DSLRUsers.com

This post is prompted by Big Pix's link concerning camera bags and the response to yesterday's revelation that Canon have developed a new camera-body cap which does not attract dust.

My point is this: Isn't it time that camera luggage manufacturers addressed the issue of dust a little more fervently in their design and fabrication?

Part of the distinction between working with 35mm or 120/220 on the one hand and sheet film on the other is the increased risk and presence of dust. It gets into the film folders and it gets into the camera bellows and as a result it gets onto the imaging sirface of the film itself and results in clear bits on a negative or black bits on a transparency or print. A major factor in my sheet film workflow is dust control. Each time I use my film holders I vacuum them out with a strong vacuum cleaner with a computer and electronics cleaning nozzle attached (available $20 from Godfreys). I also vacuum out the case in which I carry the holders each time at least, if not more freqently. All the cases used for transporting film holders seal with a gasket and none have furry dust-catcher linings or partitions. On a regular basis I can even get stuck in with a damp cloth and wipe them out.

Similar situation with the camera: I vacuum out the insoide of the bellows and all the little recesses, nooks and crannies of the metal castings that support the bellows.

Although I did use a 'back-pack' as a camera bag for a while I very quickly gave the idea the flick. The tendency is to lie it down, fully open it and access your gear. Down near the ground in the big wide world is where all the crap is. On the calmest of days you will see surface vectors moving fine crap about. Add to this the fact that the unzipped cover is languishing about in the ground and only getting secondary attention at best it is hardly surprising to find that a lot of junk gets into the bag when the lid is flipped back over.

Now, where does the muck of the world go to once it is inside the bag? Into the cells of the foam rubber or into the nap of the velcro or felt that lines many bags and makes partitions. Like most things this accululation of detritus is stubborn when we try to get rid of it but quite promiscuous when we take our eyes off it and give it nice positively charged instruments that will just suck it onto itself in a trice.

I feel it in my waters that similar precautions are necessary equally necessary with a DSLR. But waht are camera bag makers doing about this? I feel that the linings of Kata bags are probablyresistant to imbedded dust and grit but how are they sealed for when we're trudging about in a filthy city or a dusty hinterland?

Despite all my anal precautionary action to prevent dust in my luggage it still gets in and I can count on finding a speck on a varying number of images per year. A particle of dust on a 4x5 negative is only linearly enlarged 4 times to make a 16x20 print. But a 4 times linear enlargement of even a 36x24 sensor's iamge will yield only a 6x4 inch print. Want something bigger and the specks are getting bigger.

Now of course I hear you say that dust-busting in PhotoShop will take care if it .... but only suprficially and not without the expenditure of time (and time is money) and some risk of deleterious artefacts. In effect, the time and effort I spend on dust control BEFORE the shoot is transferred, like so much in digital photography, to AFTER the shoot.

We will never be free of the dust peril but it would be nice to think that some of the makers of peripheral gear had our best interests at heart.

Cheers,

You are absolutely right about laying backpacks down to access the contents, which was the reason that I initially bought a shoulder bag. However I bought one which was too big, put too much gear in it, and had a constantly aching shoulder as a consequence

A dust free bag would be nice, but I think that design would have to consist of a bag with multiple zippered enclosures for each item of gear and that would be a PITA.

Some excellent points raised there, Sheetshooter, and some that I guess the majority of us don't consider in the grand scope of things. Although I'm extremely careful (almost anal) with keeping my gear clean, it's impossible to maintain as sterile an environment as I'd like.

As you say, it's good to see manufacturers attempting to address some of the problems.

Manta wrote: it's impossible to maintain as sterile an environment as I'd like

maybe a sterile bubble would be good.......

perhaps manufacturers could make their bags with clear PVC/plastic inserts that have either lids or thick polypropylene tops that velcro onto the top of the moveable dividers ? This would hopefully help combat dust, moisture and anything else that's likely to get into the bags. Removing one side of the velcro and folding it back to pull out camera gear wouldn't be that much of a PITA, and they could also be removed for cleaning

I'm sure it's not as simple as it sounds, but there is a solution out there somewhere !

Interesting to hear about the vaccuming of the camera equipment. I wonder what would happen if you stuck a vacumm inside the D70's chamber ?!?

Dave when you try the vacuum trick, let us know how you went

Aussie Dave wrote:perhaps manufacturers could make their bags with clear PVC/plastic inserts that have either lids or thick polypropylene tops that velcro onto the top of the moveable dividers ? This would hopefully help combat dust, moisture and anything else that's likely to get into the bags. Removing one side of the velcro and folding it back to pull out camera gear wouldn't be that much of a PITA, and they could also be removed for cleaning

I'm sure it's not as simple as it sounds, but there is a solution out there somewhere !

Interesting to hear about the vaccuming of the camera equipment. I wonder what would happen if you stuck a vacumm inside the D70's chamber ?!?

Yeah! it's same with this idea:
An invention of a similar type of windscreen wiper equipped on your glasses for you to walk under the rain or in front of your lens when you're shooting under the down pour with adjustable of speed.

Given the broad range of experience and lack thereof across all the memners of a site like this I guess it is beholden upon me to say:

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER place a vacuum cleaner nozzle inside the mirror box of a DSLR!!

For that matter the cans of compressed air are a no-no also. A forced blast of air and the propellant and airborne particles can do irrepairable damage.

Cheers,

Sheetshooter wrote:

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER place a vacuum cleaner nozzle inside the mirror box of a DSLR!!

And to also add that you should NEVER use a vacuum cleaner on ANY electronic device as the static electricity the vacuum cleaner generates is more than enough to FRY any electronic ciruitry, especially delicate electronics as in a DSLR.

After Streetshooter's dire warning recounts another warning I saw in the SMH a few years back for the male members:

Never have sex with a vacuum cleaner, especially not the handheld jobbies with the fan blades close to the entry

Glen wrote:After Streetshooter's dire warning recounts another warning I saw in the SMH a few years back for the male members:

Never have sex with a vacuum cleaner, especially not the handheld jobbies with the fan blades close to the entry

I sometimes wonder if really ugly girls with hickies on their necks haven't been up to no good with a bit of vacuum cleaner cosmetics.

I think one of the reasons why vacuum cleaner nozzles or hoses are of such small diameter is to prevent erstwhile young chappies coming to grief in the regaion of the abdominal appendage!

Cheers,

That was what this young man had done, with a handheld job, which has the fan blades next to the opening. Very unfortunate. Unnatractive girls don't have to fake hickeys, real ones are available, that is what alcohol is for.

Too true, Glen!! Might even have been guilty of perpetrating that particular crime myself more than a time or two in my youth.

So nice to be a doddery old goat no longer driven to such excesses! (Like hell!!)

Cheers,

Age doesn't seem to preclude the basic impulses of life, does it?

No it does not

Glen wrote:After Streetshooter's dire warning recounts another warning I saw in the SMH a few years back for the male members:

Never have sex with a vacuum cleaner, especially not the handheld jobbies with the fan blades close to the entry

While I'm not quite sure about your use of the term "male members" Glen, I recall there was an interesting article in New Scientist a few years ago, referring specifically to the Hoover Lark vacuum cleaner, which enjoyed the advertising slogan "Beats as it Sweeps as it Cleans!"

Cheers

Philo travels often?