Survey: NO HOT PIXELS

Dave H. said:

I viewed the photos at 100% on the computer screen, not the camera.
The camera sat indoors at around 70 degrees all day. Does
aperature size affect it at all? Is this a miracle or what?

Click to expand...

Hi Dave, you, of course, made sure the lens cap/cover was on the lens so you are "shooting blackness" -the dark. ;-)

Listen "to hear" and confirm the exposure times, as you can "count off" as the exposure is made to hear the clicks/sounds at 2/4/6/8 seconds. Verify your ISO setting is 100, then try it at 200 and 400. You should DEFINATELY see something at ISO 400 and 6-8 seconds. Turn the lights off in your room to aid in the viewing too.
Report back.
Thanks.

I tried the test again, but first I set my camera, and a thermometer, next to the window for about an hour. The temperature was at 65 degrees F. I did it at 2 and 8 seconds exposure time. The hot pixels are now:

2 seconds: 2 hot pixels
8 seconds: 5 hot pixels.

So the ambient temperature played a large part. I went from hundreds of hot pixels at 85 degrees F to five hot pixels at 65 degrees F. So for an accurate comparison, should the room temperature also be listed in this survey? Maybe that's why some users are reporting much less hot pixels than others.

Martin P. said:

This seems rather high to me. (My next test is to try this at 65 -
70 degrees F temperature). I've only had the camera a bit over 6
months. I really didn't use it over 1 second anyways, so I never
noticed this, but I do plan to use longer exposures, occasionally.
I then took a regular picture at 8 second exposure, and the
starfield is there! Do any of you know, would this be a warranty
issue that I should return the camera, or is this just normal?

newby said:

Dean said:

Do you own a digital w/no hot pixels at 2sec exposure? Please post
"in here" your model, and note "when" a hot pixel does appear
w/your camera after the 2 second test. I'm hoping to establish a
"base line" for various models as to what can be expected w/CCDs
without pixel problems at 2-seconds.
Perhaps there is a "cut off" time or trend to clue us in when a CCD
might pass a "set point" in time, and then the drop-off in hot
pixels is significant statistically.
I'm sure the camera/ccd industry keeps such statistics? Anyone seen
any published info about this?
My C2100 does not pass the 2-second test, so I can't help w/this one.
Dean

Click to expand...

...ok,Dean...
...here we go...I have a 2020z, that shows no pixels in "dark
frame", until 4 seconds...then only one faint green guy...however,
quite noisy and several at 8 seconds and beyond...
...I also have a 2040z, which has 2 stuck green guys that have
shown up in odd places...including an afternoon shot of the moon at
1/360, but then in night shots of the moon...barely
perceptible...and MUCH less noisy and fewer pixels than the 2020 at
8-16 second dark frames...go figure...
...so that's it...
newby

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Martin, you make an important point below.

Yes, ambient temp is important -AND- how warm the actual camera temp is too. IF the camera has been used for several shots before the test, then it too will "warm-up" from its own electronics. I suggest testing the camera from a "cold start" and note the room/outside temperature where the camera has had ample time to "be" or adjust to that temperature. Then after you've shot the test and you can feel the camera has warmed itself from more picture taking, it might be useful to repeat "the test" just to see the gain from a warmed camera.

I don't expect we'll get enough response in this thread to be very scientific here, but it might be useful to send "this" entire thread to the CCD/camera manufacturers and let them know informed photographers (their customers) are concerned and interested in this subject. Also, MORE importantly, this thread could be forwarded to the camera magazines and webzines for them to consider a reasonable "test standard".

We need some official help/info on this subject to begin to understand "how serious" a problem this is and to establish "a standard" for testing. Personally, I think it is reasonable to expect on a +$700 dollar camera to expect no "hot pixels" at 2 seconds, and, perhaps, some faint ones at exposures up to 8 seconds ISO 100. That's "just" my opinion BUT that is what WE ALL are left with, since there is no established standards or test "out there". I think we deserve some help from the publishers/testers in this industry!

