Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dust becomming a major DSLR issue?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 8:03:36 PM

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

I notice they are now selling $2/ea q-tips for removing dust
from the sensor windows. Is this becomming a major issue
for DSLR owners and does the Olympus system for removing it
actually work well?
-Rich
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 9:02:49 PM

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:3vg131pke5sf030mvna83tg3rjqpgrboua@4ax.com...
>I notice they are now selling $2/ea q-tips for removing dust
> from the sensor windows. Is this becomming a major issue
> for DSLR owners and does the Olympus system for removing it
> actually work well?
> -Rich

There are many way's to remove dust from a dslr sensor, but a q-tip ain't
one of em. I don't think the problem is any worse than with any other
camera that has interchangeable lenses, you just have to be a lot more
careful since you are dealing with an image sensor that can be easily(?)
scratched.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 10:59:18 PM

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

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> writes:

> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:3vg131pke5sf030mvna83tg3rjqpgrboua@4ax.com...
>>I notice they are now selling $2/ea q-tips for removing dust
>> from the sensor windows. Is this becomming a major issue
>> for DSLR owners and does the Olympus system for removing it
>> actually work well?
>> -Rich
>
> There are many way's to remove dust from a dslr sensor, but a q-tip ain't
> one of em. I don't think the problem is any worse than with any other
> camera that has interchangeable lenses, you just have to be a lot more
> careful since you are dealing with an image sensor that can be easily(?)
> scratched.

Actually, I think the problem *is* a lot worse than in film SLRs.

In a film SLR, a *new* piece of film is pulled out of the cassette for
each picture; any dust that was deposited on the previous piece of
film is wound up in the roll, and with luck comes off in the felt when
the film is rewound.

Also, the CCD sensor develops a static charge which actually
*attracts* dust.

Of course, digital doesn't ever get those awful scratches through a
whole roll of film because a piece of grit got trapped in the felt
light-trap in the cassette, either.
--
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;
Related resources
March 10, 2005 11:47:42 PM

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

RichA wrote:

> and does the Olympus system for removing it
> actually work well?
>

Yes it does. E1 users with lots of time and field lens changes say they
still have yet to have any dust issues.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 2:14:55 AM

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

Stacey wrote:


> Yes it does. E1 users with lots of time and field lens changes say they
> still have yet to have any dust issues.

That's great. I wished Minolta had adopted the same anti-dust strategy
(licence it from Oly in exchange for a licence to use the Minolta A-S,
perhaps [if indeed it needs to be licenced]).

Looking at the Maxxum 7D, they've put in a substantially smaller mirror
than in the Maxxum 7 so there's a lot of free space for dust to get at
the sensor.

Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
March 11, 2005 5:00:25 AM

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>
>
>> Yes it does. E1 users with lots of time and field lens changes say they
>> still have yet to have any dust issues.
>
> That's great. I wished Minolta had adopted the same anti-dust strategy
> (licence it from Oly in exchange for a licence to use the Minolta A-S,
> perhaps [if indeed it needs to be licenced]).
>


I'll bet panasonic is going to use this technology when they release their
dSLR's. It's sure nice being able to change lenses just like on a film
camera without having to worry about this.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 9:23:47 AM

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:3vg131pke5sf030mvna83tg3rjqpgrboua@4ax.com...
> I notice they are now selling $2/ea q-tips for removing dust
> from the sensor windows. Is this becomming a major issue
> for DSLR owners and does the Olympus system for removing it
> actually work well?
> -Rich

The real issue is why camera manufacturers discourage people from cleaning
their sensors. Now we see that a simple cosmetics brush is all that is
needed to do the job.

http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/How_to/a_Brush_Your_...

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F22E256AA
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 9:57:06 AM

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

C J Campbell writes:

>>The real issue is why camera manufacturers discourage people from
cleaning
their sensors. Now we see that a simple cosmetics brush is all that is
needed to do the job.

http://194.100.88.243/petteri/­pont/How_to/a_Brush_Your_Senso­r/a_Brush....
<<

What I am curious about is what, exactly, we are cleaning. I've
variously been told that there is a low pass filter on top of the
sensor (making scratches much less of a problem), and/or a glass
protective plate (doing the same). Yet there is a lot of worry about
scratching--most of us are not dragging carborundum or diamond dust off
our sensors, I'd think.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 11:23:01 AM

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

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> writes:

the E-1), I recall reading articles where Minolta was saying the movement
of the anti-shake sensor was incompatible with the movement used for dust
cleaning in the Olympus cameras. And yes, as I understand it, both companies
have patents on their methods (KM on AS, Oly on dust-busting).

