First images of Nikon D600 with 24 MP FX sensor

[Bruce]

<http://nikonrumors.com/2012/06/14/first-leaked-nikon-d600-images.aspx/#more-40710>


A few points worth noting:

The D600 has a Sony 24 MP full frame sensor which will also be used in
Sony's SLT A99.

The D600 specification is final but nikonrumors.com doesn't have it
all yet.

The D600 is likely to replace the D700 after a time.

Several reasonably affordable lenses at less-than-stellar prices will
be available for the D600. There is yet another version of the
24-85mm - which probably won't be much better than any of the previous
versions - and probably a 70-200mm f/4G ED.

For DX fans, Nikon has also announced an 18-300mm superzoom which is
likely to be optically even worse than the 18-200mm. Buyers of these
superzooms seem to place a higher priority on never having to change
lenses, which makes one wonder why on earth they bought an
interchangeable lens camera in the first place.

[nospam]

In article <99rkt7t9ood93oktq...@4ax.com>, Bruce

<docne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> For DX fans, Nikon has also announced an 18-300mm superzoom which is
> likely to be optically even worse than the 18-200mm. Buyers of these
> superzooms seem to place a higher priority on never having to change
> lenses, which makes one wonder why on earth they bought an
> interchangeable lens camera in the first place.

because an slr is much better than a compact p&s and they can still
change lenses if they need to.

[Me]

On 15/06/2012 11:11 a.m., Bruce wrote:
> <http://nikonrumors.com/2012/06/14/first-leaked-nikon-d600-images.aspx/#more-40710>
>
>
> A few points worth noting:
>
> The D600 has a Sony 24 MP full frame sensor which will also be used in
> Sony's SLT A99.
>
> The D600 specification is final but nikonrumors.com doesn't have it
> all yet.
>
> The D600 is likely to replace the D700 after a time.
>
> Several reasonably affordable lenses at less-than-stellar prices will
> be available for the D600. There is yet another version of the
> 24-85mm - which probably won't be much better than any of the previous
> versions - and probably a 70-200mm f/4G ED.

From Nikon's MTF chart for the new 24-85VR it seems to be considerably
improved over the old version.

[RichA]

On Jun 14, 7:11 pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <http://nikonrumors.com/2012/06/14/first-leaked-nikon-d600-images.aspx...>

That body looks small and simple. Imagine if this thing comes in
(with entry-level FX lenses) as cheap as a NEX-7 or the m4/3rds top
cameras?

[RichA]

On Jun 14, 7:11 pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <http://nikonrumors.com/2012/06/14/first-leaked-nikon-d600-images.aspx...>
>

Those "ultra-superzooms" are not exactly light-weight, even from
lesser firms like Sigma. Carrying an extra lens in small Lowepro bag
would seem to be no strain, but I guess those amateurs are so "action-
oriented" they need the extra f.l. to be in the same lens so as not to
slow them down. :)

[David J Taylor]

For DX fans, Nikon has also announced an 18-300mm superzoom which is
likely to be optically even worse than the 18-200mm. Buyers of these
superzooms seem to place a higher priority on never having to change
lenses, which makes one wonder why on earth they bought an
interchangeable lens camera in the first place.

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

When you are photographing a once-off event (recent example, the Olympic
torch passing by), there may not be time to change lenses, or even to pick
up a second camera, and a wide-range zoom gives you maximum chance of
getting a few good pictures. Of course, if you are a professional
photographer with a privileged viewpoint, things may be different....

It doesn't mean that you don't change lenses on other occasions. Others
have different needs to you.

David

[K W Hart]

"John A." <jo...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:8ltkt7940isp3nqkv...@4ax.com...

> Maybe they don't want to clean the sensor more than absolutely
> necessary, perhaps because they don't know how or are afraid they'll
> scratch it or something.
>
> Maybe once the economy picks up, camera owners will be more willing to
> risk damaging expensive equipment.
>
> Just a thought. No idea if it's true for a significant number, though
> I would guess it's >0.

Is this sensor cleaning thing a real issue? I realize that dust on the
sensor equals spots on the image, but I've changed lenses in mid-roll on my
film cameras with no ill effects. Does the sensor have a static charge that
attracts dust?

[nospam]

In article <jrfl44$27o$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, K W Hart

<kwh...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Is this sensor cleaning thing a real issue? I realize that dust on the
> sensor equals spots on the image, but I've changed lenses in mid-roll on my
> film cameras with no ill effects.

film moves so any dust affects only one photo, and that's if it somehow
gets past the light-tight foam on the cartridge.

> Does the sensor have a static charge that
> attracts dust?

they do but it's not as bad as it used to be. a rocket blower usually
takes care of any dust.

[Bruce]

"K W Hart" <kwh...@verizon.net> wrote:

>"John A." <jo...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

>> Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>For DX fans, Nikon has also announced an 18-300mm superzoom which is
>>>likely to be optically even worse than the 18-200mm. Buyers of these
>>>superzooms seem to place a higher priority on never having to change
>>>lenses, which makes one wonder why on earth they bought an
>>>interchangeable lens camera in the first place.
>>
>> Maybe they don't want to clean the sensor more than absolutely
>> necessary, perhaps because they don't know how or are afraid they'll
>> scratch it or something.
>>
>> Maybe once the economy picks up, camera owners will be more willing to
>> risk damaging expensive equipment.
>>
>> Just a thought. No idea if it's true for a significant number, though
>> I would guess it's >0.
>
>
>Is this sensor cleaning thing a real issue?

Only if you are paranoid, ignorant or both. People who buy DSLRs for
their claimed better image quality over a small sensor p&s then give
up most of that gain in image quality by using a junk >10X superzoom
lens could certainly be described as ignorant. But are they also
paranoid? Discuss. ;-)

>I realize that dust on the
>sensor equals spots on the image, but I've changed lenses in mid-roll on my
>film cameras with no ill effects. Does the sensor have a static charge that
>attracts dust?

Yes, but many/most DSLR digital sensors have automatic dust removal
routines that operate when the camera is switched on/off. The vast
majority of DSLR buyers will never need the sensors professionally
cleaned. That includes most of those who change their lenses.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

First, each frame of film is only used once, while the sensor is used
repeatedly.

Second, yes, it *does* acquire a static charge.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> For DX fans, Nikon has also announced an 18-300mm superzoom which is
> likely to be optically even worse than the 18-200mm. Buyers of these
> superzooms seem to place a higher priority on never having to change
> lenses, which makes one wonder why on earth they bought an
> interchangeable lens camera in the first place.

Well, they just make these superzooms to force you to flex your
imagination and limber up your preconceptions. Doesn't seem to
work yet, though ...

-Wolfgang

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"K W Hart" <kwh...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>"John A." <jo...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>> Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>For DX fans, Nikon has also announced an 18-300mm superzoom which is
>>>>likely to be optically even worse than the 18-200mm. Buyers of these
>>>>superzooms seem to place a higher priority on never having to change
>>>>lenses, which makes one wonder why on earth they bought an
>>>>interchangeable lens camera in the first place.
>>>
>>> Maybe they don't want to clean the sensor more than absolutely
>>> necessary, perhaps because they don't know how or are afraid they'll
>>> scratch it or something.
>>>
>>> Maybe once the economy picks up, camera owners will be more willing to
>>> risk damaging expensive equipment.
>>>
>>> Just a thought. No idea if it's true for a significant number, though
>>> I would guess it's >0.
>>
>>
>>Is this sensor cleaning thing a real issue?
>
>Only if you are paranoid, ignorant or both. People who buy DSLRs for
>their claimed better image quality over a small sensor p&s then give
>up most of that gain in image quality by using a junk >10X superzoom
>lens could certainly be described as ignorant. But are they also
>paranoid? Discuss. ;-)

That sort of ignorant rant should be ignored.

There *are* reasons to use 10x superzooms, there are
reasons to avoid changing lenses while shooting, and
people who understand that are not nearly as ignorant as
hysterical claims that they are paranoid!

>>I realize that dust on the
>>sensor equals spots on the image, but I've changed lenses in mid-roll on my
>>film cameras with no ill effects. Does the sensor have a static charge that
>>attracts dust?
>
>Yes, but many/most DSLR digital sensors have automatic dust removal
>routines that operate when the camera is switched on/off. The vast
>majority of DSLR buyers will never need the sensors professionally
>cleaned. That includes most of those who change their lenses.

That of course depends on a lot of things. If you shoot
in a very dusty environment it just does not make any
sense at all to try switching lenses. Either a
superzoom or multiple bodies can solve most problems,
but obviously neither is always a perfect solution
either.

Most of the time the camera's dust removal function will
work well enough. When it doesn't a "rocket" type
blower usually works. When all else fails first an
attempt at a dry swab, and then the use of a web
cleaning will virtually always be adequate (once you've
learned how to do them properly).

Yes there absolutely is a static charge on an electronic
sensor, and they therefore attract dust particles and
hold onto them too.

If you shoot in dust free environments most of this is
academic. If you frequent dusty environments then
learning how to cope is an essential skill.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com

[Rob]

in conjunction with a vacuum cleaner to catch the dust particals.

[Mark F]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:11:36 +0100, in rec.photo.digital you wrote in
part:

> "K W Hart" <kwh...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >"John A." <jo...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >> Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>For DX fans, Nikon has also announced an 18-300mm superzoom which is
> >>>likely to be optically even worse than the 18-200mm. Buyers of these
> >>>superzooms seem to place a higher priority on never having to change
> >>>lenses, which makes one wonder why on earth they bought an
> >>>interchangeable lens camera in the first place.
> >>
> >> Maybe they don't want to clean the sensor more than absolutely
> >> necessary, perhaps because they don't know how or are afraid they'll
> >> scratch it or something.
> >>
> >> Maybe once the economy picks up, camera owners will be more willing to
> >> risk damaging expensive equipment.
> >>
> >> Just a thought. No idea if it's true for a significant number, though
> >> I would guess it's >0.
> >
> >
> >Is this sensor cleaning thing a real issue?
>
>
> Only if you are paranoid, ignorant or both. People who buy DSLRs for
> their claimed better image quality over a small sensor p&s then give
> up most of that gain in image quality by using a junk >10X superzoom

Many of the issues caused by the tradeoffs made in making an ultrawide
zoom can be handled by post processing. In particular, dust
mostly cane be removed by processing by chromatic distortion
can be greatly reduced and spatial distortion can be just able
completely eliminated. Hence ultrawide zooms and rare changing
of lenses.

The main drawbacks of ultrawide zooms are weight gain, F-stop
increase. (Size and price will also be a factor for many.)
(If I really needed a US$10K super-telephoto or super-wideangle lens
I'd just get an extra body, but a $3K body and $1K lens is my
budget area, so I'm unlikely to feel that I need a $10K special
purpose lens.)


Bigger sensor allows for tradeoff of pixels for noise reduction.
Noise from smaller total sensor area can't be handled by processing.
Noise from too many pixels for a given sensor size can to a large
extent be eliminated by combining pixels in processing: pixels
can be combined to reduce noise with the result being almost
as good as having had fewer larger pixels in the first place; however
when the resolution is needed 8-million actual pixels cannot be
made to act as 32-million actual pixels.

