Check out the comments on dust from this poster

On 18 Mar 2007 10:01:55 -0700, "RichA" wrote:

On Mar 18, 4:58 am, "Pete D" wrote:
Ha ha, so this guy that has posted exactly once on DP Review is the font of
all knowledge, explains a lot about you Rich.


No, but he has two camera systems, one of which could clearly benefit
from an anti-dust system.
This isn't the first time we've read about Canons being dust-
magnates. The post seemed genuine enough,
so why call the guy a liar?

I thought you didn't like people who twist things?
How do you stand yourself?

--
Bill Clinton said Tuesday the
New York Times has been unfair
to Hillary and too soft on Barack
Obama. Hillary can see it coming.
For the second time in her life
she is going to be pushed to the
background by America's first
black president.

On Mar 19, 6:42 am, "RichA" wrote:
On Mar 19, 8:59 am, "tomm42" wrote:





On Mar 18, 1:06 pm, "RichA" wrote:

On Mar 18, 11:20 am, Tom Ross wrote:

On 18 Mar 2007 01:59:05 -0700, "RichA" wrote:

Saw this on Dpreview.com:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=22482887

Are you "anti-dust control system" types suuurreee the that they
aren't needed?

I am a little suspicious of a woman who "makes her living as
photography [sic]" having problems like this. I'm even more suspicious
of a professional who doesn't know how to avoid, minimize, and correct
a problem like this.

So, given the camera doesn't have dust-control internally, what would
you suggest to avoid dust, a changing bag for lenses like changing
film in cassettes of a large-format camera?

I shoot primes with my D200, Nikon has antistatic coating on the AA
filter, it is not the sensor you're cleaning, and this seems to work
well, 2 blow outs in a year, that is it. Change lenses all the time
and I'm not all that careful about the changing. There are several
other similar threads going around, looked at my last picture with sky
in it, cranked levels, clean at 200%.

Tom

That's great for you, but does this reduce the importance of those who
have had dust problems?
Besides, the Canons (not Nikons) have been known for sometime as dust
magnets, especially the 5DI think someone who is reporting their direct experience with dust is far more valuable then someone reporting on what their read someone else said. If you were to tell us you had problems with dust we could ask questions and get a better idea of just how bad the problem was. Instead you tell use that someone else, who you don't know, had reported that they have problems with dust. But from what they wrote it is hard to tell just how big the problems they are having really are. As an example if you are the type of person who checks for dust by shooting the sky at f/32 you are going to find a lot of dust a lot of the time. If on the other hand you simple use you camera and worry about dust when you see it starting to show up in your images you will likely have a lot less problems.

You don't see to want to accept that for most of us dust is simply not
an issue, even those of use shooting with Canon camera and changing
lenses often.

Scott

"RichA" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 18, 4:58 am, "Pete D" wrote:
Ha ha, so this guy that has posted exactly once on DP Review is the font
of
all knowledge, explains a lot about you Rich.


No, but he has two camera systems, one of which could clearly benefit
from an anti-dust system.
This isn't the first time we've read about Canons being dust-
magnates.

It's magnet Rich. And I just spent a very dusty weekend in the desert,
changing lenses often, and my Rebel XT is clearly not a dust-magnet.

Greg

G.T. wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 18, 4:58 am, "Pete D" wrote:
Ha ha, so this guy that has posted exactly once on DP Review is the font
of
all knowledge, explains a lot about you Rich.

No, but he has two camera systems, one of which could clearly benefit
from an anti-dust system.
This isn't the first time we've read about Canons being dust-
magnates.

It's magnet Rich. And I just spent a very dusty weekend in the desert,
changing lenses often, and my Rebel XT is clearly not a dust-magnet.

The only dust magnates I could think of who are still around are Mr.
Oreck and Mr. Sharper Image.

--
John McWilliams

John McWilliams wrote:
G.T. wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 18, 4:58 am, "Pete D" wrote:
Ha ha, so this guy that has posted exactly once on DP Review is
the font of
all knowledge, explains a lot about you Rich.