> Looking at the Maxxum 7D, they've put in a substantially smaller mirror than
> in the Maxxum 7 so there's a lot of free space for dust to get at the sensor.


--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 1:32:12 PM

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

In article <3vg131pke5sf030mvna83tg3rjqpgrboua@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

> does the Olympus system for removing it
> actually work well?

It does; my E1 is now >18.000 clicks (3-lens kit), and I have yet to see
the first dust-speck... I do take care of my equipment but I basically
change lenses just like I did with film.

Lourens
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 1:32:13 PM

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

Is there any proof that there is a static charge formed on the CCD or CMOs
sensors that attract dust. I think is just another myth started from
somewhere. It takes A BIG voltage potencial to attract a small dust
partical to an object . I bet there is at the most 5 volts working in the
sensor and at that its not on the front of it. If there were 500 volts maby
I would beleave it.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 1:41:36 PM

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

Alan Adrian states:
>>Scratching the AA filter (and I believe all CCD and CMOS sensors have
them
(but for the Astro mods)) would be just as critical an event as
scratching
the sensor. Depending on exactly what the outermost coating is made
from,
and how hard it is, would determine how easy it is to scratch. I'm
pretty
sure you are touching something softer than glass in all cases. It is
possible that they make the outer coat of some scratch resistive
material
though.. There are cases of people reporting that they've managed to
ruin
the sensor by cleaning it though... so whatever's on there isn't
indestructible.


The reasons they prohibit invasive cleaning by the owner IMHO is
because
they have no control over how the client does it... It's easy to say "I

followed directions and when I was done there was this big scratch in
there..."... and it's easy to say "you must have violated your
warrantee
because you managed to touch the sensor in order to make a scratch on
it".... <<

I'm not sure what the material is, either, but...not all manufacturers
"prohibit" "invasive" cleaning. Pentax provides pretty good directions
for cleaning without using a brush--the kind of blower they show,
though, is almost totally useless, IME. They don't say a thing about
using Sensor Swabs, which I did late this morning. Worked a treat.

Yeah, you can destroy the sensor or its covering with too rough
handling. I doubt very much you can scratch it using a good, soft brush
or a Sensor Swab and Eclipse, but, hey, some people can do damned near
anything. I recall no statement about indestructibility: if quartz or
glass is used, about the only thing likely to do any scratching is
diamond or carborundum dust. I didn't write anything about any other
kind of rough handling. It seems reasonable to supposed that a delicate
touch is better than swinging a ball bat at the sensor, assuming you
could get the bat into position.
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 2:20:49 PM

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 0r5vd$lgv$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Stacey wrote:
> > Yes it does. E1 users with lots of time and field lens changes say they
> > still have yet to have any dust issues.
> That's great. I wished Minolta had adopted the same anti-dust strategy
> (licence it from Oly in exchange for a licence to use the Minolta A-S,
> perhaps [if indeed it needs to be licenced]).
> Looking at the Maxxum 7D, they've put in a substantially smaller mirror
> than in the Maxxum 7 so there's a lot of free space for dust to get at
> the sensor.
> Cheers,
> Alan.

try turning the anti-shake on and shake the hell outta tha body...hehe

Joe
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 3:35:43 PM

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

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 02:00:25 -0500, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I'll bet panasonic is going to use this technology when they release their
>dSLR's. It's sure nice being able to change lenses just like on a film
>camera without having to worry about this.

Lets face it, they are going to have to do something amazing to
attempt any serious competition with Nikon, Canon, Minolta and
Olympus.

Anyway, you *should* have been worrying about dust and other
contaminants getting into the film area. The shutter is relatively
delicate and will last longer if it doesn't get gummed up.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 9:06:06 PM

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

"Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1110553026.784013.256140@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

What I am curious about is what, exactly, we are cleaning. I've
variously been told that there is a low pass filter on top of the
sensor (making scratches much less of a problem), and/or a glass
protective plate (doing the same). Yet there is a lot of worry about
scratching--most of us are not dragging carborundum or diamond dust off
our sensors, I'd think.

