1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Dust -- explicative deleted dust -- in my LX100

Discussion in 'Panasonic LX100 / D-LUX (109) Forum' started by Jock Elliott, Oct 11, 2016.

  1. Jock Elliott

    Jock Elliott SC All-Pro

    Jan 3, 2012
    Troy, NY
    At f.16 it is readily visible

    LX100 high wispy clouds 014.JPG LX100 high wispy clouds 013.JPG
    But at f.5.6, it seems to disappear . . .
    LX100 high wispy clouds 010.JPG
    Costs about $100 to clean, with no guarantee that it won't reappear. And, of course, shooting the sky is one way to really highlight dust.

    Who here has had problems with dust? Advice, counsel?

    Who has a camera with a self-cleaning sensor (my OMD does) and how well do you like it?

    I am very tempted to not buy another Panasonic camera.

    Grumpily, Jock
     
  2. dalethorn

    dalethorn Guest

    I also am going to avoid Panasonics. My brand new $700 ZS100's lens was "full of dust" according to the repair center. It came back clean, and now I see dust in the lens. But yours is on the sensor, and it's a sealed sensor too. And $700. And now Panasonic wants to sell a $700 LX10. I really have to wonder who is in charge.
     
  3. Jock Elliott

    Jock Elliott SC All-Pro

    Jan 3, 2012
    Troy, NY
    Have your Leicas been dust free? Am really looking for a dust free solution for my sky photography. No problems so far with with OMS and dust/moisture-resistant lens, but it is slow . . .

    Cheers, Jock
     
  4. dalethorn

    dalethorn Guest

    My D-Lux typ 109 was a LX100, and it got heavy use and no dust. The Leica X cameras are fixed 35 mm though.
     
  5. Luke

    Luke Super Moderator

    Nov 11, 2011
    Milwaukee, WI USA
    Luke
    the only guaranteed dust-free solutions are interchangeable lens cameras (not dust-free....but user cleanable).....maybe you could buy one of the teeny m43 cameras
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  6. marlof

    marlof Trying to focus

    Dec 25, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Marlof
    My LX100 is at the repair shop the third time in less than two years:
    1. the battery sometimes, with no apparent reason, discharges very quickly in the camera, even when it stays off (and not accidentally turned on); not solved since the repair shop couldn't replicate the issue. Currently again under investigation.
    2. the lens made a terrible noise when zooming; I've since then found out this can occur when the camera is accidentally turned on while the lens can not extend (as inside my bag). Unlike other cameras, the lx100 doesn't detect obstruction and keeps trying to zoom out, which damages the zoom mechanism; lens replaced
    3. Severe dust on sensor and thumb grip coming apart; three weeks later still at repair shop, don't know when it will return.

    I like the camera when it works, but find it a bit flunky. I will probably not get a premium fixed lens camera again (esp. not one like the LX100 that is not really pocket sized) and next time would opt for a small m43 body with a pancake instead.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  7. SnapDawg

    SnapDawg Rorschach Test Pilot

    649
    Apr 18, 2014
    Canary Islands
    Ken
    I've had some dust in almost every camera and lens I've owned over the years. Lately on the sensor and in the OVF of my X10, on the sensor of an RX100III I've had for a couple weeks, behind the sensor filter stack and in the HVF module of my X-"Pro"1 and in the EVF of my NEX-7. I've said it before but I didn't have a single tiny speck of dust in the viewfinder of my F3 after about 20 years of heavy usage. It's not only these dust issues but also heavily decentered lenses, apparent lack of proper QC and customer support (...), etc... and above all the insolent strategies of some of those companies to squeeze as much money out of you as possible, trying to charge you for repairs that clearly fall under warranty that keep me wondering WTF is wrong these days.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Lightmancer

    Lightmancer Super Moderator

    Aug 13, 2011
    Sunny Frimley
    Bill Palmer
    Hi Jock, I see your problem - and I saw your PM on the subject too.

    My thoughts, for what it's worth.

    Dust is a fact of life, sadly. We are ourselves all little dust factories and a charged glass element or sensor is quite literally a magnet for the stuff. Short of wearing sterile suits in laboratory conditions we can't avoid it.

    Luke makes a good point. The only times I have personally been bothered by dust is in a supposedly "sealed" camera. Zooms in particular are notorious for ducking in air and dust, and depositing it everywhere inside. This is nothing new. Look inside a 30 year öld zoom and it looks like the Asteroid Belt. An interchangeable lens camera at least means you can get at the sensor to clean it yourself.

    That said, a question from me (and this may betray my ignorance of cloud photography). Why shoot at f16? If I thought about it I think I would be shooting at a moderate aperture -f5.6 to f8.0 - at lowest possible ISO and highest possible shutter speed to minimise any cloud motion.

