blower before swabbing- in many instances, this will be all you need to do
anyway

When I cleaned my first sensor I used Digipads - and realised then what a
complete and utter rip-off the whole sensor-cleaning industry is! After
using up half a dozen digipads I still had a couple of marks on the sensor
(it was very cruddy) so I broke the golden rule (imposed by those who sell
Digipads, obviously) and reused one - resulting in a completely clean
sensor.

Then I put the used digipads in a drawer intending to make up new ones using
PecPads, but before I had a chance I was asked to clean another sensor - and
used the 'old' digipads, which (again) resulted in a perfectly clean sensor.

I'm not saying that they can be used time and time again - but I certainly
am saying that the stringent prohibitions on their re-use are designed
solely to benefit the Sheister who sells a 5p 'swab' for £2.00 each!
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 5:16:28 AM

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

In article <3mhuvcF176a5cU1@individual.net>, pentax@polly.com says...
>
> "PcB" <pcbradley@no_spam_lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:GOMMe.12534$Mf6.3565@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> > So, having agonised for weeks over whether to buy a prosumer compact or a
> > dSLR, and then which one to go for (and do I want to get dragged into the
> > Nikon/Canon/Pentax battles<g>) I finally decided to go dSLR. I figured the
> > dust won't be a major issue for some time as I will only have a standard
> > lens and, well, a professional clean once a year would probably keep it
> > all
> > in order.
> >
> > So I buy the camera and fire a few shots through and - doubtless you
> > already
> > saw where this was going - start noticing strange spotty haloes on my blue
> > skies, and I've only had the thing three days! Cleaned sensor with a
> > blower
> > brush (minus the brush of course, just the blower) and everything seems
> > OK.
> >
> > All that agonising over nothing?
>
>
> There is more sheer rubbish talked about sensor cleaning than just about any
> other digital photography topic.
>
> If you read the 'Copperhill' pages you can be forgiven for thinking that the
> author is describing Nuero-surgery, rather than cleaning a sensor! -
> 'Extracting the PecPads with tweezers'!, performing the procedure in a
> bathroom after first running a cold shower to remove dust from the
> air!,......what a load of old tosh!
>
> The first thing to remember is that the sensor is covered by a glass plate -
> and is *very" unlikely to be damaged by anyone with more skill than an
> Orang-Utang, the second thing to remember is do not use more than a couple
> of drops of cleaning fluid per swabbing - the greatest danger is that the
> sensor might not be 100% sealed, and alcohol will find its way between the
> sensor and the glass cover. If fluid does seep in there you might be well
> and truly stuffed - otherwise, it's a childishly simple operation that has
> deliberately been turned into an exacting science by people who make a
> fortune from selling wildly overpriced cleaning kits.
>
> The other important thing to remember is to blow off loose dust with a bulb
> blower before swabbing- in many instances, this will be all you need to do
> anyway
>
> When I cleaned my first sensor I used Digipads - and realised then what a
> complete and utter rip-off the whole sensor-cleaning industry is! After
> using up half a dozen digipads I still had a couple of marks on the sensor
> (it was very cruddy) so I broke the golden rule (imposed by those who sell
> Digipads, obviously) and reused one - resulting in a completely clean
> sensor.
>
> Then I put the used digipads in a drawer intending to make up new ones using
> PecPads, but before I had a chance I was asked to clean another sensor - and
> used the 'old' digipads, which (again) resulted in a perfectly clean sensor.
>
> I'm not saying that they can be used time and time again - but I certainly
> am saying that the stringent prohibitions on their re-use are designed
> solely to benefit the Sheister who sells a 5p 'swab' for £2.00 each!