No, but he has two camera systems, one of which could clearly
benefit from an anti-dust system.
This isn't the first time we've read about Canons being dust-
magnates.

It's magnet Rich. And I just spent a very dusty weekend in the
desert, changing lenses often, and my Rebel XT is clearly not a
dust-magnet.

The only dust magnates I could think of who are still around are Mr.
Oreck and Mr. Sharper Image.

Well, there are Messr's Dyson and Swiffer and Roomba.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
G.T. wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 18, 4:58 am, "Pete D" wrote:
Ha ha, so this guy that has posted exactly once on DP Review is
the font of
all knowledge, explains a lot about you Rich.

No, but he has two camera systems, one of which could clearly
benefit from an anti-dust system.
This isn't the first time we've read about Canons being dust-
magnates.
It's magnet Rich. And I just spent a very dusty weekend in the
desert, changing lenses often, and my Rebel XT is clearly not a
dust-magnet.
The only dust magnates I could think of who are still around are Mr.
Oreck and Mr. Sharper Image.

Well, there are Messr's Dyson and Swiffer and Roomba.

Quite right. I could picture the Dyson ad but couldn't quite come up
with the name. Don't know if the latter two qualify as magnates yet, but
certainly dust magnets.

--
john mcwilliams

"Scott W" wrote in
oups.com:

I would think that any lubricants on the sensor (well cover glass)
would put a
fair bit of haze in the photo.

Not with a thin film The dispersion should be quite minor, and the AA
filter is already dispersing a little, anyway.

For what it is worth I notice a big differance between shooting at f/
16 or lower and f/22 to higher. If I
insisted on being able to shoot at f/22 I would no doubt have to do a
lot more cleaning of the sensor.
But I very rarely find the need to show slower then f/16 so life is
good.

It would be nice if cameras had real user-programmable modes; then it
would be easy to keep the lenses in the f-stop range that you really
want, in an auto-exposure mode.

I can not use Av-pri when I am shooting birds hand-held in low light, for
example. I'd rather shoot at ISO 1600, in Tv-pri-mode, with a generous
positive EC to get an exposure index of about ISO 800 when light is
sufficient, and suffer a bit of under-exposure when the light isn't,
without getting blurred images. When, however, I catch a hawk or eagle
flying above in open sunlight or against bright clouds, any change of
mode would mean a lost opportunity, so what I wind up getting is too low
of a shutter speed, and too high of an f-stop, emphasizing any dust or
oil on the sensor.

With true user-programmability (and I can't think of any excuse for
cameras not having this, after years of digital cameras), I could fine-
tune a mode for my lens and uses, trying to keep the f-stop in a certain
range, limiting exposure time, and increasing ISO for lower light levels,
and then perhaps letting the lens open up all the way at a certain point
where under-exposure causes more loss of detail than wide-open optics.

Dust could become a much more minor issue.

Happily, once I removed the lubricants from my XTi sensor, it hasn't been
collecting dust like it used to. I haven't had to clean my XTi sensor in
about three months now (I have read warnings of XTi coatings coming off
with eclipse, though; I don't know how true they are). My 20D is a
nightmare for dust; even with a 1.4x TC attached almost permanently, it
still gets an occasional big fiber on it, usually about 5 shots into a
day of several hundred shots. It seems to be the mirror stop
deteriorating.

--


John P Sheehy

In article
,
"Pete D" wrote:

"RichA" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 18, 4:58 am, "Pete D" wrote:
Ha ha, so this guy that has posted exactly once on DP Review is the font
of
all knowledge, explains a lot about you Rich.


No, but he has two camera systems, one of which could clearly benefit
from an anti-dust system.
This isn't the first time we've read about Canons being dust-
magnates. The post seemed genuine enough,
so why call the guy a liar?


Never did I call this guy a liar, I I merely pointed out that your
assosiation with him makes you the worlds stupidist man, either that or you
actually made that post on DP Review just to make some sort of idiot point
and that would make you a dirty lying scumbag idiot, probably makes me
equally an idiot for even replying to such a stupid post.

Don't hold back. Let him know how you feel.

HFL

--
Change hlockwood to hflockwood in email address