But even a brand new, speckless camera is going to get dust in it eventually....even if the camera had been perfect you would have run into this problem eventually. My lens was speck and dust free when it was given to me, and the aluminum was probably shaved off when I was using it. So the only way to have a dust free camera would seem to be to purchase a new one and never take it out of its box. :(
rg2 On 9/9/07, Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thank you, r. I know for certain that the dust (or dirt or specks) > is not in my lens, as I put the lens on another camera, and I do not > see these specks in the viewfinder of this camera. I see the specks > only through the viewfinder of this one particular body. > > I realize that these small specks will not in any way affect the > image quality of the camera. My "beef," so to speak, is with the > willy nilly basis and inherent vagaries of buying unseen used items. > The strange reality of the matter is that I could have probably > bought a "speckless" body on eBay. It seems almost purely hit and > miss. In fact, eBay is rarely a true "bargain" these days. After > all the hassle of waiting for auctions to end and asking numerous > questions that people do not seem to want to answer (or outright > evade, if possible), is saving $10 or $20 really worth it? I know > that many of you bid on lenses that cost as much as my car. Perhaps > more can be saved in these situations...but, then again, more can be > lost if the item disappoints. That is how I feel about my this body > purchase: I saved about $10, but got one with specks...I suppose it > is not hard to figure out why I paid $10 less than the going rate... > > Glen > > On Sep 9, 2007, at 12:54 PM, Rebekah wrote: > > > Glen, I'd like to show you one of my lenses. I know it's kinda off > > topic. Don't look if the idea of stuff inside your lens will be > > harmful to your health. > > > > http://picasaweb.google.com/rg2pdml/Album8/photo? > > authkey=A0xklGveJQw#5108246410935972162 > > > > That speck you see in the middle of the lens (yep, middle) is a scrap > > of aluminum, or so the list here decided. It's easily a millimeter > > long, maybe one and a half. But, I can't find it in my pictures, and > > it doesn't even show up on my test shots. Even when I use it with a > > reversing ring it's invisible. Someone here suggested that it may > > cause some distortion, but I've never seen any, although I'm sure > > they're probably right, it must be minimal. Of course, I know it's > > there, and I can see it when I look through my viewfinder, but since > > it's not in my pictures, I've made peace with it, or at least, I'm too > > scared to open the lens up anyways. I'd probably just get a bunch of > > dust in there if I did open it up. Maybe you can shoot a test shot of > > the sky or your ceiling and carry it around with you so you can feel > > better about the dust not really being a problem. So, I guess my > > point is, even if the dust is actually in your lens, that might not > > cause a problem anyways. :o) > > > > > > rg2 > > > > > > On 9/9/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Good question, I don't even know where to look on your camera, all > >> the > >> Pentax's I own are much older or have user replaceable screens, or > >> both. > >> > >> Glen Tortorella wrote: > >>> I know that before I bought the camera, it was "professionally" > >>> serviced. It had new seals installed. I do have a set of small > >>> screwdrivers. What would I have to remove, etc.? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Glen > >>> > >>> On Sep 9, 2007, at 11:38 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Depends on your definition of inexpensive, and if you have a shop > >>>> nearby > >>>> with an in house repair guy. If they have to send it out you > >>>> might as > >>>> well get a CLA because you'll end up paying for one. > >>>> > >>>> Glen Tortorella wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Thanks, PJ. Have you ever done this? If I bring it to a shop, I > >>>>> gather this would be a rather inexpensive repair? > >>>>> > >>>>> Glen > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sep 9, 2007, at 11:22 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> The viewfinders in most Pentax are not dust sealed. Most > >>>>>> likely it's > >>>>>> between the focusing screen and the pentaprism. A good repair man > >>>>>> can > >>>>>> usually clean it up. You could do it yourself but a slip of a > >>>>>> screwdriver could mar the surface of your focusing screen > >>>>>> which is > >>>>>> infinitely more annoying... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Glen Tortorella wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I agree with whoever replied (I think PJ) that dust or dirt > >>>>>>> in the > >>>>>>> viewfinder is somewhat irritating. To reiterate, I have checked > >>>>>>> over > >>>>>>> the various relevant parts (including the mirror) of my Super > >>>>>>> Program > >>>>>>> and cannot find the specks I see in the viewfinder. Is there > >>>>>>> any way > >>>>>>> to get them out? Is this dust or dirt something only a > >>>>>>> professional > >>>>>>> can remove, or is it just stuck there forever? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In retrospect: I wish eBay sellers would be unmistakably clear > >>>>>>> about > >>>>>>> these things...such is why I like buying new...there are just > >>>>>>> too > >>>>>>> many things that can be problematic or objectionable with unseen > >>>>>>> used > >>>>>>> gear. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>> Glen > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Remember, it's pillage then burn. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Remember, it's pillage then burn. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Remember, it's pillage then burn. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> [email protected] > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > > > > > > -- > > "the subject of a photograph is far less important than its > > composition" > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- "the subject of a photograph is far less important than its composition" -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