Scratching the AA filter (and I believe all CCD and CMOS sensors have them
(but for the Astro mods)) would be just as critical an event as scratching
the sensor. Depending on exactly what the outermost coating is made from,
and how hard it is, would determine how easy it is to scratch. I'm pretty
sure you are touching something softer than glass in all cases. It is
possible that they make the outer coat of some scratch resistive material
though.. There are cases of people reporting that they've managed to ruin
the sensor by cleaning it though... so whatever's on there isn't
indestructible.

The reasons they prohibit invasive cleaning by the owner IMHO is because
they have no control over how the client does it... It's easy to say "I
followed directions and when I was done there was this big scratch in
there..."... and it's easy to say "you must have violated your warrantee
because you managed to touch the sensor in order to make a scratch on
it"....

Al...
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 9:06:07 PM

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

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:06:06 +0100, "Alan Adrian"
<ara__@SPAMNOT.wanadoo.nl> wrote:

>
>"Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1110553026.784013.256140@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>Some one else wrote, but was sabotaged by Charlies software:
>>What I am curious about is what, exactly, we are cleaning. I've
>>variously been told that there is a low pass filter on top of the
>>sensor (making scratches much less of a problem), and/or a glass
>>protective plate (doing the same). Yet there is a lot of worry about
>>scratching--most of us are not dragging carborundum or diamond dust off
>>our sensors, I'd think.
>
>Scratching the AA filter (and I believe all CCD and CMOS sensors have them
>(but for the Astro mods)) would be just as critical an event as scratching
>the sensor. Depending on exactly what the outermost coating is made from,
>and how hard it is, would determine how easy it is to scratch. I'm pretty
>sure you are touching something softer than glass in all cases.

At least some of the Nikon filters are made of LiNo, which is
extremely hard - similar to Quartz crystal. I don't know exactly what
on which camera, or what other manufacturers are doing.

> It is
>possible that they make the outer coat of some scratch resistive material
>though.. There are cases of people reporting that they've managed to ruin
>the sensor by cleaning it though... so whatever's on there isn't
>indestructible.

By scratching it?

It seems to me the bigger problem is introducing a foreign
contaminate, which would just make the problem worse.

>The reasons they prohibit invasive cleaning by the owner IMHO is because
>they have no control over how the client does it... It's easy to say "I
>followed directions and when I was done there was this big scratch in
>there..."... and it's easy to say "you must have violated your warrantee
>because you managed to touch the sensor in order to make a scratch on
>it"....

Yep.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 11:12:07 PM

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

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:26:54 GMT, Owamanga
<owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:06:06 +0100, "Alan Adrian"
><ara__@SPAMNOT.wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:1110553026.784013.256140@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>Some one else wrote, but was sabotaged by Charlies software:
>>>What I am curious about is what, exactly, we are cleaning. I've
>>>variously been told that there is a low pass filter on top of the
>>>sensor (making scratches much less of a problem), and/or a glass
>>>protective plate (doing the same). Yet there is a lot of worry about
>>>scratching--most of us are not dragging carborundum or diamond dust off
>>>our sensors, I'd think.
>>
>>Scratching the AA filter (and I believe all CCD and CMOS sensors have them
>>(but for the Astro mods)) would be just as critical an event as scratching
>>the sensor. Depending on exactly what the outermost coating is made from,
>>and how hard it is, would determine how easy it is to scratch. I'm pretty
>>sure you are touching something softer than glass in all cases.
>
>At least some of the Nikon filters are made of LiNo, which is
>extremely hard - similar to Quartz crystal. I don't know exactly what
>on which camera, or what other manufacturers are doing.
It's the hardness of the anti-reflection coating on the window that
matters, not the substrate.
-Rich
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 5:10:46 AM

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

Stacey responds:
>>Paul Revere wrote:

> Canon recommends turning off the camera to reduce static charge
effect
> prior to removing lens.



