Showing posts with label equipment-protection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label equipment-protection. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Is there any protection ring available for reversed lenses?

Question

I've started reversing lenses for macro photography and I'm loving it, but something bothers me: a lot of articles say that it exposes the rear element of the lens. Are there protection rings available for the rear element when using a lens this way or do I need to do it myself like this one: http://www.instructables.com/id/Reversed-Lens-Filter-Adapter/? It seems nice but, even if I like duct tape, using it for something relative to light leaves me uncomfortable...

Asked by eephyne

Answer

Hallo I have found a reverse lens protector for canon on a german website. The best thing about it is, you only have to buy one and you can use it on all your lenses.

you can buy it here:

Traumflieger reverse lens protective filter

The protection ring is attached to the rear of the lens (the lens is in reverse position via Retro Adapter Professional for Canon), where it holds a protective filter with 58mm thread (for UV filters, glass filters or polarizing filter) on.

Thus, the rear lens is protected against scratches and the electrical contacts are reliably protected against dust. If you do not have filters, you can also order UV filter.

enter image description here

Specs:

Protection-Ring for Canon EF-Lenses(also EF-S-Lenses, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and Canon)

Compatible with the following Canon-EOS-Cameras like die EOS 7D/60D/600D/1100D/1000D/550D/400D/40D/50D/500D/450D/1000D/30D/350D/20D/300D/10D/5D/1D(s) und 1D X-Modelle and also analog EOS-Kameras Weigh 30 gramm ! Build: metal

Answered by xtarsy

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Does the back of the case for the Nikon SB-400 (SS-400) have a loop?

Question

This is kind of a lame question, but I'm wondering if the back of the case for the Nikon SB-400 have a loop to carry it on a belt or strap. The model number for the case is SS-400 and looks like this:

http://www.pbase.com/image/88383398

Thanks.

Asked by jaquer

Answer

I have an SB-400, just can't locate it at the moment! Will update with a definitive answer once I've found it! Almost certain that jaquer is correct and there isn't one. It's a tiny unit, not much bigger than a pack of cigarettes, and the case is very snug. You can put the whole thing in a pocket, it's that small, or simply leave it on the camera.

Answered by MikeW

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Should I really lug around a lens cap everywhere?

Question

I lose lens caps by the billion. Is there another way to protect my lenses without having to carry these things around with me?

Asked by brian

Answer

I keep a UV filter on most of the time as a secondary barrier - but to be honest, I just have to get into the habit of putting my lens cap in the same pocket each time I remove it. I've spent way too much time hunting around for the the damn things too.

Answered by dswan

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Should I put UV filter to protect the lens even if I put a lens hood?

Question

That's pretty it, usually you buy a UV filter to protect the lens. My question is do I need the UV filter even if I'm using a lens hood?

Asked by Akram Mellice

Answer

The hood protects the lens of physical impact from knock and obstacles. It also reduces flare and keeps image quality to what the lens is capable of.

A UV filter protects against flying dangers such as sand, salt and other elements. While doing so a UV filter is detrimental to image quality as it adds additional reflections from another glass element in the optical path.

Therefore in most cases you should ONLY use the hood. If you are in proximity of sea-water splashing or flying sand, then you should but a UV filter too. Since flare can still be a problem, it is best to do both if you can.

Answered by Itai

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Does a digital camera lose its abilities in taking photos if it is left without use or used too often?

Question

One of my friends mention to me that a digital camera (especially of the Superzoom type) will lose its abilities in taking photos (as compared when it was first brought) if it is left without use for a period of three months or more.

Another friend mention that it is overuse which will result in the camera not taking as good photo as before it was first bought.

So, does a digital camera (especially the Superzoom) really lose its abilities in taking good photos if it is left without using for a period of time or used too often?

Asked by Jack

Answer

No. It does not. I own currently 7 digital cameras and I have used some after being unused for over two years without any problems.

Even the Lithium-Ion battery still had some charge after that period. Those who use AAs will note that rechargeable NiMh ones lose their charge after a month or two unless they are Imedion or Eneloop (low-self-discharge).

Lenses may jam as oil form on aperture blades I was told but even after not using lenses for years at a time (which I currently have over 30) I have never seen it happen. Some super-zooms do not even have aperture blades at all, so that won't apply to them.

