There doesn't seem to be a thread for discussing photographic matters without posting pictures, so here goes.

A point for Elbert:- you say you never use a filter and also that you have fungus inside your new lens. I'm looking to buy another lens for my Canon setup and was reading a review, in which it said of the lens "..... fully weather sealed to protect against dust and moisture only when a filter (typically a UV Filter) is in place like all of the other current-at-this-time sealed non-super telephoto lenses)".

That's what I thought. I was concerned primarily with protecting the face of the objective lens, but it seems sealing around the edges is a key feature of a filter. That's for my Canon "L" lenses - I don't know if it applies to Nikkor lenses. But certainly I have no fungus, and my lenses have been used for twice as long as yours and swapped on and off the camera frequently - I believe your new lens is effectively a fixture?

My fungus is dead , but I'm not defending how I care for my equipment for the sake of the equipment. My point was time, energy spent and concern for the equipment gets out of control with a lot/most photographers, so I have a rebellion I call 'a healthy disrespect', to keep me 'focused' :-0, on the product.
read Eye of Eisenstadt. Alfred did a good job of illustrating concern for the camera is in the way of a good photo.

We can post photos here.
The School House at gallon Jug
http://yobubba.livejournal.com/
I went to school in a city, this makes me jealous

I'm only saying what works for me.

Other than worrying about muck getting into the camera and onto the sensor when I change lenses (a major problem here, and it's not just dust that an automatic cleaning system can dislodge), I don't "care for" my equipment at all in any active way. I keep it when not used physically protected and away from dust etc but not hermetically sealed, and when it's in use I try to protect it from rain and sea spray. That's it. Not too onerous.

I do find I have to clean the lens filter pretty well every day of serious use, and given the nature of the muck that gets on it (combined greasy and salty) the most effective way is to take the filter off and wash it in dilute detergent. Not possible with the front element of a lens, and every time you use traditional lens cleaners you risk scratching the surface (virtually unavoidable, in fact) and stripping part of the coatings. I've never cleaned the lenses themselves, here or back in the UK in my film SLR days, and hope I never have to.

In any case, on one lens I actively want a filter as it's a circular polarising filter which I find invaluable with the intense sunlight here. I'd use one on the other lens as well, but the hood is too deep to reach the filter to turn it, so that just has a UV filter. Leaving the hood off is not an option as that can cause slight internal reflections.

I see a major degradation in IQ when I don't use some form of UV filter.

My biggest problem here with photography is that I have a lovely view of sunsets from upstairs in my house, but with the layout of the windows and screens I can never photograph them, and from downstairs I don't get the same view because of undergrowth. Very frustrating!

But I will try to read the book you cited. Do you have a copy?

Forgot to ask - did you rid the fungus yourself, or did the lens go back to Nikon?

I know we can post photos here, but in the photographic forum, including the bit at the top where it mentions "discussions about photography" or some such wording, we HAVE to post a photo to make a text post. It would be useful if in that top section text posts WITHOUT pictures could be made (Marty....?).

Elbert - I've searched a bit, including on Amazon, and I can't find "Eye of Eisenstadt" or any similar title. Do I have the name right? Maybe it's out of print?

Peter-

The book was published in 1949 and is our of print. We have 2 copies in our library (sorry, not for sale). Amazon has 9 resellers with used copies:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0...p;condition=all

Thanks for the info. I've never had anything shipped to Belize but I know people who regularly buy books on Amazon, so I just tried to buy it (I'm a regular customer of theirs). Got a message "we don't ship to Belize". Any ideas?

Have it sent to someone who can mail forward it to you, or put it in their suitcase when they are coming down.

Yes, but who?

if a photo discussion area pops up, I'll participate.
or maybe allow posts without photos in the existing photography area?

I let it steam over some boiling Formaldehyde and it seems to have worked . I counted the spots and measured them if they grow anymore its off to that guy Barn suggested. right now they are all on the edge and don't effect the image are.

How did you know you had fungus? My Nikon is not taking good pictures - they come out dim and can't be livend up. I'm not planning a trip to the states for awhile so am stuck using my little camera.

Do you have more than one lens? Does it perform the same on each?

ScubaLdy,
fungus is common in lenses that live in high humidity. Often, the damage is irreversable because the fungus damages the coating. You check for fungus or haze by shining a bright light through the lens while holding the aperture open. If you see an even film, you have haze. Haze is often caused by the migration of lubricants onto the optics and is fixed by a routine clean-lube-adjust. Fungus looks like frost or a spider web. Leica guys recommend Focal Point for these repairs.