I've read some stuff about using a well-washed synthetic bristle paint
brush to clean the sensor. The idea being the brush will pick up a
slight static charge, helping to remove the dust from the sensor and
chamber. Hey - it's cheap. Certainly worth a shot.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 5:23:21 AM

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

"Mr. Mark" <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote in message
news:rtOMe.36023$dJ5.7956@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> >why cant they house the sensor in some
>> >type of vacum.rgds to all from TBM...
>>
>> And something has to keep the vacuum...which puts a surface in the path
>> of the light going to the sensor, so that dust particles can collect on
>> IT instead of on the sensor?!?!
>
> Just house the transparent vacuum chamber in a vacuum. Duh. <g>

That's no way to do it!
Those of us who know how to do it *right* know that
you just need to take pictures IN a vacuum.
Double Dog du-uh...
:) 
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 5:26:52 AM

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

"tbm" <ialwaysgetresults@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:SnOMe.8445$bf6.3061@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>> All that agonising over nothing?
>
> CANT REALLY SAY THE POST IS ABOUT NOTHING! IT IS RELEVANT AND TIME
> SOMETHING OR SOMEONE DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT.SAY SOMEONE WITH A
> BIT OF INTELLIGENCE UNLIKE YOURSELF.RGDS TO ALL FROM TBM...

Sheesh...
My ears!
August 18, 2005 8:58:40 AM

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

What exactly does dust look like in a digital image? I have a tiny Casio
EX-S3 which takes great pictures (for its size) except the images are now
showing blotches. Please check the following link to see a blotched image:

http://www.davearoundtheworld.org/Alaska05/photos/pages...

If the dust particles were right on the sensor shouldn't they be sharp,
black spots?

If this is dust on the sensor what do you think are my chances of cleaning
it? The lens unit is removeable but the sensor cavity is really small.

Thanks, DaveC
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 10:26:11 AM

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

DaveC wrote:
> What exactly does dust look like in a digital image? I have a tiny Casio
> EX-S3 which takes great pictures (for its size) except the images are now
> showing blotches. Please check the following link to see a blotched image:
>
> http://www.davearoundtheworld.org/Alaska05/photos/pages...
>
> If the dust particles were right on the sensor shouldn't they be sharp,
> black spots?
>
> If this is dust on the sensor what do you think are my chances of cleaning
> it? The lens unit is removeable but the sensor cavity is really small.
>
> Thanks, DaveC

It's possible your spots come from dirt or moisture condensation on one
of your lens surfaces. If it's moisture, warming up the camera (or
just the lens, if it's removeable) may help, or at least reduce them.

Mark
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 11:22:45 AM

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

"Polly Pentax" <pentax@polly.com> wrote in message
news:3mhuvcF176a5cU1@individual.net...
>
> "PcB" <pcbradley@no_spam_lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:GOMMe.12534$Mf6.3565@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> > So, having agonised for weeks over whether to buy a prosumer compact or
a
> > dSLR, and then which one to go for (and do I want to get dragged into
the
> > Nikon/Canon/Pentax battles<g>) I finally decided to go dSLR. I figured
the
> > dust won't be a major issue for some time as I will only have a standard
> > lens and, well, a professional clean once a year would probably keep it
> > all
> > in order.
> >
> > So I buy the camera and fire a few shots through and - doubtless you
> > already
> > saw where this was going - start noticing strange spotty haloes on my
blue
> > skies, and I've only had the thing three days! Cleaned sensor with a
> > blower
> > brush (minus the brush of course, just the blower) and everything seems
> > OK.
> >
> > All that agonising over nothing?
>
>
> There is more sheer rubbish talked about sensor cleaning than just about
any
> other digital photography topic.
>
> If you read the 'Copperhill' pages you can be forgiven for thinking that
the
> author is describing Nuero-surgery, rather than cleaning a sensor! -
> 'Extracting the PecPads with tweezers'!, performing the procedure in a
> bathroom after first running a cold shower to remove dust from the
> air!,......what a load of old tosh!
>
> The first thing to remember is that the sensor is covered by a glass
plate -
> and is *very" unlikely to be damaged by anyone with more skill than an
> Orang-Utang, the second thing to remember is do not use more than a couple
> of drops of cleaning fluid per swabbing - the greatest danger is that the
> sensor might not be 100% sealed, and alcohol will find its way between the
> sensor and the glass cover. If fluid does seep in there you might be well
> and truly stuffed - otherwise, it's a childishly simple operation that has
> deliberately been turned into an exacting science by people who make a
> fortune from selling wildly overpriced cleaning kits.
>
> The other important thing to remember is to blow off loose dust with a
bulb
> blower before swabbing- in many instances, this will be all you need to do
> anyway
>
> When I cleaned my first sensor I used Digipads - and realised then what a
> complete and utter rip-off the whole sensor-cleaning industry is! After
> using up half a dozen digipads I still had a couple of marks on the sensor
> (it was very cruddy) so I broke the golden rule (imposed by those who sell
> Digipads, obviously) and reused one - resulting in a completely clean
> sensor.
>
> Then I put the used digipads in a drawer intending to make up new ones
using
> PecPads, but before I had a chance I was asked to clean another sensor -
and
> used the 'old' digipads, which (again) resulted in a perfectly clean
sensor.
>
> I'm not saying that they can be used time and time again - but I certainly
> am saying that the stringent prohibitions on their re-use are designed
> solely to benefit the Sheister who sells a 5p 'swab' for £2.00 each!
>
>
It is more than just a glass plate. It is a glass plate with a anti
reflective coating applied. One should be more cautious than if were just
glass.
-S
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 11:22:45 AM

