Bringing a digital camera on a plane kills pixels? Read more on PhotoRumors.com: htt

[AeroSmith]

Um, I don't like to hear this.

http://photorumors.com/2011/07/07/bringing-a-digital-camera-on-a-plane-kills-pixels/

[AeroSmith]

Beyond the headline, this is actually an interesting discussion on digital sensors.

[alt4852]

Um, I don't like to hear this.

i'd recommend just getting over it. for all intents and purposes, this is just another psychological fear than a real concern in my opinion.

you purchase and transport your equipment to be used. if you wanted to prevent damage to a camera, you wouldn't use it as it's normal functions deteriorate it's condition over time. honestly, are you going to take less flights, stop bringing your camera with you on trips, or opt to ship your equipment to destinations weeks in advance?

there's no practical solution for this, and hundreds of thousands of cameras are no worse for wear from radiation after flights to vacations in hawaii and europe. stop worrying so much.

[AeroSmith]

LOL. No worries, just because I don't like to hear it doesn't mean I'm going to stop traveling with my cameras.

Probably more interesting from the clip is the discussion of CA in digital sensors.

[pyrojim]

could you edit the link so it actaully goes to the article...


right now, 97% of your post is a hyperlink...

[AeroSmith]

could you edit the link so it actaully goes to the article...


right now, 97% of your post is a hyperlink...

Sorry about that.

[FlyingPhotog]

This link may be the best 14 minutes I've spent in front of my computer in a very long time.

Worth watching folks!

[thedge]

My camera has flown at least 100,000 miles in the last year and no issues so far...

[rick_reno]

The only thing I've found flying damages is my desire to fly. Poor service on board combined with those semi-functional morons in TSA really take away my desire to fly.

[esmoglo]

The only thing I've found flying damages is my desire to fly. Poor service on board combined with those semi-functional morons in TSA really take away my desire to fly.

Thats soo true.:lol:

[Stone 13]

My camera has flown at least 100,000 miles in the last year and no issues so far...

+1

My camera has NEVER missed a flight and I've averaged well over 100K miles/yr for the last 3 years. Never had an issue either, maybe replace "kills pixels" with "can possibly kill pixels"...

[woos]

Complete bunk. If this was true, then having them on the ground would also occasionally get dead pixels from gamma rays. It's not like there is no radiation on the ground, just less. If a random gamma ray hitting pixel caused problems often enough to be noticed, we'd have issues with this from cameras on the ground, too...but we don't. I wouldn't worry about this at all. You'd probably have to stay airborne with your camera for years for it to have any effect. :P

[RichSoansPhotos]

There has been no real deterioration of pixel(s) since I have taken mine on board an airplane twice in March

[magwai]

Given that digital camera sensors were pretty designed to work in space i am sceptical.

Ok Hubble probably has some shielding not found in a rebel but still ...

[magwai]

and another thing, gamma rays are tiny. i would think alpha particles are more likely to damage electronics than gamma rays. it is certainly alpha particles that cam damage memory chips.

[mckinleypics]

The instance he brings up involved one flight to australia and all of the cameras had visible lines as a result. If this were true, there would be a serious uproar.

[UK_Tomcat_Fan]

Over 5 years I have flown over 50,000 miles with my camera (5000x2 (two flights per year) X 5 (5 years) for visits to my fiancee in the states) then I have flown little trips around Europe and I have not noticed any deteriation of the sensor or lenses.

Next they will be saying that atmospheric pressure will cause lens issues!

[RbnDave]

I am an airline pilot and I've taken my 5D classic on every trip I've flown for the past four years. That's 4 trips through an xray machine a week for four years straight. Guess what -- my camera works fine -- no dead pixels.

Well, I did wear out the shutter and have to send it in for replacement, but that's a whole different issue.

[rick_reno]

TSA is more pokey to damage your camera than gamma rays. I had one of them wanting to take a 70-200 2.8 lens off my camera because she said - and this is a quote - "it's really dark inside". Once those pinheads have your stuff, you're not allowed to touch it. She had It out of my bag and was trying to figure out how to get the lens off (paint a picture in your mind of a monkey trying to open a pickle jar). I requested a supervisor.

[tkbslc]

The only thing I've found flying damages is my desire to fly. Poor service on board combined with those semi-functional morons in TSA really take away my desire to fly.

Me too, and yet somehow my wife still LOVES to fly. I'd rather be packed in a box and shipped via UPS (Which is about what flying feels like anyway).



BTW, your camera already shipped with many dead pixels anyway, so the loss of a few more percent would likely not get noticed.

[sigma pi]

Given that digital camera sensors were pretty designed to work in space i am sceptical.

Ok Hubble probably has some shielding not found in a rebel but still ...
Nikons were :(

http://nikonrumors.com/2009/12/21/the-lord-of-darkness-goes-to-space-nikon-d3s.aspx/

[j-dogg]

The only thing I've found flying damages is my desire to fly. Poor service on board combined with those semi-functional morons in TSA really take away my desire to fly.