[Bruce]

Mark F <mark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:11:36 +0100, in rec.photo.digital you wrote in
>part:
>> "K W Hart" <kwh...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >"John A." <jo...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> >> Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>For DX fans, Nikon has also announced an 18-300mm superzoom which is
>> >>>likely to be optically even worse than the 18-200mm. Buyers of these
>> >>>superzooms seem to place a higher priority on never having to change
>> >>>lenses, which makes one wonder why on earth they bought an
>> >>>interchangeable lens camera in the first place.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe they don't want to clean the sensor more than absolutely
>> >> necessary, perhaps because they don't know how or are afraid they'll
>> >> scratch it or something.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe once the economy picks up, camera owners will be more willing to
>> >> risk damaging expensive equipment.
>> >>
>> >> Just a thought. No idea if it's true for a significant number, though
>> >> I would guess it's >0.
>> >
>> >
>> >Is this sensor cleaning thing a real issue?
>>
>>
>> Only if you are paranoid, ignorant or both. People who buy DSLRs for
>> their claimed better image quality over a small sensor p&s then give
>> up most of that gain in image quality by using a junk >10X superzoom
>
>
>Many of the issues caused by the tradeoffs made in making an ultrawide
>zoom can be handled by post processing.

That's funny, because no-one is discussing "an ultrawide zoom". It
would help if you understood what was being discussed before replying.

[Trevor]

"K W Hart" <kwh...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:jrfl44$27o$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> Is this sensor cleaning thing a real issue?

It can be.

>I realize that dust on the sensor equals spots on the image, but I've
>changed lenses in mid-roll on my film cameras with no ill effects.

If you change digital sensors as often as you changed film, I'm sure you
would never have a problem either!! :-)

Trevor.

[nospam]

In article <kg8pt79rmg5nuu7q8...@4ax.com>, Bruce

<docne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Only if you are paranoid, ignorant or both. People who buy DSLRs for
> >> their claimed better image quality over a small sensor p&s then give
> >> up most of that gain in image quality by using a junk >10X superzoom
> >
> >Many of the issues caused by the tradeoffs made in making an ultrawide
> >zoom can be handled by post processing.
>
> That's funny, because no-one is discussing "an ultrawide zoom". It
> would help if you understood what was being discussed before replying.

it's very obvious what he meant.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-06-15 11:42 , K W Hart wrote:

> Is this sensor cleaning thing a real issue? I realize that dust on the
> sensor equals spots on the image, but I've changed lenses in mid-roll on my
> film cameras with no ill effects. Does the sensor have a static charge that
> attracts dust?

If there's dust on your film capture you would not notice it unless that
frame happened to be a high aperture number and an even smooth image
area (no subject/BG detail). So it was bound to occur - just not bound
to be noticed often - and when seen, likely blamed on other gremlins.

I have to clean my sensor about 2 - 4 times a year using a rocket blower
and 1 - 2 / year using a wet contact wipe. Doesn't take much time at all.

When there is a mote in an image, it's corrected with the healing brush
in a couple seconds. I wish there was a way to make a dust mask photo
and for Photoshop (or some app) to automatically remove them when high
aperture numbers are used and when the image is even in the area where
there is dust.

--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> I wish there was a way to make a dust mask photo
>and for Photoshop (or some app) to automatically remove them when high
>aperture numbers are used and when the image is even in the area where
>there is dust.

Nikon cameras and software can do that.

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 06:08:20 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> I wish there was a way to make a dust mask photo
>>and for Photoshop (or some app) to automatically remove them when high
>>aperture numbers are used and when the image is even in the area where
>>there is dust.
>
>Nikon cameras and software can do that.

Sorta. My Nikon does a dust sweeping every time I turn it on. But,
still, I have to use my Rocket to manually clean off the dust a couple
of times of year. If the humidity is high, or the camera's location
changes from one somewhat extreme temperature to another, the dust
will form tiny "clots".

Every once in a while I shoot a clear blue sky image just to check for
dust spots.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[me]

I believe Floyd was taking about the dust reference photo feature of
the Nikon Cameras and Software.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-06-17 10:25 , tony cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 06:08:20 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
> Davidson) wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> I wish there was a way to make a dust mask photo
>>> and for Photoshop (or some app) to automatically remove them when high
>>> aperture numbers are used and when the image is even in the area where
>>> there is dust.
>>
>> Nikon cameras and software can do that.
>
> Sorta. My Nikon does a dust sweeping every time I turn it on. But,

He was referring to an image reference for post processing. I forgot
about that feature in some (all?) Nikon DSLR's.

Just wish Sony would wake up to it - or at least find a good 3rd party
s/w that can do it.

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 11:00:53 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>On 2012-06-17 10:25 , tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 06:08:20 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>> Davidson) wrote:
>>
>>> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> I wish there was a way to make a dust mask photo
>>>> and for Photoshop (or some app) to automatically remove them when high
>>>> aperture numbers are used and when the image is even in the area where
>>>> there is dust.
>>>
>>> Nikon cameras and software can do that.
>>
>> Sorta. My Nikon does a dust sweeping every time I turn it on. But,
>
>He was referring to an image reference for post processing. I forgot
>about that feature in some (all?) Nikon DSLR's.

Some Nikons have automatic sensor dust cleaning when you turn on the
camera. Mine does. That's what I was referring to above

My Nikon also has Dust Off software in Capture NX2 (which I don't use)
that works on .NEF images only. It's ridiculous. Read the
instructions at http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/d2x_dust/

You want to go through all of that, including a reference photo, when
dust spots on images are easily removed with the Clone tool or the
Spot Healing brush in either Photoshop (full version) or Elements or
the Spot Removal tool in Lightroom? I'm sure other post-processing
programs have similar tools.

Dust spots in an image that are a problem are almost always in the sky
or some other light-colored solid area of a photograph. They will
also be in the other areas of the same photograph, but you won't see
them.

If you have some great, god-awful blob that is too much to remove as
above, you've lost the image anyway.

>
>Just wish Sony would wake up to it - or at least find a good 3rd party
>s/w that can do it.

They do. It's called Adobe Photoshop, Elements, or Lightroom. Picasa
has "Retouch", but I don't use Picasa so I don't know the particulars.
Even the free program I use as a viewer - FastStone - has a clone
tool.

Dust on the sensor is a real problem for me because I sometimes change
lenses in windy and sandy conditions. At most, it effects one card's
photos, and then only those images with solid light areas.

Sometimes the "dust spots" on an image are on the monitor screen.

[Alan Browne]

Since one only needs take one reference photo (say 1 per month) and then
let the s/w do the work, sure, why not. When I have a dozen shots and
all need the same three spots healed it's a pain in the clock.

>
> Dust spots in an image that are a problem are almost always in the sky
> or some other light-colored solid area of a photograph. They will
> also be in the other areas of the same photograph, but you won't see
> them.

No shit. That's why I was specific about the tool only working on high
aperture numbered shots and in "smooth" areas.

>
> If you have some great, god-awful blob that is too much to remove as
> above, you've lost the image anyway.
>>
>> Just wish Sony would wake up to it - or at least find a good 3rd party
>> s/w that can do it.
>
> They do. It's called Adobe Photoshop, Elements, or Lightroom. Picasa
> has "Retouch", but I don't use Picasa so I don't know the particulars.
> Even the free program I use as a viewer - FastStone - has a clone
> tool.

See above.

>
> Dust on the sensor is a real problem for me because I sometimes change
> lenses in windy and sandy conditions. At most, it effects one card's
> photos, and then only those images with solid light areas.
>
> Sometimes the "dust spots" on an image are on the monitor screen.

That I keep clean. Spots from the sensor are very clear as to their
nature when they show up.

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 12:52:03 -0400, Alan Browne

That's 36 clicks of the Enter key if you use the Spot Healing Brush.
A few more if you establish the Clone-from area. You hit the keys
more times in this post than that.

However, I'm all for using whatever technique that works best for the
individual. If you are getting 12 shots out of a shoot that a) are
worth post-processing, and b) contain areas that include dust spots,
and c) able to notice the dust spots in the RAW file before you start
post, then you're doing better than I am.

>
>>
>> Dust spots in an image that are a problem are almost always in the sky
>> or some other light-colored solid area of a photograph. They will
>> also be in the other areas of the same photograph, but you won't see
>> them.
>
>No shit. That's why I was specific about the tool only working on high
>aperture numbered shots and in "smooth" areas.
>
>>
>> If you have some great, god-awful blob that is too much to remove as
>> above, you've lost the image anyway.
>>>
>>> Just wish Sony would wake up to it - or at least find a good 3rd party
>>> s/w that can do it.
>>
>> They do. It's called Adobe Photoshop, Elements, or Lightroom. Picasa
>> has "Retouch", but I don't use Picasa so I don't know the particulars.
>> Even the free program I use as a viewer - FastStone - has a clone
>> tool.
>
>See above.
>
>
>>
>> Dust on the sensor is a real problem for me because I sometimes change
>> lenses in windy and sandy conditions. At most, it effects one card's
>> photos, and then only those images with solid light areas.
>>
>> Sometimes the "dust spots" on an image are on the monitor screen.
>
>That I keep clean. Spots from the sensor are very clear as to their
>nature when they show up.

You evidently don't have grandchildren that come over and use your
computer. I'm thinking of adding an electrified fence around the
screen so they don't touch it and leave fingerprints.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 06:08:20 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> I wish there was a way to make a dust mask photo
>>>and for Photoshop (or some app) to automatically remove them when high
>>>aperture numbers are used and when the image is even in the area where
>>>there is dust.
>>
>>Nikon cameras and software can do that.
>
>Sorta.

Not sorta, absolutely.

The rest of your discussion was on a different topic... I snipped
it as irrelevant.

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 10:42:00 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.

Davidson) wrote:

>tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 06:08:20 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>>Davidson) wrote:
>>
>>>Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> I wish there was a way to make a dust mask photo
>>>>and for Photoshop (or some app) to automatically remove them when high
>>>>aperture numbers are used and when the image is even in the area where
>>>>there is dust.
>>>
>>>Nikon cameras and software can do that.
>>
>>Sorta.
>
>Not sorta, absolutely.

Not absolutely, sorta. Neither the in-camera function nor the
software function does a complete job. Dust attached to the sensor
due to moisture-caused clotting is not removed in-camera. Dust from
images is not removed always and completely by the software.

>The rest of your discussion was on a different topic... I snipped
>it as irrelevant.

Nice of you, Floyd. You are well-chosen to be the group janitor.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 10:42:00 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 06:08:20 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>>>Davidson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>> I wish there was a way to make a dust mask photo

Item Number 1: "A dust mask photo".

This is the only in camera function being discussed.

>>>>>and for Photoshop (or some app) to automatically remove them when high
>>>>>aperture numbers are used and when the image is even in the area where
>>>>>there is dust.

Item Number 2: Use of the "dust mask photo" by external software to
remove dust spots from image.

This is the only out of camera function discussed.

>>>>Nikon cameras and software can do that.
>>>
>>>Sorta.
>>
>>Not sorta, absolutely.
>
>Not absolutely, sorta. Neither the in-camera function nor the
>software function does a complete job.

It absolutely does provide as dust off mask and use it in software.

>Dust attached to the sensor
>due to moisture-caused clotting is not removed in-camera.