All in all, I expect cameras with more mechanical parts like DSLRs to fail first due to use. Some small cameras do not even have mechanical shutters either, so there is one less thing which can fail.

Answered by Itai

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Should I be concerned about the movement of control dials on a battery grip when the camera is moved in or out of a camera bag?

Question

I have a Pentax K-5 with battery grip D-BG4 attached. Whenever I move the camera in or out of my camera bag (a Tamrac Pro 12), the front e-dial is audibly moved. Should I be concerned about this possibly causing excessive wear and tear to the e-dial assembly on the grip? (I can't adjust the camera bag much farther.)

Asked by DragonLord

Answer

If your bag moves the dial more often then you do, then give the camera to someone who uses it more :)

Seriously, while there will be measurably more use, it should be comparatively marginal. Perhaps it will die a day sooner than otherwise but I wouldn't be concerned about this.

Answered by Itai

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Do rented lenses usually come with cheap filters attached?

Question

I got the Pentax smc DA★ 200mm f/2.8 ED (IF) SDM from an online camera gear rental company as part of the Photography Stack Exchange Lending Library experiment. (Thanks, Stack Exchange!) This is a relatively fancy lens; one of Pentax's most expensive, and it's got heavy-duty build and features, including weather sealing. I wasn't surprised to see that the rental company sent it with a UV filter (which the insert says is "mostly for protection"), but I was disappointed to see that it's the cheapest Tiffen protection filter, which is generally not well-regarded.

Now, I realize that it's my responsibility to protect the lens, but part of my reason for renting is to see what the lens can do, and having it impaired by a cheap filter is not really what I wanted. So, I've taken it off and am going to be ultra-careful. Since I'm beyond phase where I had a high risk of a two-year-old suddenly flinging sand at me at the playground, I usually don't use a protective filter on my own lenses, even the pricier ones, and nothing horrible has happened to me yet. And this one comes with a really hefty and solid lens hood which makes me feel pretty safe in the field.

If the filter were a super-multicoated B+W or Hoya — or maybe even a fancier Tiffen filter — I'd be inclined to leave it on (at least outside of some technical tests). Or if I had a high-quality 77mm ⌀ UV filter of my own, maybe I'd swap that in — but I don't.

I'm going to ask the company about this, but I wonder if it's standard practice, and what people who rent lenses usually do. The company didn't even send a protective storage case for the filter; it seems pretty clear that they expect it to be left in place.

Do most camera lens rental companies send their lenses with protective filters? What kind of filters do they use if so? And what do people who do this a lot do about it?

Asked by mattdm

Answer

I've rented two from LensRentals.com, a 15-85 and 100-400L, and neither came with a UV filter. Personally, I wouldn't expect a rented lens to come with a filter since a purchased lens doesn't come with one; like any other lens you get into your possession, the damage-quality tradeoff is up to you to make.

LensRentals.com's FAQ explains why, and comes down on the side of image quality (without penalizing the renter):

Because we believe filters degrade image quality to a slight degree, we do not put UV filters on the lenses unless you specifically order them. Because that is our choice we do not consider the renter responsible for minor hairline scratches to the front element.

Answered by drewbenn

Monday, March 12, 2012

How to protect fragile equipment?

Question

A bit of background information:

The obvious answer is 'Just buy a camera bag!', but that's where things get a little bit more complicated. Lately I started looking around for my first prime lens and while reading reviews for Canon's 50mm f1.4 I stumbled across comments like 'The autofocus stopped working, after I took it out of my camera bag'*. There seems to be some construction weakness that can make the autofocus rails break, when pressure is applied to the tube. There might be more examples, I'm not trying to bash this lens.

Equipment getting broken due high usage or clumsiness is a risk I can live with, but the thought of gear 'committing suicide' in a camera bag makes me cringe.

To cut a long story short:

How do you protect 'raw eggs' in your collection, when the padding of your camera bag just isn't enough?


* This is not a word by word translation.

Asked by Ria

Answer

Most of the time, all of my gear is in a camera bag. There's always going to be the strange accident, but I'm confident that my bags are giving some (enough) protection to keep my gear safe from the odd bump. For the more severe environment and use, I have a Pelican 1550 hard case with foam that will help keep the gear safe.