I'm not flying anymore unless it's free, and with my car it's almost the same price in fuel to get there.

[rick_reno]

I'm not flying anymore unless it's free, and with my car it's almost the same price in fuel to get there.

I'd do that too, except I can't drive to Hawaii where I spend a few months a year. If I could, they'd never see me on a plane.

[ashiundar]

I am an airline pilot and I've taken my 5D classic on every trip I've flown for the past four years. That's 4 trips through an xray machine a week for four years straight. Guess what -- my camera works fine -- no dead pixels.

Well, I did wear out the shutter and have to send it in for replacement, but that's a whole different issue.

I was about to say that I recently took my camera all the way around the world (round trip to Chennai and back ~ 17000 miles total). Have yet to see any problems in any of the 28GB worth of pictures I shot. But you definitely beat me :D

Mind you, it could be because I don't own a 1920p monitor...but then again, who does? :P
Also, if my photos were so good that someone wanted to view them on a 1920p monitor, then I'm betting they'd also want to pay me to see the pictures...which means I'll just go buy a new camera every time I fly to a new destination!!

[ashiundar]

Also, I recently read somewhere that NASA bought like 18 1D MkIV's for use on the ISS or something? Pretty sure those things don't come caked in lead right?

[mckinleypics]

Something struck me as odd - he said at over 20,000 feet, it would take 120 inches of concrete to shield the gamma rays. So... not true on the ground? 20,000 feet of atmosphere has the same shielding as 10 feet of concrete? That makes no sense.

[esmoglo]

Is there any real world data from Canon on this?

[Nathan]

You guys should be careful about your comments about this video. Obviously, he's saying that digital cameras can be sensitive. Don't get them angry. You won't like them when they're angry.

[Justaddwata]

A quick Google search shows the only place Gamma Rays damaging sensors being mentioned is in this video. Surely if an issue there would be more evidence than one guy giving a lecture (but I guess theres no one else trying to promote a lecture with such hype).

I have flown to and from Australia plenty of times with no evidence that I have damaged anything (camera wise). I have heard of negative health effects of flying at high altitude with regard to radiation exposure but again - theres plenty of pilots with more than 40 years on the job so cannot be that big a concern.

My BS alarm was ringing quite loud hearing this lecture and the damages that occurred in one flight. There are countless numbers of cameras flying the globe without symptom.

[stink tooth]

UMMMMM

I work with High intensity Gamma ray sources (like dose enough to kill in less than an hour in some cases if proper saftey regulations are not followed) every day in field conditions. My work cam (oly ep-1) has been a constant companion as my job takes me to some very interesting photo worthy places at times. Have even "shot" my Oly before to have a radio-graph of its insides (neat btw). If that didnt kill any pixels on the sensor a 1000 flights wont hurt it.

The Record for gamma exposure on monitored airplane was .97 MR/HR on a Concorde flight in 1997 (most flights are well below this dose rate). For comparison I hit my little oly with 2 R (there are a 1000 MR in 1 R) in about 32 seconds. Plus its been exposed to more gamma in my average month than most all of your gear will ever be exposed to in its life time of flying.

here is my source for exposure dose rates on planes
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html

edit : Wow sorry for the bump from oblivion, I didnt see the date on this thread

[watt100]

UMMMMM

I work with High intensity Gamma ray sources (like dose enough to kill in less than an hour in some cases if proper saftey regulations are not followed) every day in field conditions. My work cam (oly ep-1) has been a constant companion as my job takes me to some very interesting photo worthy places at times. Have even "shot" my Oly before to have a radio-graph of its insides (neat btw). If that didnt kill any pixels on the sensor a 1000 flights wont hurt it.

The Record for gamma exposure on monitored airplane was .97 MR/HR on a Concorde flight in 1997 (most flights are well below this dose rate). For comparison I hit my little oly with 2 R (there are a 1000 MR in 1 R) in about 32 seconds. Plus its been exposed to more gamma in my average month than most all of your gear will ever be exposed to in its life time of flying.

here is my source for exposure dose rates on planes
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html

edit : Wow sorry for the bump from oblivion, I didnt see the date on this thread

really, it's an old thread and no one is worried about dead pixels. But if gamma rays mess with my DNA then I would be worried.

[msowsun]

Is there any real world data from Canon on this?

http://www.popphoto.com/news/2011/07/does-bringing-your-camera-plane-damage-your-sensor-probably-not

"Canon disagrees with these findings based upon the lack of customer complaints, shipping methods and specific Canon technology that eliminate the issues Mr. Hummel describes.

[Ltdave]

The only thing I've found flying damages is my desire to fly. Poor service on board combined with those semi-functional morons in TSA really take away my desire to fly.

yep, this right here....

i guess its a good thing i have a 21mp camera so that when i DO fly, ill have lots left over for good shots...

[kasey]

This sounds like total BS. This Hummel guy is just a sorry attention seeker.

[Flores]

I've seen entire batches of memory chips stop working in Denver due to not enough shielding...

<shrug>