    A small aperture will not only show up any dust on the sensor, it also maximises the likelihood of diffraction effects.

    Finally, unless a company specifically claims their camera is dust and water resistant, you really are on a hiding to nothing with consumer and prosumer-level cameras.

    I know that this might not be what you want to hear, but I think you need to consider better tools for the job.
     
  9. dalethorn

    dalethorn Guest

    I think if you bought the Leica D-Lux instead of the LX100 (same camera ostensibly), you'd not only get a better camera, but a better vendor and service dept. too.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  10. dalethorn

    dalethorn Guest

    BTW, I always carry my cameras in a sealed/zippered bag, which in many cases then goes into a pocket. I never put a digicam directly into a pocket.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. Jock Elliott

    Jock Elliott SC All-Pro

    Jan 3, 2012
    Troy, NY
    Bill,

    Thanks for your kind and thoughtful reply. I have now made a personal resolution that I will not in future purchase high-buck cameras with fixed lenses.

    As to: "Why shoot at f/16?" In a very tangential way, you had some influence. Remember your post "F/8 and be there, I'm now an author"?

    Well, I thought "f/8 and be there" was a pretty cool saying, so I started researching it and found that it goes back to Weegee, a famous photojournalist. Further, this line of research led to "sunny 16," which is, as you know, is a guideline for exposure on sunny days.

    Anyhow, so I thought I would give it (sunny 16) a try, and that's how the dust on the sensor of the LX100 was discovered. My two dust-spotted Panasonic cameras are now on their way elsewhere.

    For now, I will shoot with the dust and moisture resistance OMD-EM5 with the 12-50 weather resistance internally zooming lens, and the Sony HX400V.

    In the meantime, I am now engaged in mild mental foreplay on a weather-resistant Fuji with a weather-resistant zoom lens. Any recommendations? Also, do the Fuji ILCs have automatic sensor cleaning?

    Cheers, Jock
     
  12. Lightmancer

    Lightmancer Super Moderator

    Aug 13, 2011
    Sunny Frimley
    Bill Palmer
    Aha! That's not how Sunny-16 is meant to be used. It's an exposure guide. Thus ISO 400 film should be exposed at 1/500sec @f16 on a sunny day to give a "correct" exposure. You then adapt from there. Thus the same exposure would be obtained by a shutter speed and aperture combination of 1/1000sec @f8 (double one, halve the other). It works really well in meterless film cameras but not so well for what you are trying to achieve, I fear.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  13. Covey22

    Covey22 SC Top Veteran

    658
    Feb 3, 2012
    I had to do a cleaning on a new-to-me (2nd hand) XT-10 backup body I got just the other month. I hadn't opened that APS-C Swab kit since I owed the Nikon D100 (yeah, that long ago). Fortunately, the cleaning fluid never breaks down and those swabs were nicely wrapped. It took three tries to dislodge this huge visible piece that was killing me at f1.2 - that was mostly anxiety and lack of practice.

    I can't even imagine how frustrating that is with a single piece camera that you can't get at the back of the lens or the sensor box. I think about that every time I consider getting a "glove-box" used camera for those times I won't lug either the mirrorless or the DSLR.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  14. marlof

    marlof Trying to focus

    Dec 25, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Marlof
    I've always carried my LX100 in a wrapping case, and my severe dust problem (more like a piece of lint; perhaps from the earlier lens replacement?) showed at 5.6, which made it very bothersome to say the least.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  15. Lightmancer

    Lightmancer Super Moderator

    Aug 13, 2011
    Sunny Frimley
    Bill Palmer
    There's no ostensibly about it. They are made on the same production line by the same people. The Leica Panasonic relationship is based upon badge engineering. It kept Leica in the digital game back in the days of the Digilux 2/LC1 ("Leica" digital cameras prior to that were badge engineered Fujis...) Granted there are some physical differences in the bodyshells, accessories and warranty (and service in general, an area in which Leica are improving) but tne bits that matter - sensor, optics, firmware and thus results obtained - are identical. I've had Panasonic and Leica versions of the same cameras and can attest to it.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  16. marlof

    marlof Trying to focus

    Dec 25, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Marlof
    I'd like to make a small correction: the Panasonic cooperation started with the Digilux 1, which I still have. Although the housing looked very different, it was internally the same camera as the Panasonic LC5.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. dalethorn

    dalethorn Guest

    It would seem therefore that Leica would want to use the Panasonic service center, in the U.S. at least, for their badged cameras. I suppose that they would not want that publicly known, if they did that.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1