We are not talking removing dust from the sensor.

*READ* what this is about! I've added notes to the originally
quoted part above. Please pay close attention...

>Dust from
>images is not removed always and completely by the software.

It *absolutely* does provide the function asked about. Whether it
works 100% perfectly every time is a totally different matter.

>>The rest of your discussion was on a different topic... I snipped
>>it as irrelevant.
>
>Nice of you, Floyd. You are well-chosen to be the group janitor.

I am indeed the custodian *of my own articles.* I wrote the
article, and I had no need to quote your irrelevant trash as if
it had value. You should perhaps think of being more janitorial
about what you write!

[Alan Browne]

Not how I do it. I point the brush at a an even tones similar area then
option click that as the representative sample, then point at each dust
spot. This gets tedious - that's what computers are for: remove tedium.

And it's not like that is all that needs to be done.

>
> However, I'm all for using whatever technique that works best for the
> individual. If you are getting 12 shots out of a shoot that a) are
> worth post-processing, and b) contain areas that include dust spots,
> and c) able to notice the dust spots in the RAW file before you start
> post, then you're doing better than I am.

Depends on the day and the subject. If it's landscapes (higher aperture
number) and a clear day, those spots are going to be invading my photos.

>>
>>>
>>> Dust spots in an image that are a problem are almost always in the sky
>>> or some other light-colored solid area of a photograph. They will
>>> also be in the other areas of the same photograph, but you won't see
>>> them.
>>
>> No shit. That's why I was specific about the tool only working on high
>> aperture numbered shots and in "smooth" areas.
>>
>>>
>>> If you have some great, god-awful blob that is too much to remove as
>>> above, you've lost the image anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Just wish Sony would wake up to it - or at least find a good 3rd party
>>>> s/w that can do it.
>>>
>>> They do. It's called Adobe Photoshop, Elements, or Lightroom. Picasa
>>> has "Retouch", but I don't use Picasa so I don't know the particulars.
>>> Even the free program I use as a viewer - FastStone - has a clone
>>> tool.
>>
>> See above.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Dust on the sensor is a real problem for me because I sometimes change
>>> lenses in windy and sandy conditions. At most, it effects one card's
>>> photos, and then only those images with solid light areas.
>>>
>>> Sometimes the "dust spots" on an image are on the monitor screen.
>>
>> That I keep clean. Spots from the sensor are very clear as to their
>> nature when they show up.
>
> You evidently don't have grandchildren that come over and use your
> computer. I'm thinking of adding an electrified fence around the
> screen so they don't touch it and leave fingerprints.

Bad enough with my SO who believes in point by touch.

[me]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 12:52:03 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:


>Since one only needs take one reference photo (say 1 per month) and then
>let the s/w do the work, sure, why not. When I have a dozen shots and
>all need the same three spots healed it's a pain in the clock.

Other tools such as Bibble allow one to easily copy such edits and
paste them to other raw files.

[Alan Browne]

Not going there.

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 11:27:37 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.

Actually, you must be since you wrote "Nikon cameras and software can
do that". Sensor cleaning is an in-camera removal function.

>*READ* what this is about! I've added notes to the originally
>quoted part above. Please pay close attention...
>
>>Dust from
>>images is not removed always and completely by the software.
>
>It *absolutely* does provide the function asked about. Whether it
>works 100% perfectly every time is a totally different matter.

As I said, "Dust from the images is not removed always and completely
by the software". The function doesn't always 100% work. It works
"sorta".

>
>>>The rest of your discussion was on a different topic... I snipped
>>>it as irrelevant.
>>
>>Nice of you, Floyd. You are well-chosen to be the group janitor.
>
>I am indeed the custodian *of my own articles.* I wrote the
>article, and I had no need to quote your irrelevant trash as if
>it had value. You should perhaps think of being more janitorial
>about what you write!

Your opinion will be give the consideration it deserves.

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 12:39:13 -0400, tony cooper
<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 11:00:53 -0400, Alan Browne
><alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>On 2012-06-17 10:25 , tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 06:08:20 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>>> Davidson) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>> I wish there was a way to make a dust mask photo
>>>>> and for Photoshop (or some app) to automatically remove them when high
>>>>> aperture numbers are used and when the image is even in the area where
>>>>> there is dust.
>>>>
>>>> Nikon cameras and software can do that.
>>>
>>> Sorta. My Nikon does a dust sweeping every time I turn it on. But,
>>
>>He was referring to an image reference for post processing. I forgot
>>about that feature in some (all?) Nikon DSLR's.
>
>Some Nikons have automatic sensor dust cleaning when you turn on the
>camera. Mine does. That's what I was referring to above
>
>My Nikon also has Dust Off software in Capture NX2 (which I don't use)
>that works on .NEF images only. It's ridiculous. Read the
>instructions at http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/d2x_dust/

It's not so ridiculous if you have just come back with several hundred
photographs, all of whichave been contaminated by the same specks of
dust on the sensor. With a dust-off reference photo you can leave NX2
to clean them all up.

>
>You want to go through all of that, including a reference photo, when
>dust spots on images are easily removed with the Clone tool or the
>Spot Healing brush in either Photoshop (full version) or Elements or
>the Spot Removal tool in Lightroom? I'm sure other post-processing
>programs have similar tools.
>
>Dust spots in an image that are a problem are almost always in the sky
>or some other light-colored solid area of a photograph. They will
>also be in the other areas of the same photograph, but you won't see
>them.
>
>If you have some great, god-awful blob that is too much to remove as
>above, you've lost the image anyway.
>>
>>Just wish Sony would wake up to it - or at least find a good 3rd party
>>s/w that can do it.
>
>They do. It's called Adobe Photoshop, Elements, or Lightroom. Picasa
>has "Retouch", but I don't use Picasa so I don't know the particulars.
>Even the free program I use as a viewer - FastStone - has a clone
>tool.
>
>Dust on the sensor is a real problem for me because I sometimes change
>lenses in windy and sandy conditions. At most, it effects one card's
>photos, and then only those images with solid light areas.
>
>Sometimes the "dust spots" on an image are on the monitor screen.
>
>
>

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Why would that be any indication that I'm talking about
something other than what I was referring to?

See the items above where the two issues I addressed are
specifically quote and enumerated. Neither of them are about

removing dust from the sensor.

>>*READ* what this is about! I've added notes to the originally
>>quoted part above. Please pay close attention...
>>
>>>Dust from
>>>images is not removed always and completely by the software.
>>
>>It *absolutely* does provide the function asked about. Whether it
>>works 100% perfectly every time is a totally different matter.
>
>As I said, "Dust from the images is not removed always and completely
>by the software". The function doesn't always 100% work. It works
>"sorta".

So what? The previous "sorta" was related to whether those
functions existed, not how well they work.

Keep track of what is being said!

>>
>>>>The rest of your discussion was on a different topic... I snipped
>>>>it as irrelevant.
>>>
>>>Nice of you, Floyd. You are well-chosen to be the group janitor.
>>
>>I am indeed the custodian *of my own articles.* I wrote the
>>article, and I had no need to quote your irrelevant trash as if
>>it had value. You should perhaps think of being more janitorial
>>about what you write!
>
>Your opinion will be give the consideration it deserves.

You can't even consider what people say!

[Andrew Haley]

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> Yes there absolutely is a static charge on an electronic
> sensor, and they therefore attract dust particles and
> hold onto them too.

Sure, but is that the most important force that causes the particles
to stick? Maybe they're just sticky. It should be easy enough to
coat the front of the cover glass with indium tin oxide (or similar)
to solve the static problem problem. Maybe some manufacturers already
do.

Andrew.

[Mark F]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:12:50 +0100, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Mark F <mark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:11:36 +0100, in rec.photo.digital you wrote in
> >part:
> >> "K W Hart" <kwh...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >"John A." <jo...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>For DX fans, Nikon has also announced an 18-300mm superzoom which is
> >> >>>likely to be optically even worse than the 18-200mm. Buyers of these
> >> >>>superzooms seem to place a higher priority on never having to change
> >> >>>lenses, which makes one wonder why on earth they bought an
> >> >>>interchangeable lens camera in the first place.

I bought a camera with interchangeable lens so that I could choose the
lens that I wanted and possibly buy a new lens later or possibly use
the lens on my next camera.

> >> >>
> >> >> Maybe they don't want to clean the sensor more than absolutely
> >> >> necessary, perhaps because they don't know how or are afraid they'll
> >> >> scratch it or something.
> >> >>
> >> >> Maybe once the economy picks up, camera owners will be more willing to
> >> >> risk damaging expensive equipment.
> >> >>
> >> >> Just a thought. No idea if it's true for a significant number, though
> >> >> I would guess it's >0.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Is this sensor cleaning thing a real issue?
> >>
> >>
> >> Only if you are paranoid, ignorant or both. People who buy DSLRs for
> >> their claimed better image quality over a small sensor p&s then give
> >> up most of that gain in image quality by using a junk >10X superzoom
> >
> >
> >Many of the issues caused by the tradeoffs made in making an ultrawide
> >zoom can be handled by post processing.
>
>
> That's funny, because no-one is discussing "an ultrawide zoom".

Sorry: I should have used the term "superzoom", not "ultrawide zoom".

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 20:34:10 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>>>>Dust from
>>>>images is not removed always and completely by the software.
>>>
>>>It *absolutely* does provide the function asked about. Whether it
>>>works 100% perfectly every time is a totally different matter.
>>
>>As I said, "Dust from the images is not removed always and completely
>>by the software". The function doesn't always 100% work. It works
>>"sorta".
>
>So what? The previous "sorta" was related to whether those
>functions existed, not how well they work.

That's an amazing comment. If a solution exists, but the solution is
not particularly effective, you feel that it's lack of effectiveness
is totally unimportant.

>Keep track of what is being said!
>
>>>
>>>>>The rest of your discussion was on a different topic... I snipped
>>>>>it as irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>Nice of you, Floyd. You are well-chosen to be the group janitor.
>>>
>>>I am indeed the custodian *of my own articles.* I wrote the
>>>article, and I had no need to quote your irrelevant trash as if
>>>it had value. You should perhaps think of being more janitorial
>>>about what you write!
>>
>>Your opinion will be give the consideration it deserves.
>
>You can't even consider what people say!

I think you've figured out how much consideration I feel your comments
deserve.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

No it is not at all that easy. If it were easy, every manufactuerer
would be doing that.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 20:34:10 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>>>>Dust from
>>>>>images is not removed always and completely by the software.
>>>>
>>>>It *absolutely* does provide the function asked about. Whether it
>>>>works 100% perfectly every time is a totally different matter.
>>>
>>>As I said, "Dust from the images is not removed always and completely
>>>by the software". The function doesn't always 100% work. It works
>>>"sorta".
>>
>>So what? The previous "sorta" was related to whether those
>>functions existed, not how well they work.
>
>That's an amazing comment. If a solution exists, but the solution is
>not particularly effective, you feel that it's lack of effectiveness
>is totally unimportant.

Your's is simply another very stupid comment. The solution
absolutely exists, even if it is not perfect. But moreover, as
others have already told you... it *is* effective.

I certainly have never said anything that should be construed as

"you feel that it's lack of effectiveness is totally
unimportant."