But once out of the camera bag or hard case, it's in the most dangerous environment of all! Walking around with the camera slung over my shoulder or balanced in my hand, it's far more likely to be damaged if I bump something, if somebody bumps me, if it falls to the floor, or even if it bangs against my pocket with keys and phone inside. The out-of-bag use is where I'm more concerned with my gear. While I don't doubt that occasionally something just breaks for no apparent reason, I must wonder what dings the 50 1.4 you read of took before it stopped working, and what damage was done prior.

Answered by Dan Wolfgang

Friday, February 17, 2012

Will a LensCoat BodyGuard CB fit a Canon EOS 1000D?

Question

I'd like to buy a LensCoat BodyGuard for my Canon EOS 1000D.

I'm in doubt because my model isn't listed in that page, so I wonder if it fits it or no. Any experience?

Then, I live in Italy, so I can't buy it anyway on amazon.com because it gets too expensive. Do you know any other good online shop for such things?

Thanks

Asked by Carlo

Answer

Looks like you want a BodyGuard Compact.

Answered by Dan Wolfgang

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

How to carry a DSLR on a motorcycle?

Question

I do a lot of road trips and I carry my camera (D90+50mm) and an extra lens (18-105mm) in my backpack (Lowpro CompuDaypack). The backpack is great, but it doesn't allow me to draw my cam out quickly to capture a quick moment. I tried hanging the camera to my neck and that felt too dangerous!

I was wondering whether there is any other type of camera bag or holder with the "quick draw" feature. Also, I would prefer if it can be attached to my bike itself or if it can be kept on the front side of my body (as opposed to the backpack).

I also have a tripod (Slik F133) which came with a pouch that i use to carry on my shoulder (very uncomfortable) as it doesn't fit in my backpack. Is there any more convenient way to carry it? "quick draw" feature is not required for this one though.

Answer

What about buying a decent sized tank bag and padding that out a bit? If you use a magnetic tank bag you might have to be mindful of where they are in relation to the camera gear although they don't usually seem to be under the bag itself, rather on flaps to the sides.

You could keep the camera sat in there with quite a long lens on it (most tank bags are fairly long) so the lens faces away from you. Once you have stopped unzipping and drawing your camera will be about as quick as you can get whilst keeping your camera safe during the journey...

A chap appears to have tried it here.

Some tank bags can be quite large - I used to ride with one about this size without any issues: link

Or something like this or this

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Carrying a dSLR on a motorcycle?

Question

I do a lot of road trips and I carry my camera (D90+50mm) and an extra lens (18-105mm) in my backpack (lowpro compudaypack). The backpack is great, but it doesn't allow me to draw my cam out quickly to capture a quick moment. I tried hanging the camera to my neck and that felt too dangerous!

I was wondering weather there is any other type of camera bag or holder with the "quick draw" feature. Also, I would prefer if it can be attached to my bike itself or if it can be kept on the front side of my body (as opposed to the backpack).

I also have a tripod (Slik F133) which came with a pouch that i use to carry on my shoulder (very uncomfortable) as it doesn't fit in my backpack. Is there any more convenient way to carry it? "quick draw" feature is not required for this one though.

Answer

What about buying a decent sized tank bag and padding that out a bit? If you use a magnetic tank bag you might have to be mindful of where they are in relation to the camera gear although they don't usually seem to be under the bag itself, rather on flaps to the sides.

You could keep the camera sat in there with quite a long lens on it (most tank bags are fairly long) so the lens faces away from you. Once you have stopped unzipping and drawing your camera will be about as quick as you can get whilst keeping your camera safe during the journey...

A chap appears to have tried it here.

Some tank bags can be quite large - I used to ride with one about this size without any issues: link

Or something like this or this

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Is the Canon Semi Hard Case EH19-L good for an entry-level body plus 18-135 lens?

Question

On the Canon site, is not mentioned. Is this product good for a Canon 600D plus 18-135mm lens?

If the answer is no, which similar case do you suggest for me?

