Air blow or Eye blow... have seen this term being used on Ken Rockwell's reviews

[mikoh4792]

How much faster do external zoom lenses with airblow/eyeblow cause your dslr sensor to start showing dust spots than internal zoom lenses(ones without airblow/eyeblow)? just wondering if I'm going to be doing a lot more cleaning when I take my dslr outside to shoot wildlife when I use externally zooming lenses.

 

[Overread19 7]

Eh I wouldn't worry about it.

Dust is part of DSLR life and whilst you can take a few precautions to help avoid it you'll still get dust in there unless you go around it with a hot glue gun and seal up every entrance. Most modern sensors have vibration/static auto clean modes that help drop a lot of light dust - whilst natural air blowers (like a Rocket Blower) help clean out loose dust. Wet and dry cleaning swabs can normally deal with the rest.

Furthermore most dust won't even show up until you're shooting small apertures. F8 - f10 - f13 and smaller are where you'll start to see dust if its present; at wider apertures you just won't see it at all unless you really have serious dust problems (and that's far beyond what would get sucked into and out of a lens).

About the only lens that I'm aware of that might have some significant dust sucking is the 100-400mm L and most of the time I hardly read of people commenting on that aspect (its more one of those "fears" people who don't own it think about).

 

[Derrel]

Eh I wouldn't worry about it.

Dust is part of DSLR life and whilst you can take a few precautions to help avoid it you'll still get dust in there unless you go around it with a hot glue gun and seal up every entrance. Most modern sensors have vibration/static auto clean modes that help drop a lot of light dust - whilst natural air blowers (like a Rocket Blower) help clean out loose dust. Wet and dry cleaning swabs can normally deal with the rest.

Furthermore most dust won't even show up until you're shooting small apertures. F8 - f10 - f13 and smaller are where you'll start to see dust if its present; at wider apertures you just won't see it at all unless you really have serious dust problems (and that's far beyond what would get sucked into and out of a lens).

About the only lens that I'm aware of that might have some significant dust sucking is the 100-400mm L and most of the time I hardly read of people commenting on that aspect (its more one of those "fears" people who don't own it think about).

"Eh, I wouldn't worry about it." (needed a comma, but otherwise, utterly spot-on)

 

[mikoh4792]

Eh I wouldn't worry about it.

Dust is part of DSLR life and whilst you can take a few precautions to help avoid it you'll still get dust in there unless you go around it with a hot glue gun and seal up every entrance. Most modern sensors have vibration/static auto clean modes that help drop a lot of light dust - whilst natural air blowers (like a Rocket Blower) help clean out loose dust. Wet and dry cleaning swabs can normally deal with the rest.

Furthermore most dust won't even show up until you're shooting small apertures. F8 - f10 - f13 and smaller are where you'll start to see dust if its present; at wider apertures you just won't see it at all unless you really have serious dust problems (and that's far beyond what would get sucked into and out of a lens).

About the only lens that I'm aware of that might have some significant dust sucking is the 100-400mm L and most of the time I hardly read of people commenting on that aspect (its more one of those "fears" people who don't own it think about).

"Eh, I wouldn't worry about it." (needed a comma, but otherwise, utterly spot-on)

lol

 

[Overread19 7]

Oh and wait just saw the source of the quote - Ken Rockwell is an expert in marketing himself. His views are, however, somewhat on the extreme side half the time and many of his guides are very much written for him by him and often take a very singular view to how to do photography whilst being dismissive of other valid approaches (eg he hates tripods).

His is a fun site but not really the best for worthwhile information; although a few of his tech reviews are ok.

 

[lennon33x]

Oh and wait just saw the source of the quote - Ken Rockwell is an expert in marketing himself. His views are, however, somewhat on the extreme side half the time and many of his guides are very much written for him by him and often take a very singular view to how to do photography whilst being dismissive of other valid approaches (eg he hates tripods).

His is a fun site but not really the best for worthwhile information; although a few of his tech reviews are ok.

I had heard similar things about him prior, and initially took his views as gospel. Then, I stumbled upon this website and learned a thing or 50.

I read some crazily contradictory statements on his website today. He was comparing a Canon 5D and talked about how great it was and he loved it's vivid color and it's image quality is greater than that of a Nikon D3. I love my 5D. Like think it's the greatest thing I've ever had. HOWEVER, I'm a totally scientific guy. And DXOMark tells me that the D3 has better color depth, dynamic range, and ISO. Those are facts. But then he goes on to say that the D40 is always in his hand. I'm not sure what all of it means. There are drastic inconstancies on his website that drive me mad. Unless I'm going specifically for facts, I try to stay off of the website.

 

[Overread19 7]

Ken is a fantastic reason why "just google it" is not a suitable reply to many inquiries. Because his site ranks high and yet isn't a good source of information once you actually start learning. I'm sure his site is fine for the crowd who really just want a beefed up DSLR for point and shoot style photography and have no desire to really push the boundaries further - for others though its a detriment at times to take his word as anything but opinion.