Once again, as has been the case with each and every article you
have posted in this thread, you are not correctly reading what
others are saying.

>>Keep track of what is being said!

That still seems to be the most important advice you need.

>>>>
>>>>>>The rest of your discussion was on a different topic... I snipped
>>>>>>it as irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nice of you, Floyd. You are well-chosen to be the group janitor.
>>>>
>>>>I am indeed the custodian *of my own articles.* I wrote the
>>>>article, and I had no need to quote your irrelevant trash as if
>>>>it had value. You should perhaps think of being more janitorial
>>>>about what you write!
>>>
>>>Your opinion will be give the consideration it deserves.
>>
>>You can't even consider what people say!
>
>I think you've figured out how much consideration I feel your comments
>deserve.

You can't even read what I've said. How can you consider it?

Now, just imagine how much consideration anyone else is going to give
*your* comments, given that you are unable to carry on a conversation
about what other people say? The bottom line is that it won't be just
me, but in fact *nobody* is going to care what sort of silly response
you have to anyone's comments!

[Andrew Haley]

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> Andrew Haley <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>> Yes there absolutely is a static charge on an electronic
>>> sensor, and they therefore attract dust particles and
>>> hold onto them too.
>>
>>Sure, but is that the most important force that causes the particles
>>to stick? Maybe they're just sticky. It should be easy enough to
>>coat the front of the cover glass with indium tin oxide (or similar)
>>to solve the static problem problem. Maybe some manufacturers already
>>do.
>

> No it is not at all that easy. If it were easy, every manufactuerer
> would be doing that.

If static attraction were an important cause of dust sticking to
sensors, maybe they would. Deposition of ITO onto a glass substrate
is a very well-established technology, and ITO is transparent, so it
would seem to fit the bill.

Searching the net reveals http://www.visibledust.com/technology.php#3:

"ITO (Indium Tin Oxide) coating is a transparent and conductive metal
oxide that allows static charges to flow from non-conductive surfaces,
such as the glass covering a digital camera sensor. The ITO coating on
the sensor lets a static charge dissipate through the circuitry or
wiring harness and away from the sensor surface."

Not bad for a wild-assed guess. :-)

Andrew.

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:58:12 -0400, tony cooper
<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 20:34:10 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>>>>Dust from
>>>>>images is not removed always and completely by the software.
>>>>
>>>>It *absolutely* does provide the function asked about. Whether it
>>>>works 100% perfectly every time is a totally different matter.
>>>
>>>As I said, "Dust from the images is not removed always and completely
>>>by the software". The function doesn't always 100% work. It works
>>>"sorta".
>>
>>So what? The previous "sorta" was related to whether those
>>functions existed, not how well they work.
>
>That's an amazing comment. If a solution exists, but the solution is
>not particularly effective, you feel that it's lack of effectiveness
>is totally unimportant.

I have to back Floyd. Lack of effectiveness (or otherwise) is a
completely separate issue.

>>Keep track of what is being said!
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>The rest of your discussion was on a different topic... I snipped
>>>>>>it as irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nice of you, Floyd. You are well-chosen to be the group janitor.
>>>>
>>>>I am indeed the custodian *of my own articles.* I wrote the
>>>>article, and I had no need to quote your irrelevant trash as if
>>>>it had value. You should perhaps think of being more janitorial
>>>>about what you write!
>>>
>>>Your opinion will be give the consideration it deserves.
>>
>>You can't even consider what people say!
>
>I think you've figured out how much consideration I feel your comments
>deserve.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Andrew Haley <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>>In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>> Yes there absolutely is a static charge on an electronic
>>>> sensor, and they therefore attract dust particles and
>>>> hold onto them too.
>>>
>>>Sure, but is that the most important force that causes the particles
>>>to stick? Maybe they're just sticky. It should be easy enough to
>>>coat the front of the cover glass with indium tin oxide (or similar)
>>>to solve the static problem problem. Maybe some manufacturers already
>>>do.
>>
>> No it is not at all that easy. If it were easy, every manufactuerer
>> would be doing that.
>
>If static attraction were an important cause of dust sticking to
>sensors, maybe they would.

It absolutely is the major cause of dust sticking to sensors.

If what you suggest where a practical *solution*, there would no longer
be a problem. Obviusly it is not the solution you seem to expect.

>Deposition of ITO onto a glass substrate
>is a very well-established technology, and ITO is transparent, so it
>would seem to fit the bill.

Do you really think that with the millions of dollars in sensor
research done by Canon, Sony, and Nikon alone (never mind a few
others that add just as much) that they don't know about
something so simple that you do?

>Searching the net reveals http://www.visibledust.com/technology.php#3:
>
>"ITO (Indium Tin Oxide) coating is a transparent and conductive metal
>oxide that allows static charges to flow from non-conductive surfaces,
>such as the glass covering a digital camera sensor. The ITO coating on
>the sensor lets a static charge dissipate through the circuitry or
>wiring harness and away from the sensor surface."
>
>Not bad for a wild-assed guess. :-)

Then explain why static is still such a problem with dust on electronic
sensors?

You're missing the point! ITO does not solve the problem. It
might reduce is greatly, but it clearly does not come close to
eliminating it.

The simple fact is that while a sensor is in use it generates a huge
amount of static charge. There is no way to discharge it in real time.

[Chris Malcolm]

First of all it doesn't generate a huge static charge while in
use. The voltages used in camera sensors are very low, totally
irrelevant to static accumulation. What makes static accumulate on
sensor surfaces is it not being able to leak away. Indium tin oxide
provides a static leak path, and is used by at least some of the
latest high end camera sensors. Which is why at its introduction there
was such a fuss about cleaning solutions damaging it, and the
production of later improved solutions specially for cleaning sensors
with that surface technology.

There is now some dispute about whether the tin oxide coating really
was ever threatened by the old sensor cleaning solution, or just an
excuse for manufacturers to alarm the public into buying special more
expensive "manufacturer approved" cleaning products.

No, it doesn't remove sensor dust problems. Yes, it does hugely reduce
those due to static. Which unfortunately are not the only reasons dust
sticks to sensors, e.g. sticky pollens.

--
Chris Malcolm

[Andrew Haley]

Not at all: see the citation below.

>>Searching the net reveals http://www.visibledust.com/technology.php#3:
>>
>>"ITO (Indium Tin Oxide) coating is a transparent and conductive metal
>>oxide that allows static charges to flow from non-conductive surfaces,
>>such as the glass covering a digital camera sensor. The ITO coating on
>>the sensor lets a static charge dissipate through the circuitry or
>>wiring harness and away from the sensor surface."
>>
>>Not bad for a wild-assed guess. :-)
>
> Then explain why static is still such a problem with dust on electronic
> sensors?

Maybe static attraction isn't the big deal you think it is any more.
Sensors seem to have improved in this area, and perhaps anti-static
coatings are one reason for that. There's obviously moisture and
various sticky substances that would cause dust to stick. Why would
static be more powerful than these?

> You're missing the point! ITO does not solve the problem. It
> might reduce is greatly, but it clearly does not come close to
> eliminating it.

I agree. Nothing in the physical world is perfect.

> The simple fact is that while a sensor is in use it generates a huge
> amount of static charge.

And how does it do that? The electronics only use a few volts, which
is hardly much of a static charge when you consider that the sensor
itself is separated from the dust by the anti-aliasing filter.
Insulators will tend to pick up a static charge in use, sure, but a
conductive coating should dissipate it from the surface. That's what
it's for.

Andrew.

[Whisky-dave]

On Sunday, June 17, 2012 7:00:10 PM UTC+1, tony cooper wrote:


>
> You evidently don't have grandchildren that come over and use your
> computer. I'm thinking of adding an electrified fence around the
> screen so they don't touch it and leave fingerprints.

As more screens, iPad, ipods, smart phones have touch screens I wonder how many kids' will try it on the lens of the camera given the chance.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Andrew Haley <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>> The simple fact is that while a sensor is in use it generates a huge
>> amount of static charge.
>
>And how does it do that? The electronics only use a few volts, which
>is hardly much of a static charge when you consider that the sensor

You and Chris Malcom both seem to believe that high voltage is
necessary for a significant static charge; which is not true at
all. It has very little to do with operating voltages, and a
great deal to do with how free many electrons are floating
around without a low resistance discharge path *to ground*.

A discharge path reduces the charge, but only if it offers a
relatively low resistance to an earth ground. Any conductive
coating sufficient to be as effective as you seem to think these
coatings are would totally block all light! Not to mention that
a charged camera body is not significantly different than a charged
sensor surface... and unless you are dragging a ground wire, that is
exactly what you have.

[Chris Malcolm]

In rec.photo.digital Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> Andrew Haley <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>> The simple fact is that while a sensor is in use it generates a huge
>>> amount of static charge.
>>
>>And how does it do that? The electronics only use a few volts, which
>>is hardly much of a static charge when you consider that the sensor

> You and Chris Malcom both seem to believe that high voltage is
> necessary for a significant static charge; which is not true at
> all.

No I didn't think that. I was simply responding to your claim that an
operating sensor collected static as a consequence of being in
operation.

> It has very little to do with operating voltages, and a
> great deal to do with how free many electrons are floating
> around without a low resistance discharge path *to ground*.

Exactly. So whether or not the sensor is in operation has nothing to
do with it. Although the operations of focal plane shutter and mirror
box might generate some static which could charge up the sensor
surface -- if it didn't have a charge leakage path.

> A discharge path reduces the charge, but only if it offers a
> relatively low resistance to an earth ground.

Static charges are of such high voltage that leakage path resistances
don't have to be "relatively low". They can be very effective while
being surprisingly high in general electrical terms.

> Any conductive
> coating sufficient to be as effective as you seem to think these
> coatings are would totally block all light!

Do take some time to check the physics. You don't need low resistance
to discharge static. Wet string will do it. Try it for yourself.

> Not to mention that
> a charged camera body is not significantly different than a charged
> sensor surface... and unless you are dragging a ground wire, that is
> exactly what you have.

You don't seem to have much grounding in the physics of static
electricity. A charged camera body would attract dust to the outside
of the camera, not the inside. And inside a highly charged body is a
surprisingly neutral zone, as Tesla was fond of demonstrating to
startled audiences. What's more a camera body carrying a significant
static charge is not going to keep it once you have it in your
hands. And it's not going to acquire such a charge while inside a bag.

--
Chris Malcolm

[Andrew Haley]

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:

> Andrew Haley <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>> The simple fact is that while a sensor is in use it generates a huge
>>> amount of static charge.
>>
>>And how does it do that? The electronics only use a few volts, which
>>is hardly much of a static charge when you consider that the sensor
>
> You and Chris Malcom both seem to believe that high voltage is
> necessary for a significant static charge; which is not true at all.
> It has very little to do with operating voltages, and a great deal
> to do with how free many electrons are floating around without a low
> resistance discharge path *to ground*. A discharge path reduces the
> charge, but only if it offers a relatively low resistance to an
> earth ground.

Which it will: an the resistance of an ITO coating of that size is
maybe tens or a couple of hundreds of ohms; you can discharge static
with a megohm. And yes, I am assuming the coating is grounded at its
edge.

> Any conductive coating sufficient to be as effective as you seem to
> think these coatings are would totally block all light!