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

"Polly Pentax" <pentax@polly.com> wrote in message
news:3mhuvcF176a5cU1@individual.net...
>
> "PcB" <pcbradley@no_spam_lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:GOMMe.12534$Mf6.3565@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> > So, having agonised for weeks over whether to buy a prosumer compact or
a
> > dSLR, and then which one to go for (and do I want to get dragged into
the
> > Nikon/Canon/Pentax battles<g>) I finally decided to go dSLR. I figured
the
> > dust won't be a major issue for some time as I will only have a standard
> > lens and, well, a professional clean once a year would probably keep it
> > all
> > in order.
> >
> > So I buy the camera and fire a few shots through and - doubtless you
> > already
> > saw where this was going - start noticing strange spotty haloes on my
blue
> > skies, and I've only had the thing three days! Cleaned sensor with a
> > blower
> > brush (minus the brush of course, just the blower) and everything seems
> > OK.
> >
> > All that agonising over nothing?
>
>
> There is more sheer rubbish talked about sensor cleaning than just about
any
> other digital photography topic.
>
> If you read the 'Copperhill' pages you can be forgiven for thinking that
the
> author is describing Nuero-surgery, rather than cleaning a sensor! -
> 'Extracting the PecPads with tweezers'!, performing the procedure in a
> bathroom after first running a cold shower to remove dust from the
> air!,......what a load of old tosh!
>
> The first thing to remember is that the sensor is covered by a glass
plate -
> and is *very" unlikely to be damaged by anyone with more skill than an
> Orang-Utang, the second thing to remember is do not use more than a couple
> of drops of cleaning fluid per swabbing - the greatest danger is that the
> sensor might not be 100% sealed, and alcohol will find its way between the
> sensor and the glass cover. If fluid does seep in there you might be well
> and truly stuffed - otherwise, it's a childishly simple operation that has
> deliberately been turned into an exacting science by people who make a
> fortune from selling wildly overpriced cleaning kits.
>
> The other important thing to remember is to blow off loose dust with a
bulb
> blower before swabbing- in many instances, this will be all you need to do
> anyway
>
> When I cleaned my first sensor I used Digipads - and realised then what a
> complete and utter rip-off the whole sensor-cleaning industry is! After
> using up half a dozen digipads I still had a couple of marks on the sensor
> (it was very cruddy) so I broke the golden rule (imposed by those who sell
> Digipads, obviously) and reused one - resulting in a completely clean
> sensor.
>
> Then I put the used digipads in a drawer intending to make up new ones
using
> PecPads, but before I had a chance I was asked to clean another sensor -
and
> used the 'old' digipads, which (again) resulted in a perfectly clean
sensor.
>
> I'm not saying that they can be used time and time again - but I certainly
> am saying that the stringent prohibitions on their re-use are designed
> solely to benefit the Sheister who sells a 5p 'swab' for £2.00 each!
>
>
It is more than just a glass plate. It is a glass plate with a anti
reflective coating applied. One should be more cautious than if were just
glass.
-S
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 11:58:03 AM