And would anyone change the lens with the camera turned on? I also
doubt
turning the camera off does anything about the surface charge on the
sensor, sure doesn't seem to "decharge" a monitor/TV unless it's been
off
for a LONG time... <<

Dunno about changing lenses, but Pentax recommends turning the camera
on, removing the lens, locking the mirror up, and cleaning the CCD.
Turn the camera off to return the lens to its usual position, and then
re-install the lens.
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 11:10:19 AM

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

In article <m2mztb2b9l.fsf@gw.dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> writes:
>
>> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>> news:3vg131pke5sf030mvna83tg3rjqpgrboua@4ax.com...
>>>I notice they are now selling $2/ea q-tips for removing dust
>>> from the sensor windows. Is this becomming a major issue
>>> for DSLR owners and does the Olympus system for removing it
>>> actually work well?
>>> -Rich
>>
>> There are many way's to remove dust from a dslr sensor, but a q-tip ain't
>> one of em. I don't think the problem is any worse than with any other
>> camera that has interchangeable lenses, you just have to be a lot more
>> careful since you are dealing with an image sensor that can be easily(?)
>> scratched.
>
>Actually, I think the problem *is* a lot worse than in film SLRs.
>
>In a film SLR, a *new* piece of film is pulled out of the cassette for
>each picture; any dust that was deposited on the previous piece of
>film is wound up in the roll, and with luck comes off in the felt when
>the film is rewound.
>
>Also, the CCD sensor develops a static charge which actually
>*attracts* dust.
>
>Of course, digital doesn't ever get those awful scratches through a
>whole roll of film because a piece of grit got trapped in the felt
>light-trap in the cassette, either.

Canon recommends turning off the camera to reduce static charge effect prior
to removing lens.
March 12, 2005 11:10:20 AM

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

Paul Revere wrote:

>
> Canon recommends turning off the camera to reduce static charge effect
> prior to removing lens.

And would anyone change the lens with the camera turned on? I also doubt
turning the camera off does anything about the surface charge on the
sensor, sure doesn't seem to "decharge" a monitor/TV unless it's been off
for a LONG time...

--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 4:04:12 PM

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> writes:

> Paul Revere wrote:
>
>>
>> Canon recommends turning off the camera to reduce static charge effect
>> prior to removing lens.
>
> And would anyone change the lens with the camera turned on? I also doubt
> turning the camera off does anything about the surface charge on the
> sensor, sure doesn't seem to "decharge" a monitor/TV unless it's been off
> for a LONG time...

Well, I'm not used to turning off a film camera before changing the
lens, and I don't recall my manual telling me to turn it off before
changing the lens. If it were important, it could happen
automatically when I pressed the lens release.
--
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
March 12, 2005 5:35:22 PM

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

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>>Paul Revere wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Canon recommends turning off the camera to reduce static charge effect
>>>prior to removing lens.
>>
>>And would anyone change the lens with the camera turned on? I also doubt
>>turning the camera off does anything about the surface charge on the
>>sensor, sure doesn't seem to "decharge" a monitor/TV unless it's been off
>>for a LONG time...
>
>
> Well, I'm not used to turning off a film camera before changing the
> lens, and I don't recall my manual telling me to turn it off before
> changing the lens. If it were important, it could happen
> automatically when I pressed the lens release.

Yep.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 8:26:49 AM

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

> And would anyone change the lens with the camera turned on? I also doubt
> turning the camera off does anything about the surface charge on the
> sensor, sure doesn't seem to "decharge" a monitor/TV unless it's been off
> for a LONG time...
>

That 7v max surface charge isn't going to hold ANYTHING onto that sensor.
When was the last time you saw dust being attracted to 9v battery
terminals?
March 13, 2005 8:26:50 AM

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

Bubbabob wrote:


>
> That 7v max surface charge isn't going to hold ANYTHING onto that sensor.
> When was the last time you saw dust being attracted to 9v battery
> terminals?

When did any battery create a static charge? Why do you think these sensors
are such dust magnets?
--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 1:56:54 PM

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bubbabob wrote:


>>
>> That 7v max surface charge isn't going to hold ANYTHING onto that sensor.
>> When was the last time you saw dust being attracted to 9v battery
>> terminals?

> When did any battery create a static charge? Why do you think these sensors
> are such dust magnets?