No, it wouldn't. ITO is transparent.

Andrew.

[Andrew Haley]

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> You don't seem to have much grounding in the physics of static
> electricity.

:-)

Andrew.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Andrew Haley <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>>> The simple fact is that while a sensor is in use it generates a huge
>>>> amount of static charge.
>>>
>>>And how does it do that? The electronics only use a few volts, which
>>>is hardly much of a static charge when you consider that the sensor
>>
>> You and Chris Malcom both seem to believe that high voltage is
>> necessary for a significant static charge; which is not true at all.
>> It has very little to do with operating voltages, and a great deal
>> to do with how free many electrons are floating around without a low
>> resistance discharge path *to ground*. A discharge path reduces the
>> charge, but only if it offers a relatively low resistance to an
>> earth ground.
>
>Which it will: an the resistance of an ITO coating of that size is
>maybe tens or a couple of hundreds of ohms; you can discharge static
>with a megohm. And yes, I am assuming the coating is grounded at its
>edge.

Grounded at its edge? To what?

Earth ground is not available inside the camera, and the body of the
camera does not come even close to emulating earth ground.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

That is fairly funny!

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In rec.photo.digital Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>>> The simple fact is that while a sensor is in use it generates a huge
>>>> amount of static charge.
>>>
>>>And how does it do that? The electronics only use a few volts, which
>>>is hardly much of a static charge when you consider that the sensor
>
>> You and Chris Malcom both seem to believe that high voltage is
>> necessary for a significant static charge; which is not true at
>> all.
>
>No I didn't think that. I was simply responding to your claim that an
>operating sensor collected static as a consequence of being in
>operation.

Here is what you said:

"The voltages used in camera sensors are very low, totally
irrelevant to static accumulation."

Now you say you don't think that is true...

>> It has very little to do with operating voltages, and a
>> great deal to do with how free many electrons are floating
>> around without a low resistance discharge path *to ground*.
>
>Exactly. So whether or not the sensor is in operation has nothing to
>do with it. Although the operations of focal plane shutter and mirror
>box might generate some static which could charge up the sensor
>surface -- if it didn't have a charge leakage path.

Whether or not the sensor is in operation has everything to do
with how many free electrons are available with no discharge
path to ground.

Why would the metal focal plane shutter or the "mirror box"
generate static charge? They have no source of electrons...

And this "charge leakage path" you mention, goes to ground
where?

>> A discharge path reduces the charge, but only if it offers a
>> relatively low resistance to an earth ground.
>
>Static charges are of such high voltage that leakage path resistances
>don't have to be "relatively low". They can be very effective while
>being surprisingly high in general electrical terms.

I'm sorry, but that is not true. "Low" of course is a relative
term.

They have to be relatively low to allow fast enough discharge to
prevent a build up of charge. Hundreds of thousands of Ohms is
relatively low for most specific applications.

Note that ESD protection devices, such as wrist straps, have
relatively high resistance in order to prevent electrocuting
someone if they come into contract with high voltages while
grounded via the protection device.

>> Any conductive
>> coating sufficient to be as effective as you seem to think these
>> coatings are would totally block all light!
>
>Do take some time to check the physics. You don't need low resistance
>to discharge static. Wet string will do it. Try it for yourself.

*Do* take the time to learn about static electicity!

For example, open up just about any bit of electronic equipment
with a 5 VDC power supply, and look at how dust collects on the
power supply components!

>> Not to mention that
>> a charged camera body is not significantly different than a charged
>> sensor surface... and unless you are dragging a ground wire, that is
>> exactly what you have.
>
>You don't seem to have much grounding in the physics of static
>electricity.

In fact I have several decades of professional experience.
Given what you've said, it is obvious why you've posted this
sort of bluster...

>A charged camera body would attract dust to the outside
>of the camera, not the inside. And inside a highly charged body is a
>surprisingly neutral zone, as Tesla was fond of demonstrating to
>startled audiences. What's more a camera body carrying a significant
>static charge is not going to keep it once you have it in your
>hands. And it's not going to acquire such a charge while inside a bag.

Follow the advice you gave above, and get a good education in
static electricity. Avoid trivia contests and displays of the
exotic. Take a few courses in such things as Electro Static
Discharge.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

That's called AfterShot Pro now and while you can copy, you'll be
needing to either have very, very small specks of dust or hunt for
a copy source (no "smart healing"!) for each spot in each picture.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:

> Andrew Haley <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:

>>> The simple fact is that while a sensor is in use it generates a huge
>>> amount of static charge.

>>And how does it do that? The electronics only use a few volts, which
>>is hardly much of a static charge when you consider that the sensor

> You and Chris Malcom both seem to believe that high voltage is
> necessary for a significant static charge; which is not true at
> all. It has very little to do with operating voltages, and a
> great deal to do with how free many electrons are floating
> around without a low resistance discharge path *to ground*.

> A discharge path reduces the charge, but only if it offers a
> relatively low resistance to an earth ground.

Define "relatively low". How many megaohms would that be?

And then tell us how many electrons a static charge of, say,
ridiculously low 100V would have to have to not drain to 50V within
10 minutes given that "relatively low" resistance path to camera

ground.

> Any conductive
> coating sufficient to be as effective as you seem to think these
> coatings are would totally block all light!

Assuming there wasn't any light to begin with, sure!

> Not to mention that
> a charged camera body is not significantly different than a charged
> sensor surface... and unless you are dragging a ground wire, that is
> exactly what you have.

Then the dust would stick to every part of the camera, being
filtered out of the air, and never reach the sensor.

Oh, how comes in your world view *every* *last* *camera* will
be charged with a couple 1000V or 10,000V to ground?

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My Nikon also has Dust Off software in Capture NX2 (which I don't use)
> that works on .NEF images only. It's ridiculous. Read the
> instructions at http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/d2x_dust/

> You want to go through all of that, including a reference photo, when
> dust spots on images are easily removed with the Clone tool or the
> Spot Healing brush in either Photoshop (full version) or Elements or
> the Spot Removal tool in Lightroom?

For 3 photos, do it by hand.
For 30 photos, well.
For 300 photos, you'll be cursing if you do it by hand.
Try 3.000 photos ...

And then you've got to hunt for the right clone source, if
you use the clone tool.

> Dust on the sensor is a real problem for me because I sometimes change
> lenses in windy and sandy conditions. At most, it effects one card's
> photos, and then only those images with solid light areas.

One 64GB or 128GB card can be a lot of photos.

And unlike chemical sensors changing the card doesn't bring a
new sensor ...

-Wolfgang

[Floyd L. Davidson]

John A. <jo...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>Within the camera it only has to have neutral charge in relation to
>the rest of the interior of the camera. What the charge is in relation
>to the earth is irrelevant in determining where the dust will stick.

But it is not irrelevant in determining if dust is attracted to
the camera, and sticks to it.

>In fact, if you can deliberately arrange to have some part inside with
>a greater charge than the sensor I would think that would attract dust
>there instead. (I've heard some cameras have something inside to
>collect dust but I don't know if they use electrostatic pads or just
>something a little sticky like a post-it.)

And if the sensor is the primary source of static charge within
the mirror box, guess which part is going to have the most dust
stick to it!

Keep in mind that others are saying static charge on the sensor
is not significant, particularly because there are only low
voltages within the camera... yet they also allow that all of
these extraordinary measures are need to suppress the effects of
this non-existant static chargee!

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> The simple fact is that while a sensor is in use it generates a huge
>>>> amount of static charge.
>
>>>And how does it do that? The electronics only use a few volts, which
>>>is hardly much of a static charge when you consider that the sensor
>
>> You and Chris Malcom both seem to believe that high voltage is
>> necessary for a significant static charge; which is not true at
>> all. It has very little to do with operating voltages, and a
>> great deal to do with how free many electrons are floating
>> around without a low resistance discharge path *to ground*.
>
>> A discharge path reduces the charge, but only if it offers a
>> relatively low resistance to an earth ground.
>
>Define "relatively low". How many megaohms would that be?
>
>And then tell us how many electrons a static charge of, say,
>ridiculously low 100V would have to have to not drain to 50V within
>10 minutes given that "relatively low" resistance path to camera
>ground.

Who cares! If it takes 10 minutes, it will cause dust collection.

>> Any conductive
>> coating sufficient to be as effective as you seem to think these
>> coatings are would totally block all light!
>
>Assuming there wasn't any light to begin with, sure!
>
>> Not to mention that
>> a charged camera body is not significantly different than a charged
>> sensor surface... and unless you are dragging a ground wire, that is
>> exactly what you have.
>
>Then the dust would stick to every part of the camera, being
>filtered out of the air, and never reach the sensor.

This isn't your strongest subject, is it?

>Oh, how comes in your world view *every* *last* *camera* will
>be charged with a couple 1000V or 10,000V to ground?

Or even one you have any clue about at all...

[Eric Stevens]

Nylon car upholstery.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Chris Malcolm]

In rec.photo.digital Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In rec.photo.digital Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>> Andrew Haley <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:

>>>>> The simple fact is that while a sensor is in use it generates a huge
>>>>> amount of static charge.
>>>>
>>>>And how does it do that? The electronics only use a few volts, which
>>>>is hardly much of a static charge when you consider that the sensor
>>
>>> You and Chris Malcom both seem to believe that high voltage is
>>> necessary for a significant static charge; which is not true at
>>> all.
>>
>>No I didn't think that. I was simply responding to your claim that an
>>operating sensor collected static as a consequence of being in
>>operation.

> Here is what you said:

> "The voltages used in camera sensors are very low, totally
> irrelevant to static accumulation."

> Now you say you don't think that is true...

No I'm not. If you think I'm contradicting rather than rephrasing
you're misunderstanding.

>>> It has very little to do with operating voltages, and a
>>> great deal to do with how free many electrons are floating
>>> around without a low resistance discharge path *to ground*.

"Floating around" is a bit vague. If you mean floating around in the
air in the form of charged molecules or dust particles I agree with
the proviso that it's not the total number which matters, but the
local concentrations which represent high static charges, because
that's what causes the attraction of dust particles to surfaces.

>>Exactly. So whether or not the sensor is in operation has nothing to
>>do with it. Although the operations of focal plane shutter and mirror
>>box might generate some static which could charge up the sensor
>>surface -- if it didn't have a charge leakage path.

> Whether or not the sensor is in operation has everything to do
> with how many free electrons are available with no discharge
> path to ground.

But here you seem to consider that the free electrons moving around in
conductive circuits are the same kind of free electrons that in local
concentrations cause the dust attractive phenomena of static
electricity. Note that important word "static". Electricity in
electric circuits isn't static, it's mobile. That's why so much higher
charges and very high voltages are required in electric circuits to
exhibit the phenomena of static electricity, such as dust attraction.

> Why would the metal focal plane shutter or the "mirror box"
> generate static charge? They have no source of electrons...

No source of electrons?? Where do the electrons come from when you rub
a balloon to charge it up? There are conductive and insulating parts
moving in proximity to one another in both the focal plane shutter and
the mirror box. Don't you remember how the high voltage generators in
your school science lab worked?

> And this "charge leakage path" you mention, goes to ground
> where?