Also, I'm curious "how good" the cameras are that are given to DPREVIEW and others for testing -compared- to what we buy???... I think it is ONLY FAIR that we "the buyers" should expect the SAME QUALITY the camera manufacturers submit to the publishers/testers, otherwise we are NOT being treated fairly. This is the main reason "why" a test standard needs to be established.
Thanks for your suggestion.
Dean

Martin P. said:

I tried the test again, but first I set my camera, and a
thermometer, next to the window for about an hour. The temperature
was at 65 degrees F. I did it at 2 and 8 seconds exposure time.
The hot pixels are now:

2 seconds: 2 hot pixels
8 seconds: 5 hot pixels.

So the ambient temperature played a large part. I went from
hundreds of hot pixels at 85 degrees F to five hot pixels at 65
degrees F. So for an accurate comparison, should the room
temperature also be listed in this survey? Maybe that's why some
users are reporting much less hot pixels than others.

Click to expand...

FUNNY. I NEVER SEE SUCH POSTS AT THE FUJI SITE. DO
OLYMPIANS LIKE TO COMPLAIN MOR ETHAN FUJIANS?
I DOUBT IT. IT SEEMS WE LOVE THE LENS ON THE 2100 SO
MUCH WE ARE BLIND TO THE PIXELS. AGAIN I REPEAT:
BUYING A $700 DOLLAR DC SHOULD NOT BE A GAME OF
RUSSIAN ROULLETE. I'M GOING TO TAKE A LONG HARD LOOK
AT THE 6800 (OR 6900) AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE 2100.
A. MILLER

Dean said:

Do you own a digital w/no hot pixels at 2sec exposure? Please post
"in here" your model, and note "when" a hot pixel does appear
w/your camera after the 2 second test. I'm hoping to establish a
"base line" for various models as to what can be expected w/CCDs
without pixel problems at 2-seconds.
Perhaps there is a "cut off" time or trend to clue us in when a CCD
might pass a "set point" in time, and then the drop-off in hot
pixels is significant statistically.
I'm sure the camera/ccd industry keeps such statistics? Anyone seen
any published info about this?
My C2100 does not pass the 2-second test, so I can't help w/this one.
Dean

Click to expand...

Perhaps Fuji's Quality Control standards are different, since I suspect they source their CCD's from the same company? BUT no one can say Fuji is better until there is a "test standard" in place. Read these 2 threads to see if you can agree with these ideas.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=926593

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=926786

I think standardized tests should be developed for low light/night shooting, so the camera manufacturers (will improve faster) and buyers can decide what's best for them.
Dean

AVROM MILLER said:

Dean said:

Do you own a digital w/no hot pixels at 2sec exposure? Please post
"in here" your model, and note "when" a hot pixel does appear
w/your camera after the 2 second test. I'm hoping to establish a
"base line" for various models as to what can be expected w/CCDs
without pixel problems at 2-seconds.
Perhaps there is a "cut off" time or trend to clue us in when a CCD
might pass a "set point" in time, and then the drop-off in hot
pixels is significant statistically.
I'm sure the camera/ccd industry keeps such statistics? Anyone seen
any published info about this?
My C2100 does not pass the 2-second test, so I can't help w/this one.
Dean

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Dean said:

Do you own a digital w/no hot pixels at 2sec exposure? Please post
"in here" your model, and note "when" a hot pixel does appear
w/your camera after the 2 second test. I'm hoping to establish a
"base line" for various models as to what can be expected w/CCDs
without pixel problems at 2-seconds.
Perhaps there is a "cut off" time or trend to clue us in when a CCD
might pass a "set point" in time, and then the drop-off in hot
pixels is significant statistically.
I'm sure the camera/ccd industry keeps such statistics? Anyone seen
any published info about this?
My C2100 does not pass the 2-second test, so I can't help w/this one.
Dean

Click to expand...

Hi Dean,
Here are my numbers.
c2100, manual mode, f2.8, ISO 100, lens cap on
No hot pixel areas until 2 sec.
At 2 sec 1:1 none visible; 16:1 one area medium dim
At 4 sec 1:1 one area; 16:1 2 gray areas start showing up, still dim

The above numbers are from additional black frame tests after my 2100 was a few days old. My initial testing, almost right out of the box, had 1 hot pixel area at 1 sec, 2 hot pixel areas at 2 sec, many at 4 secs, and hundreds at 8 secs. I still have some concern about the different results. If any one has any ideas about this, I'd like to see them.