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

"PcB" <pcbradley@no_spam_lineone.net> wrote in message
news:GOMMe.12534$Mf6.3565@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> So, having agonised for weeks over whether to buy a prosumer compact or a
> dSLR, and then which one to go for (and do I want to get dragged into the
> Nikon/Canon/Pentax battles<g>) I finally decided to go dSLR. I figured the
> dust won't be a major issue for some time as I will only have a standard
> lens and, well, a professional clean once a year would probably keep it
> all
> in order.
>
> So I buy the camera and fire a few shots through and - doubtless you
> already
> saw where this was going - start noticing strange spotty haloes on my blue
> skies, and I've only had the thing three days! Cleaned sensor with a
> blower
> brush (minus the brush of course, just the blower) and everything seems
> OK.
>
> All that agonising over nothing?
>
My Olympus Evolt E-300 actually does a sonic vibration to clean the lens's
before I shoot....
I noticed you didn't consider it with the other DSLR's. It's a nice camera
and self cleaning.
And with the 4/5 lens system, the lens's are almost double the rating of
standard SLR/DSLR camera's.

--
MoParMaN---Remove Clothes To Reply!
--SCUD Coordinates 32.61204 North: 96.92993 West--
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 12:11:34 PM

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

PcB wrote:
> So, having agonised for weeks over whether to buy a prosumer compact
> or a dSLR, and then which one to go for (and do I want to get dragged
> into the Nikon/Canon/Pentax battles<g>) I finally decided to go dSLR.
> I figured the dust won't be a major issue for some time as I will
> only have a standard lens and, well, a professional clean once a year
> would probably keep it all in order.
>
> So I buy the camera and fire a few shots through and - doubtless you
> already saw where this was going - start noticing strange spotty
> haloes on my blue skies, and I've only had the thing three days!
> Cleaned sensor with a blower brush (minus the brush of course, just
> the blower) and everything seems OK.
> All that agonising over nothing?

That mirrors what happened to me. I noticed dust within 2 days of
getting the dSLR. Removed the dust with a blower bulb and have
not had any since. That was 6 weeks ago and about 2 dozen lens
changes (mostly done outside).

-Mike
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 12:15:30 PM

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

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <w8NMe.3684$914.1693@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>, tbm says...
>
>> i cant understand why the manufacturer ie canon/nikon can not do
>> something about this problem.why cant they house the sensor in some
>> type of vacum.rgds to all from TBM...
>
> Olympus DSLRs automatically shake away the dust, when you switch them
> on. It's the only manufacturer who is doing something about this
> problem.
> Their cameras BTW also have pixel mapping (i.e. map away dead pixels
> in the CCD), and here again they are the only ones offering this
> feature.

All dSLRs have pixel mapping. Oly are the only ones I'm aware of that
expose this function to the user.

It would probably be possible to use Nikons dust reference picture
to create a dead pixel map but if it worked it would still be cumbersome.

-Mike
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 12:15:31 PM

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

In article <4303b709$0$5318$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Mike Warren says...

> All dSLRs have pixel mapping. Oly are the only ones I'm aware of that
> expose this function to the user.

All digital cameras map away the bad pixels, but to update the bad pixel
map you have to send the camera to the manufacturer. Only Olympus allows
you to do it yourself.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 12:15:32 PM

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

In article <MPG.1d6e443ae824dc6498acd6@news.supernews.com>,
alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com says...
> In article <4303b709$0$5318$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
> Mike Warren says...
>
> > All dSLRs have pixel mapping. Oly are the only ones I'm aware of that
> > expose this function to the user.
>
> All digital cameras map away the bad pixels, but to update the bad pixel
> map you have to send the camera to the manufacturer. Only Olympus allows
> you to do it yourself.