Ground as in earthed is irrelevant when we're talking about dust
attraction to a camera sensor. What matters are the local
differentials inside the camera. As you (should) know, the static
electrical conditions inside a charged object are completely different
from the outside. All that's required to stop dust attraction to the
camera sensor surface is a leakage path to whatever constitutes
the local electronic circuit ground inside the camera.

>>> A discharge path reduces the charge, but only if it offers a
>>> relatively low resistance to an earth ground.
>>
>>Static charges are of such high voltage that leakage path resistances
>>don't have to be "relatively low". They can be very effective while
>>being surprisingly high in general electrical terms.

> I'm sorry, but that is not true. "Low" of course is a relative
> term.

> They have to be relatively low to allow fast enough discharge to
> prevent a build up of charge. Hundreds of thousands of Ohms is
> relatively low for most specific applications.

That's what I meant. Hundreds of thousands of ohms is high in
electrical terms, commonplace in electronics, and low with respect to
static charges. It's more than adequately supplied by the tin oxide
coatings on the better camera sensors.

> Note that ESD protection devices, such as wrist straps, have
> relatively high resistance in order to prevent electrocuting
> someone if they come into contract with high voltages while
> grounded via the protection device.

Exactly. A nylon string coated with indium tin oxide, or the wet
string I mentioned, would do just fine.

>>> Any conductive
>>> coating sufficient to be as effective as you seem to think these
>>> coatings are would totally block all light!
>>
>>Do take some time to check the physics. You don't need low resistance
>>to discharge static. Wet string will do it. Try it for yourself.

> *Do* take the time to learn about static electicity!

I don't need to. It's one of the subjects I had to pass exams in when
young, and which I had to keep up to date in order to design
electronics which would survive exposure to occasional high static
charges in the local environment.

> For example, open up just about any bit of electronic equipment
> with a 5 VDC power supply, and look at how dust collects on the
> power supply components!

If you're talking about power supplies which derive their 5V from
mains electricity it's not the 5V which is doing that. If you're
talking about stuff powered only by 5V batteries, then the
accumulation of dirt around the +ve bits isn't dust attracted by
static electrical charges, it's electrochemistry producing substances
which either mimic dirt or hold passing dirt by stickiness derived
from hygroscopic effects.

>>> Not to mention that
>>> a charged camera body is not significantly different than a charged
>>> sensor surface... and unless you are dragging a ground wire, that is
>>> exactly what you have.

>>You don't seem to have much grounding in the physics of static
>>electricity.

> In fact I have several decades of professional experience.
> Given what you've said, it is obvious why you've posted this
> sort of bluster...

I notice you say "professional experience" rather than "education". In
other words you've been exposed to the usual superstitions regarding
the oddly counter-intuitive domain of static electrictity common among
engineers who have been told the rules of how to work safely with the
stuff, but haven't an education in it.

>>A charged camera body would attract dust to the outside
>>of the camera, not the inside. And inside a highly charged body is a
>>surprisingly neutral zone, as Tesla was fond of demonstrating to
>>startled audiences. What's more a camera body carrying a significant
>>static charge is not going to keep it once you have it in your
>>hands. And it's not going to acquire such a charge while inside a bag.

> Follow the advice you gave above, and get a good education in
> static electricity. Avoid trivia contests and displays of the
> exotic. Take a few courses in such things as Electro Static
> Discharge.

I've got more than enough education in the topic to know that
someone who uses the phrase "Electro Static Discharge" hasn't :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In rec.photo.digital Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>In rec.photo.digital Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>> Andrew Haley <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>> The simple fact is that while a sensor is in use it generates a huge
>>>>>> amount of static charge.
>>>>>
>>>>>And how does it do that? The electronics only use a few volts, which
>>>>>is hardly much of a static charge when you consider that the sensor
>>>
>>>> You and Chris Malcom both seem to believe that high voltage is
>>>> necessary for a significant static charge; which is not true at
>>>> all.
>>>
>>>No I didn't think that. I was simply responding to your claim that an
>>>operating sensor collected static as a consequence of being in
>>>operation.
>
>> Here is what you said:
>
>> "The voltages used in camera sensors are very low, totally
>> irrelevant to static accumulation."
>
>> Now you say you don't think that is true...
>
>No I'm not. If you think I'm contradicting rather than rephrasing
>you're misunderstanding.

We can all read Chris, it's pretty obvious what you said.

It also happens to be absolutely wrong.

>>>> It has very little to do with operating voltages, and a
>>>> great deal to do with how free many electrons are floating
>>>> around without a low resistance discharge path *to ground*.
>
>"Floating around" is a bit vague. If you mean floating around in the
>air in the form of charged molecules or dust particles I agree with
>the proviso that it's not the total number which matters, but the
>local concentrations which represent high static charges, because
>that's what causes the attraction of dust particles to surfaces.

No, not "in the air". Free electrons on the surface of the sensor,
and anything to which it is electrically connected. That could, for
example, mean the entire inside of the mirror box is charged in relation
to any dust particle that finds its way in. Once the dust particle
is anywhere close it will be attracted to the object with the highest
charge. Generally that is going to be something most close to the source
of the charge... in this case the sensor itself.

>>>Exactly. So whether or not the sensor is in operation has nothing to
>>>do with it. Although the operations of focal plane shutter and mirror
>>>box might generate some static which could charge up the sensor
>>>surface -- if it didn't have a charge leakage path.
>
>> Whether or not the sensor is in operation has everything to do
>> with how many free electrons are available with no discharge
>> path to ground.
>
>But here you seem to consider that the free electrons moving around in
>conductive circuits are the same kind of free electrons that in local
>concentrations cause the dust attractive phenomena of static
>electricity.

In fact they are the same electrons, and have the same charge.

>ote that important word "static". Electricity in
>electric circuits isn't static, it's mobile. That's why so much higher
>charges and very high voltages are required in electric circuits to
>exhibit the phenomena of static electricity, such as dust attraction.

BS.

As I previously suggested, just look inside almost any 5 VDC power supply
that has been operating for a few months or years, and see where the
dust build up is.

>> Why would the metal focal plane shutter or the "mirror box"
>> generate static charge? They have no source of electrons...
>
>No source of electrons?? Where do the electrons come from when you rub
>a balloon to charge it up? There are conductive and insulating parts
>moving in proximity to one another in both the focal plane shutter and
>the mirror box. Don't you remember how the high voltage generators in
>your school science lab worked?

"Conductive and insulating parts"? Wrong. Go back to your
school lab... (Incidentally, I used to maintain a rather large
Van De Graph particle accelerator, and a medium sized electron
accelerator.)

The shutter is a metal conductor, so is virtually the entire
mirror mechanism, and of course it is all encased in metal.
There is nothing like the source of electrons available from
normal operation of the sensor. (Keep in mind these devices are
all based on something known as a Charge Coupled Device.)

>> And this "charge leakage path" you mention, goes to ground
>> where?
>
>Ground as in earthed is irrelevant when we're talking about dust
>attraction to a camera sensor. What matters are the local
>differentials inside the camera. As you (should) know,

Wrong again. What matters is the difference between the local
parts of the camera as opposed to the dust particle. Clearly
the entire camera is going to have a significant charge if it 1)
generates a charge, which it does, and 2) if it is not bled off
to ground, which it isn't. The question is which part of the
camera will have a higher potential, and thus attract more dust.

Take a look inside of any 5 volt power supply to get your
answer.

>the static
>electrical conditions inside a charged object are completely different
>from the outside. All that's required to stop dust attraction to the
>camera sensor surface is a leakage path to whatever constitutes
>the local electronic circuit ground inside the camera.

Note that on any typical 5 VDC power supply the entire unit is
encased in a metal shield, it is also probably well grounded
too. Yet there are some very obvious places where more dust
collects. And it clearly shows that what you've said is
absolutely not true.

>>>> A discharge path reduces the charge, but only if it offers a
>>>> relatively low resistance to an earth ground.
>>>
>>>Static charges are of such high voltage that leakage path resistances
>>>don't have to be "relatively low". They can be very effective while
>>>being surprisingly high in general electrical terms.
>
>> I'm sorry, but that is not true. "Low" of course is a relative
>> term.
>
>> They have to be relatively low to allow fast enough discharge to
>> prevent a build up of charge. Hundreds of thousands of Ohms is
>> relatively low for most specific applications.
>
>That's what I meant. Hundreds of thousands of ohms is high in
>electrical terms, commonplace in electronics, and low with respect to
>static charges. It's more than adequately supplied by the tin oxide
>coatings on the better camera sensors.
>
>> Note that ESD protection devices, such as wrist straps, have
>> relatively high resistance in order to prevent electrocuting
>> someone if they come into contract with high voltages while
>> grounded via the protection device.
>
>Exactly. A nylon string coated with indium tin oxide, or the wet
>string I mentioned, would do just fine.

But that wrist strap will not prevent attraction of dust!

>>>> Any conductive
>>>> coating sufficient to be as effective as you seem to think these
>>>> coatings are would totally block all light!
>>>
>>>Do take some time to check the physics. You don't need low resistance
>>>to discharge static. Wet string will do it. Try it for yourself.
>
>> *Do* take the time to learn about static electicity!
>
>I don't need to. It's one of the subjects I had to pass exams in when
>young, and which I had to keep up to date in order to design
>electronics which would survive exposure to occasional high static
>charges in the local environment.

I'm sure you learned how to pass a test... But you don't seem to
have understood the subject as well as the test.

>> For example, open up just about any bit of electronic equipment
>> with a 5 VDC power supply, and look at how dust collects on the
>> power supply components!
>
>If you're talking about power supplies which derive their 5V from
>mains electricity it's not the 5V which is doing that.

Stop making silly statements. *LOOK* at a real live power supply.

>If you're
>talking about stuff powered only by 5V batteries, then the
>accumulation of dirt around the +ve bits isn't dust attracted by
>static electrical charges, it's electrochemistry producing substances
>which either mimic dirt or hold passing dirt by stickiness derived
>from hygroscopic effects.
>
>>>> Not to mention that
>>>> a charged camera body is not significantly different than a charged
>>>> sensor surface... and unless you are dragging a ground wire, that is
>>>> exactly what you have.
>
>>>You don't seem to have much grounding in the physics of static
>>>electricity.
>
>> In fact I have several decades of professional experience.
>> Given what you've said, it is obvious why you've posted this
>> sort of bluster...
>
>I notice you say "professional experience" rather than "education". In

Yep. Not academic (though of course I've had a bit of that too)
so much as real hands on experience.

>other words you've been exposed to the usual superstitions regarding
>the oddly counter-intuitive domain of static electrictity common among
>engineers who have been told the rules of how to work safely with the
>stuff, but haven't an education in it.

If you can't support your foolishness with facts and have to
resort to more bluster and additional gratuitous personal
insults, it does suggest maybe you are projecting a bit much!

>>>A charged camera body would attract dust to the outside
>>>of the camera, not the inside. And inside a highly charged body is a
>>>surprisingly neutral zone, as Tesla was fond of demonstrating to
>>>startled audiences. What's more a camera body carrying a significant
>>>static charge is not going to keep it once you have it in your
>>>hands. And it's not going to acquire such a charge while inside a bag.
>
>> Follow the advice you gave above, and get a good education in
>> static electricity. Avoid trivia contests and displays of the
>> exotic. Take a few courses in such things as Electro Static
>> Discharge.
>
>I've got more than enough education in the topic to know that
>someone who uses the phrase "Electro Static Discharge" hasn't :-)

Really! Cute.