JayM

Dear Dean,
I read both your post response and your suggested links.
please note that I applaud your efforts in behalf of all out
dc users and enthusiasts. I'm gald you agree with me that
a $700+ purchae should not be a game of Russian Roullete.
Be sure, the camera manufacturers are aware of this problem.

let's face it, most buyers aren't as savvy at the users onthis forum and are probably not even aware of a what a "hot", let alone "stuck" pixel is.
I think you would do us all a great service by sending this finished survey off

to Olympus with a cover letter (...in the interest of improving your excellent product...) with a few thousand signatures from users of all makes and models of digital cameras. Sooner or later the manufacturers will wake up. It's our duty to ourselves to make it happen sooner rather than later. Keep up the good work!!
Best wishes,
avrom miller

Dean said:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=926786
I think standardized tests should be developed for low light/night
shooting, so the camera manufacturers (will improve faster) and
buyers can decide what's best for them.
Dean

AVROM MILLER said:

Dean said:

Do you own a digital w/no hot pixels at 2sec exposure? Please post
"in here" your model, and note "when" a hot pixel does appear
w/your camera after the 2 second test. I'm hoping to establish a
"base line" for various models as to what can be expected w/CCDs
without pixel problems at 2-seconds.
Perhaps there is a "cut off" time or trend to clue us in when a CCD
might pass a "set point" in time, and then the drop-off in hot
pixels is significant statistically.
I'm sure the camera/ccd industry keeps such statistics? Anyone seen
any published info about this?
My C2100 does not pass the 2-second test, so I can't help w/this one.
Dean

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I am running a straight digital to digital flat panel monitor. It does not run an analog conversion. It is stunning for graphics, and reveals info that you have to work hard in Photoshop to reveal on a CRT monitor.
My 2100 Room Temperature
ISO = 100 ISO=100
Shutter 2 secs Shutter 16 secs
"0" pixels "4" visible pixels

Camera warmed up after taking several pictures & downloading.
ISO=400 ISO=400 ISO=400
shutter 1/2sec shutter 2 sec shutter=4 sec

"0" pixels "3" visible pixels "5" obvious pixels-numerous noise

ISO=400 ISO=400
shutter=6 sec shutter=10 sec
"10" bright/numerous dim Universe, but only few really bright ones.

I am happy with this camera. I wish for a ISO of 50 and dream of ISO of 25 in a camera like this.

Rodger said:

I am running a straight digital to digital flat panel monitor. It
does not run an analog conversion. It is stunning for graphics,
and reveals info that you have to work hard in Photoshop to reveal
on a CRT monitor.
My 2100 Room Temperature
ISO = 100 ISO=100
Shutter 2 secs Shutter 16 secs
"0" pixels "4" visible pixels

Camera warmed up after taking several pictures & downloading.
ISO=400 ISO=400 ISO=400
shutter 1/2sec shutter 2 sec shutter=4 sec
"0" pixels "3" visible pixels "5" obvious
pixels-numerous noise

ISO=400 ISO=400
shutter=6 sec shutter=10 sec
"10" bright/numerous dim Universe, but only few really
bright ones.

I am happy with this camera. I wish for a ISO of 50 and dream of
ISO of 25 in a camera like this.

Click to expand...

The above post deleted my spaces and messed up my columns, but hope you can add spaces and figure out the columns.

JayM said:

Dean said:

Do you own a digital w/no hot pixels at 2sec exposure? Please post
"in here" your model, and note "when" a hot pixel does appear
w/your camera after the 2 second test. I'm hoping to establish a
"base line" for various models as to what can be expected w/CCDs
without pixel problems at 2-seconds.
Perhaps there is a "cut off" time or trend to clue us in when a CCD
might pass a "set point" in time, and then the drop-off in hot
pixels is significant statistically.
I'm sure the camera/ccd industry keeps such statistics? Anyone seen
any published info about this?
My C2100 does not pass the 2-second test, so I can't help w/this one.
Dean

Click to expand...

Hi Dean,
Here are my numbers.
c2100, manual mode, f2.8, ISO 100, lens cap on
No hot pixel areas until 2 sec.
At 2 sec 1:1 none visible; 16:1 one area medium dim
At 4 sec 1:1 one area; 16:1 2 gray areas start showing up, still dim

The above numbers are from additional black frame tests after my
2100 was a few days old. My initial testing, almost right out of
the box, had 1 hot pixel area at 1 sec, 2 hot pixel areas at 2 sec,
many at 4 secs, and hundreds at 8 secs. I still have some concern
about the different results. If any one has any ideas about this,
I'd like to see them.

