Sensor Cleaning - when the other shoe drops

..

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/sensor.htm

Rita

=============

DANG IT !!

Wouldn't yew no thayut Nikon wud step aeout ahed again...

Yew rekon they'll make one fer cannon? Looks like it just miite be
good fer underwater shootin' two... maybe even outter spase?

On Jul 28, 12:33 pm, Randall Ainsworth
wrote:
In article . com,

wrote:
Eleven days ago I upgraded from a 20d to a 30d (with a "IS" lens,
which still gives me the willies...). I looked and looked but found
no camera with the ability to change lenses AND enough pixels to do
the job that did not have this problem. Sigma makes a camera (which
is rated as mediocre, in every respect save its sensor) in which the
filter is a fair distance out in front of the sensor, creating a
situation wherein dust is not in focus and does not show. Sadly, that
camera lacks sufficient resolution to be used professionally.

Sigma - the camera sucks...in particular the sensor.

The Foveon is kinda cool, actually. The 14.5 MP Foveon in the Sigma is
roughly equivalent to a 8 or 9MP APS-C-sized Bayer sensor, which is
fine. It's just that the Sigma does not deliver the resolution
*advantage* that the Sigma and Foveon people are claiming. That said,
if people like the way the Sigma SD14 handles and the photos it
produces they should just use it, takes lots of great photos and not
spend a second worrying about what anyone else thinks.

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:00:13 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

3. If there is persistent dust, then use a swap kit. I've never had to
use one.

Wouldn't it get expensive having to replace dusty sensors?

ASAAR wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:00:13 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

3. If there is persistent dust, then use a swap kit. I've never had to
use one.

Wouldn't it get expensive having to replace dusty sensors?

;-

ASAAR wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:00:13 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

3. If there is persistent dust, then use a swap kit. I've never had to
use one.

Wouldn't it get expensive having to replace dusty sensors?

Every 18 months, about as often as I clean my sensor... that should
please one of the chief idiots around here...

By the way, something to chaw on with you, pls drop me an e-mail ...
mind the Freelunch...

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: Remove FreeLunch.

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:46:24 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

By the way, something to chaw on with you, pls drop me an e-mail ...
mind the Freelunch...

54321, launched!

No need to **** ones self. If it isn't dust it will be something else.
Nothing made by man is perfect. Best to get used to it now. Saves on the
need for asprin.

Somebody!

wrote in message
ups.com...
The bane of digital photography (in my perception) is dust/dirt on the
sensor.

Guys, you are making this too difficult.... just take off the lens and run
the camera through the dishwasher.

On Jul 27, 8:19 pm, wrote:
The bane of digital photography (in my perception) is dust/dirt on the
sensor. Had I known about this I would still be waiting to make the
switch from film. But now I just can't go back to hauling a roll out
every 24 shots, threading another one in... AARGH!

Most common question when selling digital SLRs on Ebay: "Is the
sensor clean?"

On Jul 28, 1:12 pm, wrote:
On Jul 28, 12:33 pm, Randall Ainsworth
wrote:

In article . com,

wrote:
Eleven days ago I upgraded from a 20d to a 30d (with a "IS" lens,
which still gives me the willies...). I looked and looked but found
no camera with the ability to change lenses AND enough pixels to do
the job that did not have this problem. Sigma makes a camera (which
is rated as mediocre, in every respect save its sensor) in which the
filter is a fair distance out in front of the sensor, creating a
situation wherein dust is not in focus and does not show. Sadly, that
camera lacks sufficient resolution to be used professionally.

Sigma - the camera sucks...in particular the sensor.

The Foveon is kinda cool, actually. The 14.5 MP Foveon in the Sigma is
roughly equivalent to a 8 or 9MP APS-C-sized Bayer sensor, which is
fine. It's just that the Sigma does not deliver the resolution
*advantage* that the Sigma and Foveon people are claiming. That said,
if people like the way the Sigma SD14 handles and the photos it
produces they should just use it, takes lots of great photos and not
spend a second worrying about what anyone else thinks.

Body sealing is no guarantee against dust. One reviewer has stated
the Sigma had sensor dust. This leads credence to the Nikon belief
that sensor contaminants originate in-part, in the camera, which is
why they now clean the bodies after having fired the shutter a few
times. But it's obvious some or most dust must come from outside so
body sealing is a good idea that could be emulated by other
companies. In addition, sealing the body with the IR filter rather
than putting it in the sensor filter pack opens up the possibility of
"unfettered" IR photography simply by removing the IR filter from the
front.