(Try entering that into a Google search.)

[Trevor]

"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a4liit...@mid.individual.net...

> I've got more than enough education in the topic to know that
> someone who uses the phrase "Electro Static Discharge" hasn't :-)

Yes :-) however the term is so common it is more often referred to as ESD.

Trevor.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>> I've got more than enough education in the topic to know that
>> someone who uses the phrase "Electro Static Discharge" hasn't :-)
>
>Yes :-) however the term is so common it is more often referred to as ESD.

So instead of saying what you did, this would be more appropriate:

Bullshit :-) The term is well defined and in common use by
virtually everyone who has sufficient academic background.

[Trevor]

"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87a9zti...@apaflo.com...

> "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>>"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> I've got more than enough education in the topic to know that
>>> someone who uses the phrase "Electro Static Discharge" hasn't :-)
>>
>>Yes :-) however the term is so common it is more often referred to as ESD.
>
> So instead of saying what you did, this would be more appropriate:
>
> Bullshit :-) The term is well defined and in common use by
> virtually everyone who has sufficient academic background.

Either works IMO :-)

Trevor.

[Chris Malcolm]

In rec.photo.digital Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:

> "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>>"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> I've got more than enough education in the topic to know that
>>> someone who uses the phrase "Electro Static Discharge" hasn't :-)
>>
>>Yes :-) however the term is so common it is more often referred to as ESD.

> So instead of saying what you did, this would be more appropriate:

> Bullshit :-) The term is well defined and in common use by
> virtually everyone who has sufficient academic background.

It's a common error. So common that when you try googling it google
substitutes the correct term -- electrostatic. There's no such thing
as a textbook with "Electro Static" in the title. I think being
acquainted with one at least one single textbook is a necessary
minimum sufficiency for "academic background" :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

[Floyd L. Davidson]

So... Chris Malcolm stoops to an idiotic *SPELLING FLAME.*

That is just hillarious! (And wrong too, but...)

I suppose you think spelling is significant because clearly you
have little understanding of the functionality of static
electricity.

You worry about spelling, but say things like these choice
quotes from your articles in this thread. I politely called you
on half of these, but didn't mention the fact that each of these
statements is a clear indication that you have no business
discussing this as a technical topic.

----

"A charged camera body would attract dust to the outside
of the camera, not the inside."

----

----

"> "The voltages used in camera sensors are very low, totally
> irrelevant to static accumulation."

> Now you say you don't think that is true...

No I'm not. If you think I'm contradicting rather than rephrasing
you're misunderstanding."

----

----

"Electricity in electric circuits isn't static, it's
mobile. That's why so much higher charges and very high voltages
are required in electric circuits to exhibit the phenomena of
static electricity, such as dust attraction."

----

----

"There are conductive and insulating parts moving in proximity
to one another in both the focal plane shutter and the mirror
box. Don't you remember how the high voltage generators in your

school science lab worked??
----


Maybe if you had ever actually worked with this, as opposed to
just reading text books, some of what the text books say would
have stuck with you a little better.

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 07:28:50 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In rec.photo.digital Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>> "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>>>>"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>> I've got more than enough education in the topic to know that
>>>>> someone who uses the phrase "Electro Static Discharge" hasn't :-)
>>>>
>>>>Yes :-) however the term is so common it is more often referred to as ESD.
>>
>>> So instead of saying what you did, this would be more appropriate:
>>
>>> Bullshit :-) The term is well defined and in common use by
>>> virtually everyone who has sufficient academic background.
>>
>>It's a common error. So common that when you try googling it google
>>substitutes the correct term -- electrostatic. There's no such thing
>>as a textbook with "Electro Static" in the title. I think being
>>acquainted with one at least one single textbook is a necessary
>>minimum sufficiency for "academic background" :-)
>
>So... Chris Malcolm stoops to an idiotic *SPELLING FLAME.*
>

When you bring up "sufficient academic background", you leave yourself
open to comments about your spelling and grammar. English composition
is an academic subject.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Chris is the idiot who brought it up.

But regardless of that, this is Usenet and spelling flames are too stoopid
to bothr wit.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>> Andrew Haley <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:

>>>>> The simple fact is that while a sensor is in use it generates a huge
>>>>> amount of static charge.

>>>>And how does it do that? The electronics only use a few volts, which
>>>>is hardly much of a static charge when you consider that the sensor

>>> You and Chris Malcom both seem to believe that high voltage is
>>> necessary for a significant static charge; which is not true at
>>> all. It has very little to do with operating voltages, and a
>>> great deal to do with how free many electrons are floating
>>> around without a low resistance discharge path *to ground*.

>>> A discharge path reduces the charge, but only if it offers a
>>> relatively low resistance to an earth ground.

>>Define "relatively low". How many megaohms would that be?

>>And then tell us how many electrons a static charge of, say,
>>ridiculously low 100V would have to have to not drain to 50V within
>>10 minutes given that "relatively low" resistance path to camera
>>ground.

> Who cares!

Someone who'd like to point out that you'd need to have a
"relatively low" resistance path of some gigaohms or teraohms...

> If it takes 10 minutes, it will cause dust collection.

Point is, "If it takes 10 minutes" is not realistic.

>>> Any conductive
>>> coating sufficient to be as effective as you seem to think these
>>> coatings are would totally block all light!

>>Assuming there wasn't any light to begin with, sure!

>>> Not to mention that
>>> a charged camera body is not significantly different than a charged
>>> sensor surface... and unless you are dragging a ground wire, that is
>>> exactly what you have.

>>Then the dust would stick to every part of the camera, being
>>filtered out of the air, and never reach the sensor.

> This isn't your strongest subject, is it?

True, but I'm head, shoulders, torso, legs, feet and a couple
empire state buildings ahead of you there.

>>Oh, how comes in your world view *every* *last* *camera* will
>>be charged with a couple 1000V or 10,000V to ground?

> Or even one you have any clue about at all...

Says the guy who doesn't care about the maths of his stupid
claims at all.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:39:27 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

Is that a must to use before using the camera? If so, I must
admit not following that law ...

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:

> Keep in mind that others are saying static charge on the sensor
> is not significant, particularly because there are only low
> voltages within the camera... yet they also allow that all of
> these extraordinary measures are need to suppress the effects of
> this non-existant static chargee!

Yes, Floyd wants his cake and eat it too. Either the
supression is working or there's no static charge.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In rec.photo.digital Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>> Andrew Haley <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> The simple fact is that while a sensor is in use it generates a huge
>>>>> amount of static charge.

>>>>And how does it do that? The electronics only use a few volts, which
>>>>is hardly much of a static charge when you consider that the sensor

>>> You and Chris Malcom both seem to believe that high voltage is
>>> necessary for a significant static charge; which is not true at
>>> all.

>>No I didn't think that. I was simply responding to your claim that an
>>operating sensor collected static as a consequence of being in
>>operation.

> Here is what you said:

> "The voltages used in camera sensors are very low, totally
> irrelevant to static accumulation."

> Now you say you don't think that is true...

You probably should reread what you responded to.

>>> It has very little to do with operating voltages, and a
>>> great deal to do with how free many electrons are floating
>>> around without a low resistance discharge path *to ground*.

>>Exactly. So whether or not the sensor is in operation has nothing to
>>do with it. Although the operations of focal plane shutter and mirror
>>box might generate some static which could charge up the sensor
>>surface -- if it didn't have a charge leakage path.

> Whether or not the sensor is in operation has everything to do
> with how many free electrons are available with no discharge
> path to ground.

So how do you stuff many many electrons into high resistance
material with a couple of volts?

> Why would the metal focal plane shutter or the "mirror box"
> generate static charge? They have no source of electrons...

Because stuff moves.

> And this "charge leakage path" you mention, goes to ground
> where?

Everytime you touch the camera or place the camera on a not
good enough insulator.

>>> A discharge path reduces the charge, but only if it offers a
>>> relatively low resistance to an earth ground.

>>Static charges are of such high voltage that leakage path resistances
>>don't have to be "relatively low". They can be very effective while
>>being surprisingly high in general electrical terms.

> I'm sorry, but that is not true. "Low" of course is a relative
> term.

So ... how many relative megaohms is it?

> They have to be relatively low to allow fast enough discharge to
> prevent a build up of charge.

Which comes from the 8 volts of the battery or the fewer
volts the sensor is driven with?

>>> Any conductive
>>> coating sufficient to be as effective as you seem to think these
>>> coatings are would totally block all light!

>>Do take some time to check the physics. You don't need low resistance
>>to discharge static. Wet string will do it. Try it for yourself.

> *Do* take the time to learn about static electicity!

> For example, open up just about any bit of electronic equipment
> with a 5 VDC power supply, and look at how dust collects on the
> power supply components!

Lots of dust also collects on my all-metal, well grounded heatsinks
for my CPUs. Your point?

>>You don't seem to have much grounding in the physics of static
>>electricity.

> In fact I have several decades of professional experience.

Sure you do. In a completely different field. Maybe as a comedian
or blusterer or spin doctor.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Mark F <mark...@gmail.com> wrote:

[ultrawide zoom -> read superzoom]

> Many of the issues caused by the tradeoffs made in making an ultrawide
> zoom can be handled by post processing. In particular, dust
> mostly cane be removed

I haven't yet seen a fixed length superzoom. Hence air (with dust)
has to enter the lens on every extension.

And unless the rear of the lens is hermetically sealed, that
dust will end up in the camera.

> by processing by chromatic distortion
> can be greatly reduced

At a further loss of resolution and quality.

> and spatial distortion can be just able
> completely eliminated.

At a further loss of resolution and field of view.

> Hence ultrawide zooms and rare changing
> of lenses.

A dustproof camera-lens-flash system is even better.
Superzooms aren't.

> The main drawbacks of ultrawide zooms are weight gain, F-stop
> increase. (Size and price will also be a factor for many.)

- non-functional lens hood
- low glare resistance (many elements)
- lower MTF (less sharp and less distinct pictures)
- rotating lens hood (not even tulip shapes are possible)
- rotating filterholder
- mechanical stability (low)
- no dust or weather sealing
- deeper DOF than necessary

> Bigger sensor allows for tradeoff of pixels for noise reduction.

Faster lenses allows not to need to make that tradeoff.

-Wolfgang

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 07:57:38 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.

Depends. Different things annoy different people. I find many of
your arguments too stupid and petty to argue with even if there are no
misspelled words.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Given your logic in the above instance, I would hope so!

[Trevor]

"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message

news:a4qt95...@mid.individual.net...

And knowing English is a flexible, evolving language should be too. Either
is acceptable. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about *ESD*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_discharge
It is not called ED for a reason, that is more commonly connected with mens
complaints you may be well aware of :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"tony cooper" <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5p8hu7p3ijgaabedl...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 07:57:38 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.

>>But regardless of that, this is Usenet and spelling flames are too stoopid
>>to bothr wit.
>
> Depends. Different things annoy different people. I find many of
> your arguments too stupid and petty to argue with even if there are no
> misspelled words.

So don't.

Trevor.