JayM

Click to expand...

Could the room temperature have been different from one test to the next? I had a similar problem, (which I mentioned somewhere in this thread). At 95 degrees F, I originally had hundreds of hot pixels at an iso 100, 8 second exposure. I cooled the camera to 65 degrees, and I had 5 hot pixels at 8 seconds.

Martin P. said:

JayM said:

Dean said:

Do you own a digital w/no hot pixels at 2sec exposure? Please post
"in here" your model, and note "when" a hot pixel does appear
w/your camera after the 2 second test. I'm hoping to establish a
"base line" for various models as to what can be expected w/CCDs
without pixel problems at 2-seconds.
Perhaps there is a "cut off" time or trend to clue us in when a CCD
might pass a "set point" in time, and then the drop-off in hot
pixels is significant statistically.
I'm sure the camera/ccd industry keeps such statistics? Anyone seen
any published info about this?
My C2100 does not pass the 2-second test, so I can't help w/this one.
Dean

Click to expand...

Hi Dean,
Here are my numbers.
c2100, manual mode, f2.8, ISO 100, lens cap on
No hot pixel areas until 2 sec.
At 2 sec 1:1 none visible; 16:1 one area medium dim
At 4 sec 1:1 one area; 16:1 2 gray areas start showing up, still dim

The above numbers are from additional black frame tests after my
2100 was a few days old. My initial testing, almost right out of
the box, had 1 hot pixel area at 1 sec, 2 hot pixel areas at 2 sec,
many at 4 secs, and hundreds at 8 secs. I still have some concern
about the different results. If any one has any ideas about this,
I'd like to see them.

JayM

Click to expand...

Could the room temperature have been different from one test to the
next? I had a similar problem, (which I mentioned somewhere in
this thread). At 95 degrees F, I originally had hundreds of hot
pixels at an iso 100, 8 second exposure. I cooled the camera to 65
degrees, and I had 5 hot pixels at 8 seconds.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant to say 85 degrees F for the higher temperature, not 95 degrees F. So that was a difference of 20 degrees, to go from hundreds of hot pixels to 5.

OK, I tested again and here are the results:

@100 ISO - no hot pixels at any speed

@200 ISO - 3 hot pixels at 8 seconds
16 at 10 seconds
loaded at 13 and 16 seconds

@400 ISO - 6 at 3.2 seconds
approx. 25 at 4 seconds
too many to count from 4 to 10 seconds
more hot pixels than black ones at 13 and 16 seconds

Now what I'm wondering is, if I have to force the camera to make hot pixels by setting it to the worst possible settings (or the most useless, anyway), do I really care? Not really. I'm satisfied with the camera's performance.

Dave H.

Dean said:

Dave H. said:

I viewed the photos at 100% on the computer screen, not the camera.
The camera sat indoors at around 70 degrees all day. Does
aperature size affect it at all? Is this a miracle or what?

Click to expand...

Hi Dave, you, of course, made sure the lens cap/cover was on the
lens so you are "shooting blackness" -the dark. ;-)
Listen "to hear" and confirm the exposure times, as you can "count
off" as the exposure is made to hear the clicks/sounds at 2/4/6/8
seconds. Verify your ISO setting is 100, then try it at 200 and
400. You should DEFINATELY see something at ISO 400 and 6-8
seconds. Turn the lights off in your room to aid in the viewing too.
Report back.
Thanks.

Click to expand...

Martin P. said:

JayM said:

Dean said:

Do you own a digital w/no hot pixels at 2sec exposure? Please post
"in here" your model, and note "when" a hot pixel does appear
w/your camera after the 2 second test. I'm hoping to establish a
"base line" for various models as to what can be expected w/CCDs
without pixel problems at 2-seconds.
Perhaps there is a "cut off" time or trend to clue us in when a CCD
might pass a "set point" in time, and then the drop-off in hot
pixels is significant statistically.
I'm sure the camera/ccd industry keeps such statistics? Anyone seen
any published info about this?
My C2100 does not pass the 2-second test, so I can't help w/this one.
Dean

Click to expand...