Or you can shoot RAW (a good idea anyway) and let Adobe do it for you:
http://www.pbase.com/image/47865781

(You doubted in the past, Alfred, so this is for you!)
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 12:56:53 PM

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

Alfred Molon wrote:
[]
> All digital cameras map away the bad pixels, but to update the bad
> pixel map you have to send the camera to the manufacturer. Only
> Olympus allows you to do it yourself.

Some of the Nikon Coolpix range also expose the update-dead-pixels-map
function, albeit third-party software is required to access the function.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 1:04:49 PM

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

In article <GlXMe.2963$ct5.699@fed1read04>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> The mirror and shutter are constantly flipping and flapping...
> ...and yet the calm little sensor just sits...and waits......quietly...for
> dust to settle.
> The sensor will do no flipping or flapping, blinking or fanning.
> It will happily sit and wait for any dust thrown at it by the evil
> Shutter/Fan Duo of Dust Distributors(known as the SFDDD), and collect ever
> more grime and crud as it hopes for newly-flipped dust with each shutter
> click.
>
> Isn't that nice?

You should adapt this into a bed time story.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 1:04:50 PM

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

"Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d6e193a11f7aa279898a3@news.verizon.net...
> In article <GlXMe.2963$ct5.699@fed1read04>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
> even number here)@cox..net> says...
>> The mirror and shutter are constantly flipping and flapping...
>> ...and yet the calm little sensor just sits...and
>> waits......quietly...for
>> dust to settle.
>> The sensor will do no flipping or flapping, blinking or fanning.
>> It will happily sit and wait for any dust thrown at it by the evil
>> Shutter/Fan Duo of Dust Distributors(known as the SFDDD), and collect
>> ever
>> more grime and crud as it hopes for newly-flipped dust with each shutter
>> click.
>>
>> Isn't that nice?
>
> You should adapt this into a bed time story.

What, you wanna give photogs NIGHTMARES??
:) 
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 1:09:44 PM

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

In article <%cYMe.2969$ct5.1323@fed1read04>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> > You should adapt this into a bed time story.
>
> What, you wanna give photogs NIGHTMARES??

What if I do?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 1:09:45 PM

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

"Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d6e1a63417224c19898a8@news.verizon.net...
> In article <%cYMe.2969$ct5.1323@fed1read04>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
> even number here)@cox..net> says...
>> > You should adapt this into a bed time story.
>>
>> What, you wanna give photogs NIGHTMARES??
>
> What if I do?

You monster, you...
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 1:18:52 PM

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

In article <9mYMe.2972$ct5.2727@fed1read04>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> >> What, you wanna give photogs NIGHTMARES??
> >
> > What if I do?
>
> You monster, you...

Don't worry, the story will have a happy ending when Knight Olympus and
his trusty steed, Four Thirds, come and save the day.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 1:18:53 PM

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

"Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d6e1c80d92bbecb9898ac@news.verizon.net...
> In article <9mYMe.2972$ct5.2727@fed1read04>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
> even number here)@cox..net> says...
>> >> What, you wanna give photogs NIGHTMARES??
>> >
>> > What if I do?
>>
>> You monster, you...
>
> Don't worry, the story will have a happy ending when Knight Olympus and
> his trusty steed, Four Thirds, come and save the day.

Boo hiss
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 1:23:09 PM

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

> My Olympus Evolt E-300 actually does a sonic vibration to clean the lens's
> before I shoot....
> I noticed you didn't consider it with the other DSLR's. It's a nice camera
> and self cleaning.
> And with the 4/5 lens system, the lens's are almost double the rating of
> standard SLR/DSLR camera's.

Woopty bloody doo, most of us just blow it our with a Hurricane bilb or
similar occasionally and thats all that is needed. Half the rating for wide,
bugger that.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 1:37:54 PM

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

In article <5zYMe.2974$ct5.1978@fed1read04>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> > Don't worry, the story will have a happy ending when Knight Olympus and
> > his trusty steed, Four Thirds, come and save the day.
>
> Boo hiss

Is it because Four Thirds has a bum leg and is actually a donkey?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 1:37:55 PM

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

"Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d6e20f7e91176a9898af@news.verizon.net...
> In article <5zYMe.2974$ct5.1978@fed1read04>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
> even number here)@cox..net> says...
>> > Don't worry, the story will have a happy ending when Knight Olympus and
>> > his trusty steed, Four Thirds, come and save the day.
>>
>> Boo hiss
>
> Is it because Four Thirds has a bum leg and is actually a donkey?

