Is the best camera 100% sealed ?

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
(ArtKramr) writes:


DSLR's usually get dust on the sensor when changing lenses. Does it
make more sense to get a fully sealed camera with a good 10X zoom
lens instead?


I don't think so; far too limiting. Just shooting casually around the
Renaissance festival Saturday I used lenses from 17mm to 300mm (before
applying crop factor)
http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2004/09110-Renfest/. If
I could afford it I'd have a wider lens. A couple of weeks earlier I
stacked a 1.5x teleconverter on a 500mm, so 750mm before crop factor
http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/gallery/Familiar%20Places/
(specifically the heron picture). A 10x zoom would be *far* too
limiting; and probably slow, as well. I'm at f2.8 out to 300mm.

Instead, I've learned to clean the sensor (which I probably need to do
again).

Yikes, pictures of bridges. Aren't you worried someone will take you
for a terrorist? Grin.

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
(ArtKramr) writes:


DSLR's usually get dust on the sensor when changing lenses. Does it
make more sense to get a fully sealed camera with a good 10X zoom
lens instead?


I don't think so; far too limiting. Just shooting casually around the
Renaissance festival Saturday I used lenses from 17mm to 300mm (before
applying crop factor)
http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2004/09110-Renfest/. If
I could afford it I'd have a wider lens. A couple of weeks earlier I
stacked a 1.5x teleconverter on a 500mm, so 750mm before crop factor
http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/gallery/Familiar%20Places/
(specifically the heron picture). A 10x zoom would be *far* too
limiting; and probably slow, as well. I'm at f2.8 out to 300mm.

Instead, I've learned to clean the sensor (which I probably need to do
again).

Yikes, pictures of bridges. Aren't you worried someone will take you
for a terrorist? Grin.

(ArtKramr) wrote in
:

DSLR's usually get dust on the sensor when changing lenses.

Not "usually" in my experience, Art - unless it is an unusually dusty
environment. More like "occasionally." The sensor is underneath the mirror
or prism, and I don't get great amounts of dust there either.

Does it
make more sense to get a fully sealed camera with a good 10X zoom lens
instead?

There is no fixed zoom to match, for example, the 70-200 F/2.8 Canon L
Series. And there are a boat load of limitations - speed, for one - that
DSLRs don't have that digicams do.

I've used a variety of digicams, and the only real advantages I've found
a

Cost.

Silence (occasionally very handy - I missed it very much shooting a
fiddling champoinship).

Depth of field. If you don't like bokeh or have a situation that requires
focus throughout the field, it's easier to get in a digicam.

BTW - I occasionally follow a.b.p.m. really appreciate the shots from your
time getting shot at in a B-26, Art. Thanks for sharing.

(ArtKramr) wrote in
:

DSLR's usually get dust on the sensor when changing lenses.

Not "usually" in my experience, Art - unless it is an unusually dusty
environment. More like "occasionally." The sensor is underneath the mirror
or prism, and I don't get great amounts of dust there either.

Does it
make more sense to get a fully sealed camera with a good 10X zoom lens
instead?

There is no fixed zoom to match, for example, the 70-200 F/2.8 Canon L
Series. And there are a boat load of limitations - speed, for one - that
DSLRs don't have that digicams do.

I've used a variety of digicams, and the only real advantages I've found
a

Cost.

Silence (occasionally very handy - I missed it very much shooting a
fiddling champoinship).

Depth of field. If you don't like bokeh or have a situation that requires
focus throughout the field, it's easier to get in a digicam.

BTW - I occasionally follow a.b.p.m. really appreciate the shots from your
time getting shot at in a B-26, Art. Thanks for sharing.

That's one (just one) of the reasons why I'm still using my Olympus C2100UZ
(UZI). That and the IS system and the AF lamp and the tremendous light
gathering power and the Canon 10x zoom. I carried a SLR for 35 years and
,frankly, I'm glad to leave all that gear behind. Eddy
"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
DSLR's usually get dust on the sensor when changing lenses. Does it make
more
sense to get a fully sealed camera with a good 10X zoom lens instead?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

That's one (just one) of the reasons why I'm still using my Olympus C2100UZ
(UZI). That and the IS system and the AF lamp and the tremendous light
gathering power and the Canon 10x zoom. I carried a SLR for 35 years and
,frankly, I'm glad to leave all that gear behind. Eddy
"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
DSLR's usually get dust on the sensor when changing lenses. Does it make
more
sense to get a fully sealed camera with a good 10X zoom lens instead?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

That's one (just one) of the reasons why I'm still using my Olympus C2100UZ
(UZI). That and the IS system and the AF lamp and the tremendous light
gathering power and the Canon 10x zoom. I carried a SLR for 35 years and
,frankly, I'm glad to leave all that gear behind. Eddy
"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
DSLR's usually get dust on the sensor when changing lenses. Does it make
more
sense to get a fully sealed camera with a good 10X zoom lens instead?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Is the best camera 100% sealed ?
From: Ron Hunter
Date: 9/14/2004 11:41 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

David J Taylor wrote:
ArtKramr wrote:

DSLR's usually get dust on the sensor when changing lenses. Does it
make more sense to get a fully sealed camera with a good 10X zoom
lens instead?


To me, yes, but lack of dust problems would not be the most important
reason. Size, weight, portability and cost would be in there (assuming
image quality is not compromised).

Cheers,
David


Unless one is in a really nasty environment, it should be possible to
change a lens without getting dust on the sensor. The same problem
surely plagues film SLRs and their mirrors. I would think that a few
workable solutions have been found to this problem.


I live in Las Vegas. That is in the desert and blowing dust is non-stop


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Is the best camera 100% sealed ?
From: Ron Hunter
Date: 9/14/2004 11:41 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

David J Taylor wrote:
ArtKramr wrote:

DSLR's usually get dust on the sensor when changing lenses. Does it
make more sense to get a fully sealed camera with a good 10X zoom
lens instead?


To me, yes, but lack of dust problems would not be the most important
reason. Size, weight, portability and cost would be in there (assuming
image quality is not compromised).

Cheers,
David


Unless one is in a really nasty environment, it should be possible to
change a lens without getting dust on the sensor. The same problem
surely plagues film SLRs and their mirrors. I would think that a few
workable solutions have been found to this problem.


I live in Las Vegas. That is in the desert and blowing dust is non-stop


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Is the best camera 100% sealed ?
From: David Dyer-Bennet
Date: 9/14/2004 11:09 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) writes:

DSLR's usually get dust on the sensor when changing lenses. Does it
make more sense to get a fully sealed camera with a good 10X zoom
lens instead?

I don't think so; far too limiting. Just shooting casually around the
Renaissance festival Saturday I used lenses from 17mm to 300mm (before
applying crop factor)
http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2004/09110-Renfest/. If
I could afford it I'd have a wider lens. A couple of weeks earlier I
stacked a 1.5x teleconverter on a 500mm, so 750mm before crop factor
http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/gallery/Familiar%20Places/
(specifically the heron picture). A 10x zoom would be *far* too
limiting; and probably slow, as well. I'm at f2.8 out to 300mm.

Instead, I've learned to clean the sensor (which I probably need to do
again).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/


I am now using a Kodkak DX 6490 which igves me 38 to 380. If I add the WA I
will get about 28 to 380. Not bad.I am considering a D-70 but here in the
desert there is a lot of blowing dust. So I don't know.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer