Clyde wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

Better to vacuum. Blowers move things around and drive particles ever
deeper into the camera to cause future problems or merely come back
and repeat what they were doing. A very low pressure vacuum, mind
you, with a light brushing to dislodge particles.


When you vacuum, where does the air come from? Yes, I know it comes from
inside the camera. When you pull that air out, it gets replaced with air
from somewhere else. i.e. You don't actually create a vacuum inside the
camera. Why wouldn't this replacement air also contain dust? I would
think it would, unless you were doing this in a dust free room.

So, why is vacuuming any better than blowing?

It's a good question, but think about it. If you 'blow' then as I said, you
just move things around, usually deeper in the camera. Further, if you blow
something out, then something has to replace it (no different than a vacuum).

Some time ago I described in detail how to make a simple low pressure vacuum
system that would also reduce ambient dust from entering the camera. (Note that
dist does not settle easilly when there is airflow).

http://tinyurl.com/66epq

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.