OK Brian... I suspect you need sleep...maybe even more than I do...
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 6:07:59 PM

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

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote

> > Just house the transparent vacuum chamber in a vacuum. Duh. <g>
>
> That's no way to do it!
> Those of us who know how to do it *right* know that
> you just need to take pictures IN a vacuum.
> Double Dog du-uh...
> :) 

LOL!

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 9:05:00 PM

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

"SimonLW" <anon@anon.com> wrote in message
news:430472af_1@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> "Polly Pentax" <pentax@polly.com> wrote in message
> news:3mhuvcF176a5cU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "PcB" <pcbradley@no_spam_lineone.net> wrote in message
>> news:GOMMe.12534$Mf6.3565@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> > So, having agonised for weeks over whether to buy a prosumer compact or
> a
>> > dSLR, and then which one to go for (and do I want to get dragged into
> the
>> > Nikon/Canon/Pentax battles<g>) I finally decided to go dSLR. I figured
> the
>> > dust won't be a major issue for some time as I will only have a
>> > standard
>> > lens and, well, a professional clean once a year would probably keep it
>> > all
>> > in order.
>> >
>> > So I buy the camera and fire a few shots through and - doubtless you
>> > already
>> > saw where this was going - start noticing strange spotty haloes on my
> blue
>> > skies, and I've only had the thing three days! Cleaned sensor with a
>> > blower
>> > brush (minus the brush of course, just the blower) and everything seems
>> > OK.
>> >
>> > All that agonising over nothing?
>>
>>
>> There is more sheer rubbish talked about sensor cleaning than just about
> any
>> other digital photography topic.
>>
>> If you read the 'Copperhill' pages you can be forgiven for thinking that
> the
>> author is describing Nuero-surgery, rather than cleaning a sensor! -
>> 'Extracting the PecPads with tweezers'!, performing the procedure in a
>> bathroom after first running a cold shower to remove dust from the
>> air!,......what a load of old tosh!
>>
>> The first thing to remember is that the sensor is covered by a glass
> plate -
>> and is *very" unlikely to be damaged by anyone with more skill than an
>> Orang-Utang, the second thing to remember is do not use more than a
>> couple
>> of drops of cleaning fluid per swabbing - the greatest danger is that the
>> sensor might not be 100% sealed, and alcohol will find its way between
>> the
>> sensor and the glass cover. If fluid does seep in there you might be
>> well
>> and truly stuffed - otherwise, it's a childishly simple operation that
>> has
>> deliberately been turned into an exacting science by people who make a
>> fortune from selling wildly overpriced cleaning kits.
>>
>> The other important thing to remember is to blow off loose dust with a
> bulb
>> blower before swabbing- in many instances, this will be all you need to
>> do
>> anyway
>>
>> When I cleaned my first sensor I used Digipads - and realised then what a
>> complete and utter rip-off the whole sensor-cleaning industry is! After
>> using up half a dozen digipads I still had a couple of marks on the
>> sensor
>> (it was very cruddy) so I broke the golden rule (imposed by those who
>> sell
>> Digipads, obviously) and reused one - resulting in a completely clean
>> sensor.
>>
>> Then I put the used digipads in a drawer intending to make up new ones
> using
>> PecPads, but before I had a chance I was asked to clean another sensor -
> and
>> used the 'old' digipads, which (again) resulted in a perfectly clean
> sensor.
>>
>> I'm not saying that they can be used time and time again - but I
>> certainly
>> am saying that the stringent prohibitions on their re-use are designed
>> solely to benefit the Sheister who sells a 5p 'swab' for £2.00 each!
>>
>>
> It is more than just a glass plate. It is a glass plate with a anti
> reflective coating applied. One should be more cautious than if were just
> glass.


