Cleaning my D3 sensor / Arctic Butterfly

As one who's upgraded over the years from a D100 to a D2Xs and now to a D3,
my D3 seems to be much more prone to dust on the sensor.

I've dealt with it before and sensor cleaning was easy and worked quite well
using a simple ear syringe along with Nikon's recommended cleaning process
using the EH-6 AC Adapter.

The dust spots seem harder to get rid of on my D3 using this same exact
process. Have other D3 owners noticed the same?

One more question: Samys Camera here in Los Angeles recommended the "Arctic
Butterfly" sensor cleaner. Has anyone tried it, and if so, what has your
experience been?

Thanks,
John

On Feb 24, 11:41 pm, "John Smith" wrote:
As one who's upgraded over the years from a D100 to a D2Xs and now to a D3,
my D3 seems to be much more prone to dust on the sensor.


Pretty much what the Canon FF users found. Ironic though, given
diffraction as an issue is less of a problem on a large sensor camera
than a smaller one, yet dust (visible dust) seems to be worse with FF
images.

.... dust (visible dust) seems to be worse with FF
images.


What's FF?

Is it really that difficult and time-consuming to spell it out?

Pretty soon we'll all be speaking in acronyms.

jfud hfgt aj ngh?

"Bob G" wrote in message
...

... dust (visible dust) seems to be worse with FF
images.


What's FF?

Is it really that difficult and time-consuming to spell it out?

Pretty soon we'll all be speaking in acronyms.

jfud hfgt aj ngh?

People keep calling a digital single lens reflex camera a "DSLR", bloody
frustrating!

FF = Full Frame (sensor) as opposed to DX format. Nikon actually uses the
acronym "FX" for their full frame sensor, but it's usually abbreviated to
FF.



"Bob G" wrote in message
...
... dust (visible dust) seems to be worse with FF
images.


What's FF?

Is it really that difficult and time-consuming to spell it out?

Pretty soon we'll all be speaking in acronyms.

jfud hfgt aj ngh?

On Feb 26, 10:38 am, Bob G wrote:
... dust (visible dust) seems to be worse with FF

images.

What's FF?

Is it really that difficult and time-consuming to spell it out?

Pretty soon we'll all be speaking in acronyms.

jfud hfgt aj ngh?

FF = Full Frame is an unfortunate designation. The real definition
should be 35mm sensor size, as FF is purely arbitrary, based on a FILM
standard from 1911.
The old geezers of the photo community would cry like childen if some
company released a different size (larger) because their ancient
legacy film lenses would no longer work.

There ARE larger sizes you young dweeb. It's called medium format, large
format.

Ever seen a 20x24 large format FILM camera. Now, there's some Gigapixels!

Get educated: http://wisner.com/Page13.html



"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Feb 26, 10:38 am, Bob G wrote:
... dust (visible dust) seems to be worse with FF

images.

What's FF?

Is it really that difficult and time-consuming to spell it out?

Pretty soon we'll all be speaking in acronyms.

jfud hfgt aj ngh?

FF = Full Frame is an unfortunate designation. The real definition
should be 35mm sensor size, as FF is purely arbitrary, based on a FILM
standard from 1911.
The old geezers of the photo community would cry like childen if some
company released a different size (larger) because their ancient
legacy film lenses would no longer work.

RichA wrote:
On Feb 26, 10:38 am, Bob G wrote:
What's FF?

FF = Full Frame is an unfortunate designation. The real definition
should be 35mm sensor size, as FF is purely arbitrary, based on a FILM
standard from 1911.

The real designation is Kleinbildformat as it was used in 1913 by Oskar
Barnack when he developed the very first Leica camera for Leitz.
The literal translation would be small picture/image format which matches
very nicely with the terms medium frame and large frame camera.

jue

Vielen Dank Herr Jurgen! Ganz nett von dir!



"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
...
RichA wrote:
On Feb 26, 10:38 am, Bob G wrote:
What's FF?

FF = Full Frame is an unfortunate designation. The real definition
should be 35mm sensor size, as FF is purely arbitrary, based on a FILM
standard from 1911.

The real designation is Kleinbildformat as it was used in 1913 by Oskar
Barnack when he developed the very first Leica camera for Leitz.
The literal translation would be small picture/image format which matches
very nicely with the terms medium frame and large frame camera.

jue

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:04:33 -0600, TRoss wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:31:51 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Feb 26, 10:38 am, Bob G wrote:
... dust (visible dust) seems to be worse with FF

images.

What's FF?

Is it really that difficult and time-consuming to spell it out?

Pretty soon we'll all be speaking in acronyms.

jfud hfgt aj ngh?

FF = Full Frame is an unfortunate designation. The real definition
should be 35mm sensor size, as FF is purely arbitrary, based on a FILM
standard from 1911.
The old geezers of the photo community would cry like childen if some
company released a different size (larger) because their ancient legacy
film lenses would no longer work.

You may be surprised to learn that there are several medium and large
format digital cameras on the market. Hasselblad, Rollei, Mamiya, Fuji,
Leaf, Phase One, BetterLight, Imacon to name a few.

Not that you would let facts get in the way of one of your idiotic
rants.....

TR

You forgot to point out that Oscar Barnack didn't sell his camera
commercially until somewhere around 1927.

--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851