Any insulator will eventually become charged by handling. Even though
the filter itself isn't being handled, the things around it are. And
the material from which the filter is made is a very good insulator.

Andrew.
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 9:37:35 PM

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

>one of em. I don't think the problem is any worse than with any other
>camera that has interchangeable lenses, you just have to be a lot more
>careful since you are dealing with an image sensor that can be easily(?)
>scratched.

The problem is much worse with DSLRs than with film, because with
film, every time you change the roll, you effectively reset the
dust-count to zero. With a DSLR, the dust builds up on the same
sensor over the life of the camera.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 10:34:24 PM

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Bubbabob wrote:
>
>
>>
>> That 7v max surface charge isn't going to hold ANYTHING onto that
>> sensor. When was the last time you saw dust being attracted to 9v
>> battery terminals?
>
> When did any battery create a static charge? Why do you think these
> sensors
> are such dust magnets?

I don't. That was my point. I was being ironic. If there is any
electrostatic charge holding dust to a sensor it's the charge that the dust
brought to that meeting, not the sensor.
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 10:36:07 PM

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

andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Bubbabob wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> That 7v max surface charge isn't going to hold ANYTHING onto that
>>> sensor. When was the last time you saw dust being attracted to 9v
>>> battery terminals?
>
>> When did any battery create a static charge? Why do you think these
>> sensors
>> are such dust magnets?
>
> Any insulator will eventually become charged by handling. Even though
> the filter itself isn't being handled, the things around it are. And
> the material from which the filter is made is a very good insulator.
>
> Andrew.
>

But this remains true whether the sensor is on or off. My point was that
a sensor with its normal operating voltage does not attract more dust
than one that's powered down.
March 13, 2005 10:36:08 PM

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

Bubbabob wrote:


>
> But this remains true whether the sensor is on or off. My point was that
> a sensor with its normal operating voltage does not attract more dust
> than one that's powered down.

That's EXACTLY what I said!
--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 11:36:46 PM

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

In article <m24qfgeleb.fsf@gw.dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Paul Revere wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Canon recommends turning off the camera to reduce static charge effect
>>> prior to removing lens.
>>
>> And would anyone change the lens with the camera turned on? I also doubt
>> turning the camera off does anything about the surface charge on the
>> sensor, sure doesn't seem to "decharge" a monitor/TV unless it's been off
>> for a LONG time...

I posted the information, for whatever it's worth, to anyone who might find it
helpful.

Its Canon's recommendation, not mine, please feel free to ignore it.

>Well, I'm not used to turning off a film camera before changing the
>lens, and I don't recall my manual telling me to turn it off before
>changing the lens. If it were important, it could happen
>automatically when I pressed the lens release.

1. A "film camera" isn't a DSLR, and a recommendation that applies to a DSLR
may not apply to a "film camera".

In this case, the recommendation applies ONLY to a DSLR; therefore, what you
do or do not do with your "film camera" is irrelevant to this discussion.

2. The fact that something "could happen automatically" doesn't mean that it
DOES or ever WILL "happen automatically". There are more factors to consider
when deciding whether or not to automate a feature and incorporate that
automatic feature into a product than simply whether or not it CAN be done.
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 4:59:35 PM

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

Paul Revere wrote:
>
> 2. The fact that something "could happen automatically" doesn't mean
that it
> DOES or ever WILL "happen automatically". There are more factors to
consider
> when deciding whether or not to automate a feature and incorporate
that
> automatic feature into a product than simply whether or not it CAN be
done.

True, but the point that was trying to be made was much simpler than
that, which essentially was: "if its really important, make the
product idiot-proof".

-hh
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 6:12:16 PM

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

Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:
> andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

>> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Bubbabob wrote:

>>>> That 7v max surface charge isn't going to hold ANYTHING onto that
>>>> sensor. When was the last time you saw dust being attracted to 9v
>>>> battery terminals?

>>> When did any battery create a static charge? Why do you think
>>> these sensors are such dust magnets?

>> Any insulator will eventually become charged by handling. Even though
>> the filter itself isn't being handled, the things around it are. And
>> the material from which the filter is made is a very good insulator.

> But this remains true whether the sensor is on or off. My point was
> that a sensor with its normal operating voltage does not attract
> more dust than one that's powered down.

That's right.

Andrew.
!