Answer

It looks like it does fit the camera combination that you have according to the B&H Photo Video website - here. They state that the EH19-L is:

Compatible with: Rebel T1i with EF-S 18-55 mm IS lens, a T2i with EF-S 18-55 mm IS or IS II lens, a T3 with 18-55 mm IS II lens, a T3i with 18-135 mm IS lens or 18-55 mm IS II lens, an XS with 18-55 mm IS lens or EF-S 18-55 mm IS lens refurbished, an XSi or XSi refurbished, an RFD RBL T1I or an RFD T1I

As a note, the Canon T3i is the US name for the Canon 600D.

Sunday, January 1, 2012

Is the Canon Semi Hard Case EH19-L good for a entry-level body plus 18-135 lens?

Question

On the Canon site, is not mentioned. Is this product good for Canon 600D + 18-135 lens?

If the answer is no, which similar case do you suggest for me?

Answer

It looks like it does fit the camera combination that you have according to the B&H Photo Video website - here. They state that the EH19-L is:

Compatible with: Rebel T1i with EF-S 18-55 mm IS lens, a T2i with EF-S 18-55 mm IS or IS II lens, a T3 with 18-55 mm IS II lens, a T3i with 18-135 mm IS lens or 18-55 mm IS II lens, an XS with 18-55 mm IS lens or EF-S 18-55 mm IS lens refurbished, an XSi or XSi refurbished, an RFD RBL T1I or an RFD T1I

As a note, the Canon T3i is the US name for the Canon 600D.

Friday, December 30, 2011

How do I prevent bumps and bashes to my camera in crowded areas?

Question

When I want to take pictures at a rock concert/night club/crowded street my camera is at risk of being bumped, scracthed, or even knocked out of my hands by people pushing past, dancing, or just moving around impolitely.

What are the practical ways to prevent or minimise damage to the camera?

Note that I need to move around the venue/area so setting up a 'safe-zone' is not an option and I need to travel lightly as I'm arriving at the venues by motorbike.

Answer

I use a lens hood and a hand strap.

(This one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/744403-REG/Canon_4991B001_Hand_Strap_E2_for.html)

I was hesitant before getting the hand strap that it would interfere with vertical shots, but it's not a problem at all. I just take my hand off the strap, flip the camera, and shoot away.

I've never had my camera damaged as a result of somebody bumping or running into me. The other person has walked away rubbing whatever unfortunate body part contacted my camera, though. I use the Canon 1 series, and they're built like bricks. Add a flower petal lens hood, and you really don't want to run into it.

Don't fixate on the 1 series, though. I've tripped and fallen on a 5D before (was strapped to my hand, and it broke my fall), and it suffered no ill effects. :)

Cameras are much tougher than you'd think. I wouldn't intentionally set out to determine exactly how tough.

I would not put filters on for low light scenes that include bright lights. You're more likely to run into unwanted reflections.

Friday, December 9, 2011

Is a UV Filter required/recommended for lens protection?

Question

Is it still required/highly recommended that I buy a UV or similar filter to 'protect' the front element of my lens?

I ask because this advice has been around for 30 years and you would think that the lens maker would have solved this problem with a built-in protection or something like that. It's good to check these old assumptions from time to time.

Answer

The front element of a lens is still (and probably always will be) a lens element, usually the largest and most expensive single piece of glass in the system. If you need physical protection for that element, you still have to add it (where the lens design permits).

Every element in a lens system contributes its own refraction and reflection. When you put an extra element at the front of a lens, light that would have reflected from the "old front" harmlessly into space will now reflect off of the rear (and front) surfaces of the new element. Those reflections can be minimized with coatings, but they are still there, and they still contribute to a degradation of the image. And keep in mind that the new element, whatever its shape, will still refract light and add its own distortions.

So you have a choice -- use the lens naked for best optical performance, or add a filter. When the filter is used for photographic reasons (neutral density, polarizers, color filters) you have a trade-off that's worth the price -- you give up the ultimate performance possibilities of the lens in order to capture a picture that the lens alone could not have captured.

You may be of the opinion that protection of the front element is also a reasonable trade-off at all times. I'd only use a "protective" filter if I was working in an environment that's likely to cause damage (say a windy day on the sand dunes or photographing someone using a grinder). For knocks and bumps, a lens hood offers good physical protection without putting anything in the optical path. But it's your choice—and it should remain your choice.