 

[lennon33x]

It was a total slap in the face when I realized that he said one thing on one page, and then the opposite on another. It's only taken me how long to figure it out? Dang ol' dang ol'

 

[Derrel]

It was a total slap in the face when I realized that he said one thing on one page, and then the opposite on another. It's only taken me how long to figure it out? Dang ol' dang ol'

You do realize that Ken leaves OLD articles up on his pages, right? At one time, years ago, he was in fact, infatuated with the Nikon D40. And the Canon 5D. And the Nikon D3. And the Leica M3 and film for a while. And then the Nikon D800. Then the Canon 5D-III. And the Fuji X100. Ken is in fact, a serial camera polygamist. Searching through Ken's many pages, one can construct an argument based on "Ken says!" for almost any camera that was ever a decent seller!

 

[71M]

The D40 is Nikon's best camera ever. Period. No.. sorry, I mean the Coolpix 995...with the white balance set to cloudy..all the time...for that warmer look.

 

[Derrel]

The D40 is Nikon's best camera ever. Period. No.. sorry, I mean the Coolpix 995...with the white balance set to cloudy..all the time...for that warmer look.

71M, you forgot such classic Rockwellianisms as, "RAW images are a waste of time--shoot everything in .JPEG mode--it's easier, faster, and if you want images that will LAST, then shoot FILM!" And, "Shoot everything in the smallest JPEG size, using medium compression--it's plenty good." And of course, a classic Rockwellian bit of advice: "When you eat out, do not buy soda, but instead ask for water. Most restaurants have triple-filtered water. The money you save by drinking water will allow you to buy a big house in the suburbs."

 

[71M]

And of course, a classic Rockwellian bit of advice: "When you eat out, do not buy soda, but instead ask for water. Most restaurants have triple-filtered water. The money you save by drinking water will allow you to buy a big house in the suburbs."

I'm truly in awe of the man. Seriously. His capacity to crank it out.

 

[lennon33x]

It was a total slap in the face when I realized that he said one thing on one page, and then the opposite on another. It's only taken me how long to figure it out? Dang ol' dang ol'

You do realize that Ken leaves OLD articles up on his pages, right? At one time, years ago, he was in fact, infatuated with the Nikon D40. And the Canon 5D. And the Nikon D3. And the Leica M3 and film for a while. And then the Nikon D800. Then the Canon 5D-III. And the Fuji X100. Ken is in fact, a serial camera polygamist. Searching through Ken's many pages, one can construct an argument based on "Ken says!" for almost any camera that was ever a decent seller!

Yes, I did realize he left old ones up. For someone who "lives" off of the site, he needs to update it.

The other thing I realized, and this was a while ago when I started questioning his opinion, was that his pictures were less than mediocre. I have this thing about taking advice from someone, despite their wealth of knowledge on the subject, fails to execute a great picture, much less a good one. It's the same way with C&C on here. Unless you have pictures up to tell me how "good" you are, I rarely take their advice. And I definitely don't take composition advice from gear heads. It's kind of like going to a doctor for surgery, who has the book knowledge to do it, and could recite every vein, muscle fiber and bone, and surgical technique, but has failed to complete a successful surgery. No. Effing. Thank you.

 

[D-B-J]

Eh I wouldn't worry about it.

Dust is part of DSLR life and whilst you can take a few precautions to help avoid it you'll still get dust in there unless you go around it with a hot glue gun and seal up every entrance. Most modern sensors have vibration/static auto clean modes that help drop a lot of light dust - whilst natural air blowers (like a Rocket Blower) help clean out loose dust. Wet and dry cleaning swabs can normally deal with the rest.

Furthermore most dust won't even show up until you're shooting small apertures. F8 - f10 - f13 and smaller are where you'll start to see dust if its present; at wider apertures you just won't see it at all unless you really have serious dust problems (and that's far beyond what would get sucked into and out of a lens).

About the only lens that I'm aware of that might have some significant dust sucking is the 100-400mm L and most of the time I hardly read of people commenting on that aspect (its more one of those "fears" people who don't own it think about).

"Eh, I wouldn't worry about it." (needed a comma, but otherwise, utterly spot-on)

How pedantic of you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

Eh I wouldn't worry about it.

Dust is part of DSLR life and whilst you can take a few precautions to help avoid it you'll still get dust in there unless you go around it with a hot glue gun and seal up every entrance. Most modern sensors have vibration/static auto clean modes that help drop a lot of light dust - whilst natural air blowers (like a Rocket Blower) help clean out loose dust. Wet and dry cleaning swabs can normally deal with the rest.

Furthermore most dust won't even show up until you're shooting small apertures. F8 - f10 - f13 and smaller are where you'll start to see dust if its present; at wider apertures you just won't see it at all unless you really have serious dust problems (and that's far beyond what would get sucked into and out of a lens).

About the only lens that I'm aware of that might have some significant dust sucking is the 100-400mm L and most of the time I hardly read of people commenting on that aspect (its more one of those "fears" people who don't own it think about).

"Eh, I wouldn't worry about it." (needed a comma, but otherwise, utterly spot-on)

How pedantic of you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why, thank you, my good man! Air-blow me! (Bwah-haa-haa-haa!)