Well, yes, it's an anti-aliasing filter - and I'm not suggesting that anyone
treats it with anything less than great respect.

It is not, though, as fragile as the makers of sensor cleaning systems want
us to believe, and is cleanable as a matter of course using a soft lint-free
wipe and some suitable alcohol based fluid. The world will not end if it is
gently wiped, nor will your camera suddenly stop working.

For my money, the biggest load of balls ever talked about sensor cleaning
comes from Visible Profits (sorry, 'Dust') - $100 dollars for a paintbrush
costing pennies - it's like something out of Huckleberry Finn!
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 9:05:01 PM

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

On 18 Aug 2005 14:27:30 -0700, "Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com>
wrote:

snipped
>I checked vellum. Calfskin prepared in lime. I still have zip idea of
>its static inducing properties, though. Might be interesting to try.

"Vellum Paper" not "Vellum". There's a big different. As for static
inducing properties of paper, Never rubbed a plastic comb in paper and
then picked up small pieces of paper with it?


******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 11:49:42 PM

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

<<CANT REALLY SAY THE POST IS ABOUT NOTHING! IT IS RELEVANT AND TIME
SOMETHING OR SOMEONE DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT.SAY SOMEONE WITH A
BIT OF INTELLIGENCE UNLIKE YOURSELF.RGDS TO ALL FROM TBM...>>

Thanks for that. How would you measure intelligence then? Presumably in a
manner which ignores punctuation and grammar?

--
Paul ============}
o o

// Live fast, die old //
PaulsPages and galleries are at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 11:54:22 PM

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

<<What exactly does dust look like in a digital image? I have a tiny Casio
EX-S3 which takes great pictures (for its size) except the images are now
showing blotches. Please check the following link to see a blotched image:
http://www.davearoundtheworld.org/Alaska05/photos/pages...
If the dust particles were right on the sensor shouldn't they be sharp,
black spots?
>>

Well, I can't comment on "sharp black spots" but certainly the blotches at
the top of the image are exactly like the ones I had and they disappeared
after cleaning.

--
Paul ============}
o o

// Live fast, die old //
PaulsPages and galleries are at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 11:56:50 PM

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

<<I noticed you didn't consider it with the other DSLR's. It's a nice camera
and self cleaning.>>

Well, actually I just didn't list it - I did consider it a great deal
(because of the dust issue) along with the 8080. In fact it was only the
fact that the 8080 was discontinued that I went for a dSLR (350D, because of
those extra 2MP).

--
Paul ============}
o o

// Live fast, die old //
PaulsPages and galleries are at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 3:18:25 AM

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

In article <6K5Ne.12919$1F5.10090@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, PcB says...

> Well, actually I just didn't list it - I did consider it a great deal
> (because of the dust issue) along with the 8080. In fact it was only the
> fact that the 8080 was discontinued that I went for a dSLR (350D, because of
> those extra 2MP).

The 8080 is not discontinued and has 8MP.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 3:18:26 AM

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

<<The 8080 is not discontinued and has 8MP.>>

Olympus told me it was (in the UK). But I'm glad I went with the dSLR.

--
Paul ============}
o o

// Live fast, die old //
PaulsPages and galleries are at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 3:18:26 AM

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

In article <MPG.1d6f198a4feb07b298acd9@news.supernews.com>,
alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com says...
> The 8080 is not discontinued and has 8MP.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
>
>

Three retailers that were selling the 8080 in my area informed me that
they were out of stock and that the 8080 would NOT be in the pipeline
from Olympus as it was officially discontinued by Olympus, ie "no longer
being manufactured". At one store, I read the back order form myself.

Larry Lynch
Mystic Ct.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 3:18:26 AM

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

In article <MPG.1d6f198a4feb07b298acd9@news.supernews.com>,
Alfred Molon <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <6K5Ne.12919$1F5.10090@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, PcB says...
>
> > Well, actually I just didn't list it - I did consider it a great deal
> > (because of the dust issue) along with the 8080. In fact it was only the
> > fact that the 8080 was discontinued that I went for a dSLR (350D, because
> > of
> > those extra 2MP).
>
> The 8080 is not discontinued and has 8MP.