How do you protect a camera and lens while photographing in rain or snow?

Question

I've been trying to photograph lightning lately, as we have had some great storms in Colorado. I've had some difficulty getting a good vantage point, however, as almost all of these storms include rain as well. To keep my camera from getting drenched (I have weather-sealed lenses, but my camera body, a Canon 450D, is not weather sealed as far as I can tell), I've had to shoot under the eve of a building or under a thick canopy of trees, however that has greatly limited my ability to adapt to the changing weather and get get a vantage point on the best lightning.

Is there any equipment, something I can purchase or something home-made that has easy-to-find parts, that can help me protect my lens from the rain while still being able to shoot? Additionally, I've been getting rain on a UV filter I have on the front of my lenses, simply to prevent rain from getting on the front lens element itself. However, once a storm really gets going, so does the rain. Is there a simple solution to keep rain off the front of the lens?

Answer

There is actually quite a few products designed specifically for this purpose, ranging in prices.

Most of the products are glorified rain ponchos, and as such, if you have the DIY spirit, you can save yourself major bucks.

This is a really good instructional on making one out of rain pants.

If you'd rather buy an OTS solution, then consider the ThinkTank Hydrophobia, or similar products.

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Why does fungus form in lenses, and how to get rid of it?

Question

Recently I was using an old Pentax 50mm f/2 that had a quite big green spot, and later I was informed that it was a fungus.

A couple of questions raised from this:

  1. Why does fungus form inside the lenses? What kind of "food" does it find in a glass element?
  2. How does it form? Due to condensation? Due to bad storage?
  3. Does it have any impact in the final image? Some scratches in a lens will probably not appear in the image because to they will be very out of focus. Is this also true for fungus?
  4. Finally, when a lens is "fungused": How do you get rid of it?

What to do about mold/fungus in a camera lens?

by Yuttadhammo

I am living in a tropical country where humidity is pretty high. I never thought it would be possible that something could grow inside a lens, so I haven't been so careful with my canon camcorder. Now I see there is a white spore growing on the inside of the camera lens (see photo below). Is there any way, short of finding a camera shop (doubtful there are any in the country that can handle this), to remove this?

The spore is the white dot in the centre (it's opaque), and the dusty patch on the right of the lens is also on the inside, must be the same stuff.

fungus spore on lens

Answer

For all the following: YMMV*, caveat emptor, no responsibility taken for advice given, you decide whether to try this at home. It may even work :-). Be aware that damage may already be fatal and/or that fatal (to the lens) damage may occur along the way. Best attitude is to regard the lens as a writeoff now, with anything you can gain from it by the methods below being a bonus.

Fungus in a lens will always degrade the image but the amount of degradation may be invisible to mere mortals or may make the lens completely unusable by any standards. Often even a very visually significant lens defect - such as a chip or scratch, will not be instantly obvious in final images to a casual observer. Experts will usually be able to detect almost any defect (or say they can - mere mortals will not be able to tell if they are correct :-) ). Also, lens settings will affect how much a given defect affects a given image.

In some cases the advice given in 1a and 1b below will transform results from generally unacceptable to generally acceptable. In other cases they won't. Only trying it will tell you how good a method will be.

The best advice (but too late :-( ) is to never let it happen. Fungus only grows in moist conditions. Keep your lenses in a well ventilated dry location with dessicant sachets. However -

If it's inside the lens there are two options (apart from disposal). Unfortunately, while either may work, neither is certain to work well.

  • 1(a) Shining UV (ultraviolet) light into the lens for an extended period will "discourage" the fungus, how well and how long is uncertain. Simply leaving a lens with iris fully open on a sun facing window ledge in a dry location for weeks to months may produce good results. Cap lens at rear, and tilt so that sun shines into lens during sunnier parts of each day. (Be ware that sun shining directly along the axis of the lens or close to it may focus light onto end cap and melt it - unlikely but check point and degree of focus.) I tried this procedure with an extremely old Minolta 50mm f1:1.4? manual lens and achieved tolerable results. I simply left the lens as above for many months and when I next looked found that mold presence had been very substantially reduced.