[Chris Malcolm]

In rec.photo.digital Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In rec.photo.digital Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>> "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>>>>"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>> I've got more than enough education in the topic to know that
>>>>> someone who uses the phrase "Electro Static Discharge" hasn't :-)
>>>>
>>>>Yes :-) however the term is so common it is more often referred to as ESD.
>>
>>> So instead of saying what you did, this would be more appropriate:
>>
>>> Bullshit :-) The term is well defined and in common use by
>>> virtually everyone who has sufficient academic background.
>>
>>It's a common error. So common that when you try googling it google
>>substitutes the correct term -- electrostatic. There's no such thing
>>as a textbook with "Electro Static" in the title. I think being
>>acquainted with one at least one single textbook is a necessary
>>minimum sufficiency for "academic background" :-)

> So... Chris Malcolm stoops to an idiotic *SPELLING FLAME.*

No, not a spelling flame because that's not a spelling error. I never
bother correcting spelling unless bad spelling is the reason for
computer searches to have failed.

What you've done is to break the name of the discipline you claim to
have some expertise into two separate words, capitalising both. That's
clearly deliberate. There's no typo involved. That's a clear
elementary misunderstanding of the name of the discipline. A name that
features prominently on the spine of every textbook on the subject,
every chapter heading of the more general textbooks which cover it.

A pretty good clue is even given when you google what you wrote -- as
you advised me to do -- because google corrects the error, and says
so, before doing the search!

> I suppose you think spelling is significant because clearly you
> have little understanding of the functionality of static
> electricity.

No. I think spelling is very important because I'm a retired
university lecturer (US prof). But I never waste my time correcting
the spelling of the ineducable.

You go on to quote several things I've written in past posts which you
think demonstrate my ignorance. They describe wll known paradoxical
effects. In other words they are the kind of thing which always
surprises those who know little about static electricity. They seem on
the surface to be nonsense, ridiculous. But they are very simply
demonstrated, and are explained in the introduction of any school or
university course on electrostatics.

> You worry about spelling, but say things like these choice
> quotes from your articles in this thread. I politely called you
> on half of these, but didn't mention the fact that each of these
> statements is a clear indication that you have no business
> discussing this as a technical topic.

I'm leaving these quotes below, because the fact that you think these
are wrong shows clearly that you haven't a clue.

Where did you get the idea I'd just read textbooks? Science isn't just
textbooks, you have to know how to use it, which means laboratory work
where you have to do experiments and describe and explain your
observations. That education wasn't shelved. I went on to spend the
last few decades of my working life in research labs working with and
developing experimental equipment whose low power digital circuits had
to survive intermittent unpredicatable exposure to high EMI and high
static charges. There still lurk in my tool cupboard tubes and pots of
the conductive paints and glues which come in handy for preventing the
build up of static charges.

--
Chris Malcolm

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Chris, this post is just another attempt to bluster your way.
No discussion of the topic... with a totally idiotic and self
contradictory set of comments on your willingness to post silly
spelling flames.

ESD is Electro Static Discharge; and no Google does *not*
"correct" spelling. Google provides a more common alternate
search term. Sometimes that might well be due to a spelling
problem, it might not be too (as in this case), and using quotes
is sometimes necessary to force a correct search.

The quotes do indeed demonstrate how little practical
understanding you seem to have of the topic. Regardless, you've
redirected the discussion to gratuitous insults because your
technical knowledge doesn't match up.

I see no point in further comments.

[DanP]

Use any street language you want, just don't claim the term is used in academic circles. Or ask the scholars to use it.

Floyd messed up big time. Are you reading what you are replying to?


DanP

[Andrew Haley]

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> What you've done is to break the name of the discipline you claim to
> have some expertise into two separate words, capitalising
> both. That's clearly deliberate. There's no typo involved. That's a
> clear elementary misunderstanding of the name of the discipline. A
> name that features prominently on the spine of every textbook on the
> subject, every chapter heading of the more general textbooks which
> cover it.

Indeed. Can I mention the "Van De Graph particle accelerator" ? It'd
be a shame not to. :-)

Andrew.

[Savageduck]

On 2012-06-26 08:13:31 -0700, Andrew Haley

"Van De Graph"??

I always thought the MIT/Princeton physicist, was Robert J. Van De Graaff.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Not really. The only one trying to connect all this to
"scholars" is Chris, who does that because he has not real
experience. Usenet is *not* a scholarly venue...

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Spelling flames are so appropriate on Usenet!

At least for those who can't discuss anything of significance!

[Bruce]

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

If we're being pedantic, it was Robert Jemison Van de Graaff.

(lower case d in de)

[Savageduck]

Damn!
You seem over sensitive and self opinionated for somebody who has
chosen to live in Barrow, Alaska.
It seems the compensation for existing in that isolation must be that
you are the unquestioned authority on all things of "any significance"
out there in the frozen North.

The personal role you have chosen for yourself on Usenet, is to find
everybody unworthy & unqualified to engage in discussion on any subject
you have determined has "any significance".

That is sad, since you appear to have a fairly encyclopedic knowledge
of many subjects worthy of discussion, all of which could add to the
collective knowledge pool that is the Usenet.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[DanP]

No, it was you with

"Bullshit :-) The term is well defined and in common use by
virtually everyone who has sufficient academic background."

DanP

[Floyd L. Davidson]

So it seems those who post spelling flames... can't spell
correctly! That is not uncommon. Words are just symbols, and
using various symbols to communicate the meaning for the same
object shouldn't cause an intelligent person any significant
difficulty. Unless of course the actual need is to obfuscate
one's ignorance of the object...

But none of you seen able to discuss the functionality and
theory involved in the machines named after the man in terms of
what it means about Chris Malcolm's gaffe, who claims his
academic standing trumps all, made when he said the shutter and
the mirror in a DSLR would generate static electricity, and then
said:

"There are conductive and insulating parts moving in proximity
to one another in both the focal plane shutter and the mirror
box. Don't you remember how the high voltage generators in your
school science lab worked??"

He worked on one in a high school science lab, which must have
been thrilling. My experience (almost 50 years ago now) was
maintaining the operational functionality of a large research
machine co-located with a nuclear reactor for which I also did
maintenance on all of the associated electronics.

"There are conductive and insulating parts moving in proximity

to one another ..." Indeed! Giggle snort.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

>No, it was you with
>"Bullshit :-) The term is well defined and in common use by
> virtually everyone who has sufficient academic background."

Dan, do a little research... that statement came literally days
after Chris started throwing around academic standings.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Feeble attempts at gratuitous insults don't suffice for real
discussion. You have no idea what the sensitivity, or the
opinions, are for *anybody* who has chosen to live in Barrow,
Alaska! You're sputtering nonsense.

>It seems the compensation for existing in that isolation must be that

Isolation? We are at the top of the world, both literally and
figuratively.

In fact though, the attraction to Barrow is adventure. Alaska
is an adventurous place, and Barrow is an all day every day
adventure that tops everything else in Alaska (Dutch Harbor,
with the crabbing fleet, might be about equal but isn't all day
every day either).

>you are the unquestioned authority on all things of "any significance"
>out there in the frozen North.

You are less than credible, here or anywhere else.

>The personal role you have chosen for yourself on Usenet, is to find
>everybody unworthy & unqualified to engage in discussion on any subject
>you have determined has "any significance".
>
>That is sad, since you appear to have a fairly encyclopedic knowledge
>of many subjects worthy of discussion, all of which could add to the
>collective knowledge pool that is the Usenet.

Sounds like your interpretation is what is sad. Sorry to hear
that, and I do hope you don't suffer too horribly.

[tony cooper]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:07:29 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan....@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>No, it was you with
>"Bullshit :-) The term is well defined and in common use by
> virtually everyone who has sufficient academic background."

Yes, but give Floyd credit...he spelled "Bullshit" correctly.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:07:29 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan....@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>No, it was you with
>>"Bullshit :-) The term is well defined and in common use by
>> virtually everyone who has sufficient academic background."
>
>Yes, but give Floyd credit...he spelled "Bullshit" correctly.

And targetted the use appropriately too.

[Eric Stevens]

It was, a long time ago. But so then was http.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Floyd L. Davidson]

It *never* was. Nor was HTTP. (Nor could HTTP, a protocol, have
ever been...)

Granted that Usenet was a lot more gentlemanly to begin with, but...

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:14:16 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.

That was the intention of the original major groups. Mind you it
didn't last.

>Nor was HTTP. (Nor could HTTP, a protocol, have
>ever been...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee
"While an independent contractor at CERN from June to December 1980,
Berners-Lee proposed a project based on the concept of hypertext,
to facilitate sharing and updating information among
researchers.[11] While there, he built a prototype system named
ENQUIRE.[12]

After leaving CERN in 1980, he went to work at John Poole's Image
Computer Systems, Ltd, in Bournemouth, England.[13] The project he
worked on was a real-time remote procedure call which gave him
experience in computer networking.[13] In 1984 he returned to CERN
as a fellow.[12]

In 1989, CERN was the largest Internet node in Europe, and
Berners-Lee saw an opportunity to join hypertext with the Internet:
"I just had to take the hypertext idea and connect it to the
Transmission Control Protocol and domain name system ideas
and葉a-da!葉he World Wide Web.""

And now I suppose you will try to argue that CERN was not a scholarly
environment.

>Granted that Usenet was a lot more gentlemanly to begin with, but...

... things have changed.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Floyd L. Davidson]

> and---ta-da!---the World Wide Web.""

>
>And now I suppose you will try to argue that CERN was not a scholarly
>environment.

People at CERN read MAD magazine too, does that make it a scholarly
venue?

You seem to have failed to actually THINK while trying to read what
you quoted! It says absolutely nothing that supports your stance...

>>Granted that Usenet was a lot more gentlemanly to begin with, but...
>
>... things have changed.

[David J Taylor]

Damn!
You seem over sensitive and self opinionated for somebody who has
chosen to live in Barrow, Alaska.
It seems the compensation for existing in that isolation must be that
you are the unquestioned authority on all things of "any significance"
out there in the frozen North.

The personal role you have chosen for yourself on Usenet, is to find
everybody unworthy & unqualified to engage in discussion on any subject
you have determined has "any significance".

That is sad, since you appear to have a fairly encyclopedic knowledge
of many subjects worthy of discussion, all of which could add to the
collective knowledge pool that is the Usenet.

Regards,
Savageduck
=================================

It's sad, indeed, as it often (but not always) seems impossible to hold a
reasoned discussion with Floyd.

BTW: I don't consider Chris Malcolm either "unworthy" or "unqualified" -
quite the opposite!

Cheers,
David

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:38:59 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.

Now, that's a cop-out!

>
>You seem to have failed to actually THINK while trying to read what
>you quoted! It says absolutely nothing that supports your stance...
>
>>>Granted that Usenet was a lot more gentlemanly to begin with, but...
>>
>>... things have changed.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Floyd L. Davidson]

You logic isn't exactly sound, and that is a excellent demonstation
of why.

>>
>>You seem to have failed to actually THINK while trying to read what
>>you quoted! It says absolutely nothing that supports your stance...
>>
>>>>Granted that Usenet was a lot more gentlemanly to begin with, but...
>>>
>>>... things have changed.
>
>Regards,
>
>Eric Stevens