<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Engadget - Comments for </title>
<link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/26/dslr-dust-removal-sensor-cleaning-shootout/</link>
<description>Engadget Comments for </description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/26/dslr-dust-removal-sensor-cleaning-shootout/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/26/dslr-dust-removal-sensor-cleaning-shootout/</guid><description><![CDATA[I wonder what causes that nasty static charge buildup in the 400D. Maybe it can be adressed via firmware (powerdown the CMOS first then use dust removal)]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Gil]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 26th 2007 4:59AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/26/dslr-dust-removal-sensor-cleaning-shootout/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/26/dslr-dust-removal-sensor-cleaning-shootout/</guid><description><![CDATA[For the 400D the statically charged sensor is actually supposed to be a feature. The theory was it would prevent dust from ever settling on the CMOS sensor at all, and it as actually part of their "EOS Integrated Cleaning System". It sounds as if there was something wrong with their test unit if the charge was attracting rather than repelling dust however. I am very curious what went wrong since I have that camera, lol.<br><br>More info via the youTube link in the article.<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P8_LNmpFSc" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P8_LNmpFSc</a>]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Adam Pflug]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 26th 2007 6:27AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/26/dslr-dust-removal-sensor-cleaning-shootout/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/26/dslr-dust-removal-sensor-cleaning-shootout/</guid><description><![CDATA[I emailed the editor and he says that they DID NOT use the manual "CCD clean" function on the Sony A100 which is  much more violent than whatever the camera does on startup.  The editor says that they did not do this because the "normal user" doesn't know about this function.  My guess is that they didn't know about it when they did the test.  Avoiding any manual cleaning features on any of these cameras is not truly testing them.<br><br>As a A100 owner, I know for a fact that the A100 manual cleaning function does a lot more than just cycling the power on the camera.  The camera literally vibrates for a full second and you can clearly feel it.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Shaocaholica]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 26th 2007 3:48PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/26/dslr-dust-removal-sensor-cleaning-shootout/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/26/dslr-dust-removal-sensor-cleaning-shootout/</guid><description><![CDATA[Hello, I was JUST playing with my new sony, and I tried out the manual CCD cleaner, which does vibrate the sensor at a very high speed. It seems however that most of the tests which deem the Sony's cleaner useless, did not test the manual cleaning option! What an invalid test!]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 9th 2007 6:40PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/26/dslr-dust-removal-sensor-cleaning-shootout/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/26/dslr-dust-removal-sensor-cleaning-shootout/</guid><description><![CDATA[As always Olympus gets little respect for its innovation. Even when reviewers lower themselves to admit that Olympus wins the tone is always somber. Ask any long-time Olympus DSLR user about dust problems. You'll rarely hear anything. Now ask the others....mmm-hmmm. Also, why do the reviewers use an Olympus E-300 when it is a discontinued (old) model, but use the other makers' newest cams? Same old story. ]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[LanceW]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 26th 2007 4:20PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/26/dslr-dust-removal-sensor-cleaning-shootout/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/26/dslr-dust-removal-sensor-cleaning-shootout/</guid><description><![CDATA[exactly. Add to that Olympus' Pixel Mapping. Hot Piexels and so forth still a common occurrence on many many other cams. Olympus provided a simple fix for the user in-camera YEARS ago (and still does).]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[tekdroid]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 2nd 2007 5:40AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/26/dslr-dust-removal-sensor-cleaning-shootout/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/26/dslr-dust-removal-sensor-cleaning-shootout/</guid><description><![CDATA[Would be interesting to have an actual user survey. Getting scared seeing dust on the E300 in this test, I right away tested my two E300s. No dust whatsoever. It might be, living in Florida at nearly 100% humidity keeps the dust in the air at nearly zero, I guess.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[BertramImages]]></dc:creator><pubDate>May 8th 2007 11:36PM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>