    1(b) Light from a germicidal (short wavelength) UV lamp may be used in place of sunlight. This sort of light can blind you or damage your eyes permanently if looked at for substantial periods and can cause "arc eye" - painful but usually temporary inflammation of the eye. This does not mean you should not use such lights at all - simply that they need to be used with due respect. These lights are available from many sources for many purposes and can be very low cost.

    Note that "black light" UV light is not suitable for this purpose. It is longer wavelength and not very biologically active.

    Note also that the short wavelength high energy UV (which is why you are using it) from germicidal UV lamps will also degrade other materials such as some plastics and miscellaneous other material - including, possibly, parts of a plastic lens housing. This depends on material, distance, light energy and exposure time. YMMV but caveat emptor - ie know that you are using a tool with sharp unguarded blades (even though you can't see them) and use with due caution.

    All the above may put some people off UV germicidal lamps. If so, that's good. They are a great and useful tool but not suitable for use by careless or unthinking people.

  • 2 . Dismantle and clean. If the lens is so degraded that it is unusable and if the method above does not work well enough then the lens must be dismantled. If the lens is otherwise a 'writeoff" and you are competent mechanically you may wish to try this yourself. Reassembly of a lens capsule is considered to be an expert task and realignment on reassembly may require arcane knowledge. This is why qualified lens servicing people are still in business and cost money to use.

    Fungus often attacks lens surface coatings and may etch the glass itself so the lens may be noticeably or fatally degraded regardless. How much the may/may/may applied in your case is tbd. Some lens cleaning works very well indeed. An aficionado and a good MTR test will probably tell you that something has happened but the results may be very tolerable in practice.

    You will find articles on the internet on lens cleaning methods. I read a paper by either Zeiss or Leitz that suggested that cigarette ash makes an excellent fine cleaning compound (!!!).


  • YMMV - Your mileage may vary.

  • Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware = you are on your own.

Friday, November 11, 2011

Why fungus form in lenses, and how to get rid of it?

Question

Recently I was using an old Pentax 50mm f/2 that had a quite big green spot, and later I was informed that it was a fungus.

A couple of questions raised from this:

  1. Why does fungus form inside the lenses? What kind of "food" does it find in a glass element?
  2. How does it form? Due to condensation? Due to bad storage?
  3. Does it have any impact in the final image? Some scratches in a lens will probably not appear in the image because to they will be very out of focus. Is this also true for fungus?
  4. Finally, when a lens is "fungused": How do you get rid of it?

Answer

For all the following: YMMV*, caveat emptor, no responsibility taken for advice given, you decide whether to try this at home. It may even work :-). Be aware that damage may already be fatal and/or that fatal (to the lens) damage may occur along the way. Best attitude is to regard the lens as a writeoff now, with anything you can gain from it by the methods below being a bonus.

Fungus in a lens will always degrade the image but the amount of degradation may be invisible to mere mortals or may make the lens completely unusable by any standards. Often even a very visually significant lens defect - such as a chip or scratch, will not be instantly obvious in final images to a casual observer. Experts will usually be able to detect almost any defect (or say they can - mere mortals will not be able to tell if they are correct :-) ). Also, lens settings will affect how much a given defect affects a given image.

In some cases the advice given in 1a and 1b below will transform results from generally unacceptable to generally acceptable. In other cases they won't. Only trying it will tell you how good a method will be.

The best advice (but too late :-( ) is to never let it happen. Fungus only grows in moist conditions. Keep your lenses in a well ventilated dry location with dessicant sachets. However -

If it's inside the lens there are two options (apart from disposal). Unfortunately, while either may work, neither is certain to work well.

  • 1(a) Shining UV (ultraviolet) light into the lens for an extended period will "discourage" the fungus, how well and how long is uncertain. Simply leaving a lens with iris fully open on a sun facing window ledge in a dry location for weeks to months may produce good results. Cap lens at rear, and tilt so that sun shines into lens during sunnier parts of each day. (Be ware that sun shining directly along the axis of the lens or close to it may focus light onto end cap and melt it - unlikely but check point and degree of focus.) I tried this procedure with an extremely old Minolta 50mm f1:1.4? manual lens and achieved tolerable results. I simply left the lens as above for many months and when I next looked found that mold presence had been very substantially reduced.

