Dead pixels

victor

victor

Antediluvian as Feck
Orderite
Uh, another stupid newbie question for you nerds. Can dead pixels come back to life? I had a shiny white dead pixel on my camera sensor but can't find it in pictures anymore, I've tried with pitch black, fully red, and fully white pictures. It would be marvelous if it had been revived.
 
Hence the word DEAD, I think once they are gone, they are gone for all eternity.

Maybe in pixel Heaven, but not in this world.
 
The Overseer said:
Uh, another stupid newbie question for you nerds. Can dead pixels come back to life? I had a shiny white dead pixel on my camera sensor but can't find it in pictures anymore, I've tried with pitch black, fully red, and fully white pictures. It would be marvelous if it had been revived.
Click to expand...
It depends on the reason they are dead, I believe. White pixels are a lot more likely to come 'back to life' than black pixels. Black pixels are simply dead, and can't go 'on' anymore. White pixels are always on, so it's conceivable that they could go back again.
 
I'm getting mixed results here. I don't think Canon has a 1 dead pixel warranty on their camera sensors, anyway. Fuck.

Well, I can't detect it anymore. Then again, one pixel in 8 million isn't too easy to spot.
 
What kind of loser buys Canon anyways?

Buy Nikon for reflex or Panasonic for compact. Way friggin' beter camera's.
 
Minolta is le passé, mang.

Go with the flow. You only get decent I.S.O.; and ISO values that actually mean crap with Panasonic compacts.
 
The Overseer said:
I'm getting mixed results here. I don't think Canon has a 1 dead pixel warranty on their camera sensors, anyway. Fuck.
Click to expand...
nearly no one has a 1 pixel warranty.

it's mostly 1 cluster or 3+ individual dead pixels.
 
Jebus said:
. You only get decent I.S.O.
Click to expand...

I meant O.I.S.

The Overseer said:
I don't HAVE a compact, though.
Click to expand...

HAH! So you own a Canon reflex? Dude, that's just sad. What is it you have? A Canon EOS 350? 400? Dude, you've been had. For the exact same amount of money, you could've gotten yourself a Nikon D40X, a waaaaaaay beter camera in every possible way.
 
Meh, it really was between a Canon and a Nikon, and since I already had a couple of Canon lenses, that's what I went with. It's mostly the photographer and the lens, not the camera, that takes good pictures anyway. In retrospect, I might've gotten a Nikon. Big deal.

It's a 30D, btw. What do YOU have?
 
Good choice. Don't forget to check out

www.dpreview.com

Also, for lenses (Nikon's (Nikkor's) kit lenses are fantastic, I hear), check

www.photozone.de (don't worry, it's in English).

Whatever camera body you get though, remember ONE thing above all: without a good lens, it's the same as getting a compact piece of shit. So you'd better have a good lens to start with. I'd go

25% camera, 75% lens on money spending.

Of course, you might already be savvy in this field, so you'll know what to do.

I'm a bit remorseful to see the 40D come out now actually... Oh well.
 
Did you even bother reading the previous posts? Ugh... And tripods can be used just as well for compacts as for SLRs. Do you even know WHY they're better though?
 
How about a lot less noise because of bigger sensors, better contrast and color levels. Better everything. The only problem is size and weight. Get a compact if you're just into taking pictures at parties and family events and such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top