Preventing fungus is difficult if you live in a humid climate. Collectors store their lenses in sealed containers with silica gel packets to absorb the moisture. I read of a collector in Australia who kept his display case supplied with a dry air purge.

Nikon makes a few excellent inexpensive lenses. I'd stick with those for work in the tropics. You can find ut about them at Ken Rockwell's website. The late Galen Rowell had some interesting perspectives about throw-away lenses, too. When he shot what might be his signature photo, a rainbow over a temple complex in Tibet, he ditched his camera bag and ran to get the right angle while the light was perfect. His philosophy was that gear was expendable, while a perfect image could not be passed up. See the shot here, and see some more of his work at Mountain Light gallery.

Dan

Lovely picture, but I suspect his (Galen Rowell's) view was coloured by the money he expected to make from the picture. If that was far more than the value of his gear then he made a sensible choice.

For amateurs who do not expect to make their living from photography it's rather different, and I personally don't subscribe to the view that my gear is expendable.

I clearly chose wisely for Belize when I bought Canon "L" lenses. They are sealed against dust & moisture, to the extent that when mounted on a suitable body they can apparently even be submerged in water briefly! They weren't cheap, but nor was the Nikkor 80-400 that Elbert uses. Having said that, I've just bought a non-"L" lens, and based on Elbert's experience I think I will keep that hermetically sealed when I'm not using it.

Meant to ask - are silica gel packets available anywhere in Belize? I know they can be refurbished in a microwave, but I just don't have many of them anyway.

i get my desiccants from Pelican through B&H photo. recharge them in the oven as they are metal. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/242571-REG/Pelican_PC1500D_Silica_Gel.html

my newest lens has an 'O' ring seal around the mount. don't know how much that helps?
i am in agreement about not missing the shot, but,,, like right now, if i am not shooting or if i am traveling, my gear is in the Pelican cases. a few silicas each, a yearly gasket change, and i am getting longer life from my investments.

Thought some of you might like this portrait tips info...

http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/10-ways-to-take-stunning-portraits/

Peter I noticed silica packets in the water shoes in sale box at Blue, I am sure if you asked they would let you have some as I bet they just throw them out after.

Thanks Tacogirl. Now I can't think where Blue is.....

Peter Blue is near the south end of Front Street - not far from and across the street from Ruby's.

Of course!! Never been in there.

All,
this thread has become oriented toward the care and feeding of camera equipment in a tropical environment. That's nothing new, as there was once a family of cameras designed for the tropics. Here's a nice example of a Tropic Camera from back in the day.

Dan


.

Indeed, so I've changed the title of the thread. Actually, what is remarkable is how well most gear does cope with this very unfriendly environment. How many people have had compact cameras die because of exposure to the atmosphere (as opposed to being dropped in the sea or buried in sand on the beach). I've never heard of one.

Nice collectors idem, I'm not really as old as this sounds but I've used them.
I also have a lot of experience with a packard shutter.You squeeze the bulb with you thumb over the hole in its tip and the air pressure goes down the line to a piston that raises the shutter open, you then estimate in you mind or count the exposure length, then release your thumb holding the pressure and the piston drops shut.
I poured the emulsion on a spinning glass plate the centrifugal force of the spinning plate spreads the emulsion evenly then baked it dry under UV light.
This experience and a lot like it make me appreciate digital.

F-stops where a machined hole in a brass shim in a box of different sizes , you chose your stop and slip the shim in between the elements of the lens.

elbert,
you're talking about waterhouse stops, which predate the adjustable aperture by a long time. I shoot landscapes with a woody[1], an 8x10 view camera by Gundlach Korona. Maintaining the camera requires wood polish and mink oil. One of my prize possessions is the 250mm wide angle lens on the camera, the legendary 10" Wide Field Ektar by Eastman Kodak, c.1947.

Dan


Note 1. Wooden cameras are often called "furniture" by their fans, or "kindling" by their detractors.

250mm wide angle? These terms must have changed their meanings since.

the effect of focal length of a lens is relative to the size format.. on an 8x10
250 is wide.
very nice camera Dan. collectors dream

Peter,
you're absolutely correct, the meanings of many photographic terms have become ambiguous over the years. A "wide angle" lens has a wider angle of view when compared to a normal lens. A normal lens is defined as a lens with a focal length equal to the film, or sensor, diagonal. That's about 43mm for 35mm cameras, 28mm for APS sized digicams or 300mm for an 8x10. The normal angle of view is about 53 degrees. On the 8x10 format a 10" lens has a slightly wider angle of view, something like a 24mm focal length on the APS format.

Dan

I did realise what Elbert said, but hadn't thought it through. Wouldn't it be far more useful if we measured a lens' "reach" by its angle of view?