    1(b) Light from a germicidal (short wavelength) UV lamp may be used in place of sunlight. This sort of light can blind you or damage your eyes permanently if looked at for substantial periods and can cause "arc eye" - painful but usually temporary inflammation of the eye. This does not mean you should not use such lights at all - simply that they need to be used with due respect. These lights are available from many sources for many purposes and can be very low cost.

    Note that "black light" UV light is not suitable for this purpose. It is longer wavelength and not very biologically active.

    Note also that the short wavelength high energy UV (which is why you are using it) from germicidal UV lamps will also degrade other materials such as some plastics and miscellaneous other material - including, possibly, parts of a plastic lens housing. This depends on material, distance, light energy and exposure time. YMMV but caveat emptor - ie know that you are using a tool with sharp unguarded blades (even though you can't see them) and use with due caution.

    All the above may put some people off UV germicidal lamps. If so, that's good. They are a great and useful tool but not suitable for use by careless or unthinking people.

  • 2 . Dismantle and clean. If the lens is so degraded that it is unusable and if the method above does not work well enough then the lens must be dismantled. If the lens is otherwise a 'writeoff" and you are competent mechanically you may wish to try this yourself. Reassembly of a lens capsule is considered to be an expert task and realignment on reassembly may require arcane knowledge. This is why qualified lens servicing people are still in business and cost money to use.

    Fungus often attacks lens surface coatings and may etch the glass itself so the lens may be noticeably or fatally degraded regardless. How much the may/may/may applied in your case is tbd. Some lens cleaning works very well indeed. An aficionado and a good MTR test will probably tell you that something has happened but the results may be very tolerable in practice.

    You will find articles on the internet on lens cleaning methods. I read a paper by either Zeiss or Leitz that suggested that cigarette ash makes an excellent fine cleaning compound (!!!).


  • YMMV - Your mileage may vary.

  • Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware = you are on your own.

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Gear for carrying and storing a DSLR on a backpacking trip?

Question

I'm planning on going on a short backpacking trip at the end of this month and would like to take along my DSLR. What are some good options for me to carry and store my camera and a tripod if I'm also carrying around a big hiking backpack with me?

Specific to my situation, I'd like to consider cheaper options as I don't plan on backpacking enough to make a considerable investment.

Thanks guys!

Answer

Having the camera accessible is critically important to get a variety of shots along the way. Huge backpacks are not ideal for this. I used a Top-Loading zoom bag when I carried fewer lenses ;) This bag is quite cheap and will serve you in the future too, it comes in different sizes and colors.

The tripod should easily be able to be attached to your backpack. Below is good for a small one or on the side. Most backpacks have plenty of straps or at least loops where you can attach straps to hold additional items. If you use a Gorillapod SLR-Zoom, then it is even better to hook it somewhere you can reach. I often simply loop its legs around the camera bag strap and barely notice it.

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Will I damage my camera carrying it everywhere?

Question

I used to carry my point and shoot with me almost everywhere, and now that I've "upgraded" to a Canon 60D, I've been carrying it around. What I'm wondering is whether I'm likely to damage it or if there are any special precautions I should take.

A few more details:

  • The camera and accessories live in a MEC Gadabout Camera Bag, which I've adjusted so that it fits the camera quite closely
  • The camera bag stays inside my backpack, which is a laptop bag, so it's well padded. The camera ends up with the lens pointing at the bottom of the backpack.
  • I don't do anything too active with the backpack on (it's pretty heavy with the camera, a few files, wallet, notepad, etc.), but I sometimes ride my bike with it on.
  • The camera bag has a "quick-draw" opening at one end that I usually leave unzipped but with the flap in the closed position so that it covers the LCD and controls.

One thing I'm particularly wondering about is dust - I use just one lens, and it stays on the camera, but I do notice some dust collecting on the eyepiece and wonder if that's going to work it's way into the camera. Would it make any difference if I made a point of zipping the quick-draw flap closed?

Are there any special precautions I should take to minimize the chances of damaging my camera?

Answer

My advice would be to take your camera everywhere you might potentially take pictures. Take reasonable precautions to avoid shocks. If it gets damaged have it fixed.

You could keep the camera in its box for ten years and at the end of that period you'd have a pristine camera that would still be worth nothing. So you might as well use it as much as possible before it becomes obsolete.