With it's miserable AF, it oughta be...
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 6:54:48 AM

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

"Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
> > Is it because Four Thirds has a bum leg and is actually a donkey?

> OK Brian... I suspect you need sleep...maybe even more than I do...

This is the funniest thread I've read in a while.

....maybe I need to get out more.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 12:02:45 PM

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

In article <w4lna-730BF7.21432918082005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>, Mike
Murphree says...

> > The 8080 is not discontinued and has 8MP.
>
> With it's miserable AF, it oughta be...

Did you ever use one ? The AF works very well.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 12:02:46 PM

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

In article <MPG.1d6f9459bfc363eb98acda@news.supernews.com>,
alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com says...
>
> > > The 8080 is not discontinued and has 8MP.
> >
> > With it's miserable AF, it oughta be...
>
> Did you ever use one ? The AF works very well.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
>
>


Alfred it really depends what you are used to getting when you fire up
an 8080.

I had one for a month, and when used next to a Sony F 828, and a Canon
Pro 1(after firmware fix for auto focus) the 8080 was comparatively dead
slow with focus in anything other than perfect light.

There is a focus delay in the 828 that is about 1/8th the delay in the
8080 under ideal conditions, and under lower light (like when you might
want to use fill flash) you could go brew a cup of coffe while waiting
for focus lock with the 8080.

The 828 has the least focus delay of any of the current non-dslr 8mp
cameras.

The Pro-1 is next, and the 8080 is dead last.

I have owned, used, and either returned or sold,all of the available 8mp
non DSLR cameras in my search to see if I could find one that was better
than the F 828.

The 828 has issues of own (fringing being among them) but given the
choice of sometimes (only sometimes) getting a little correctable
fringing in the picture, or not getting the picture at all because the
camera didn't focus in time, Ill choose getting the picture.

All of the 8mp prosumer cameras are noisey at anything above thier
lowest ISO setting (the Pro-1 being the worst even at ISO 50).

I really liked the pictures I got with the 8080 and I waited on Oly for
a firmware fix for the slow focus (like Canon did for the Pro 1) but it
never happened.

If you are satisfied with the 8080, good for you, but you shouldn't tell
people that the focus delay isnt there. It is there, and for my use, it
made the camera only suitable for taking pictures of static objects and
landscapes. It was not suitable for critical action timing.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 8:25:36 PM

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

<<If you are satisfied with the 8080, good for you, but you shouldn't tell
people that the focus delay isnt there. It is there, and for my use, it made
the camera only suitable for taking pictures of static objects and
landscapes. It was not suitable for critical action timing.>>

Ah, but it was a damn fine-looking camera all the same <g>.

--
Paul ============}
o o

// Live fast, die old //
PaulsPages are at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 10:50:26 PM

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

In article <MPG.1d6f838c64eb7b61989686@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Larry
Lynch says...

> If you are satisfied with the 8080, good for you, but you shouldn't tell
> people that the focus delay isnt there. It is there, and for my use, it
> made the camera only suitable for taking pictures of static objects and
> landscapes. It was not suitable for critical action timing.

As with every non-DLSR, there is a delay in focusing, but not big enough
to matter unless you are into sports photography or other critical
situations for which you actually need a DSLR.

In any case you have to set the 8080 to iESP focus with P-AF. That gives
good AF results. People who reported focusing problems were using the
camera set to spot focus.

I have been using the 8080 for a year now and it focuses pretty well and
fast enough. Possibly the camera you used was defective.

By the way, the 8080 has indeed been discontinued.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 11:15:58 AM

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

Larry Lynch wrote:
[]
> The 828 has the least focus delay of any of the current non-dslr 8mp
> cameras.
>
> The Pro-1 is next, and the 8080 is dead last.

Did you include the Nikon 8400 in your tests?

David
!