Hi Dean,
Here are my numbers.
c2100, manual mode, f2.8, ISO 100, lens cap on
No hot pixel areas until 2 sec.
At 2 sec 1:1 none visible; 16:1 one area medium dim
At 4 sec 1:1 one area; 16:1 2 gray areas start showing up, still dim

The above numbers are from additional black frame tests after my
2100 was a few days old. My initial testing, almost right out of
the box, had 1 hot pixel area at 1 sec, 2 hot pixel areas at 2 sec,
many at 4 secs, and hundreds at 8 secs. I still have some concern
about the different results. If any one has any ideas about this,
I'd like to see them.

JayM

Click to expand...

Could the room temperature have been different from one test to the
next? I had a similar problem, (which I mentioned somewhere in
this thread). At 85(JM) degrees F, I originally had hundreds of hot
pixels at an iso 100, 8 second exposure. I cooled the camera to 65
degrees, and I had 5 hot pixels at 8 seconds.

Click to expand...

Martin,

There could have been. I did the first test within a short time after receiving the camera. It was delivered about 1:30 in the afternoon by Fedex. I'm in southern California (the SF valley) so it's not really winter here.(In fact the peach trees in Balboa park are blooming.) I had been tracking it and the package left the Fedex depot early in the morning, so it's possible the camera was warmed up in the back of the Fedex truck. I suspect their trucks are not air conditioned since they usually seem to drive with the doors open. A possibility.

I wonder if weak batteries might indirectly cause hot pixel areas. How old (to you) was your camera when you had the multitude of hot pixels?
JayM

Oh, BTW, i have a c-2100. Sorry.

Dave H.

Dave H. said:

@100 ISO - no hot pixels at any speed

@200 ISO - 3 hot pixels at 8 seconds
16 at 10 seconds
loaded at 13 and 16 seconds

@400 ISO - 6 at 3.2 seconds
approx. 25 at 4 seconds
too many to count from 4 to 10 seconds
more hot pixels than black ones at 13 and 16 seconds

Now what I'm wondering is, if I have to force the camera to make
hot pixels by setting it to the worst possible settings (or the
most useless, anyway), do I really care? Not really. I'm
satisfied with the camera's performance.

Dave H.

Dean said:

Dave H. said:

I viewed the photos at 100% on the computer screen, not the camera.
The camera sat indoors at around 70 degrees all day. Does
aperature size affect it at all? Is this a miracle or what?

Click to expand...

Hi Dave, you, of course, made sure the lens cap/cover was on the
lens so you are "shooting blackness" -the dark. ;-)
Listen "to hear" and confirm the exposure times, as you can "count
off" as the exposure is made to hear the clicks/sounds at 2/4/6/8
seconds. Verify your ISO setting is 100, then try it at 200 and
400. You should DEFINATELY see something at ISO 400 and 6-8
seconds. Turn the lights off in your room to aid in the viewing too.
Report back.
Thanks.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That's very interesting that a "digital input" monitor will display more imperfections than a reg-crt/non-dig input! Have you noticed this on more than one CRT? Anyone else can confirm this too?... this could be another reason "why" I'll need that portable. ;-)

Also, what is the advantage of having an ISO of 25 to 50 with a digital camera??? There is no "grain effect" w/lower ISO w/digital -correct??? So what is the advantage(s) of being able to shoot within that range -sorry, I'm not very experienced... so thanks for listing the advantages.
Dean

Rodger said:

I am running a straight digital to digital flat panel monitor. It
does not run an analog conversion. It is stunning for graphics,
and reveals info that you have to work hard in Photoshop to reveal
on a CRT monitor.
My 2100 Room Temperature
ISO = 100 ISO=100
Shutter 2 secs Shutter 16 secs
"0" pixels "4" visible pixels

Camera warmed up after taking several pictures & downloading.
ISO=400 ISO=400 ISO=400
shutter 1/2sec shutter 2 sec shutter=4 sec
"0" pixels "3" visible pixels "5" obvious
pixels-numerous noise

ISO=400 ISO=400
shutter=6 sec shutter=10 sec
"10" bright/numerous dim Universe, but only few really
bright ones.

I am happy with this camera. I wish for a ISO of 50 and dream of
ISO of 25 in a camera like this.

Click to expand...

How exactly would one go about "cleaning up" a hot pixel, anyway? Is this something that requires PhotoShop or another high-powered software package or can it be done with Camedia?

Dave H.

tko said:

My criteria w/b about 1/20 of a second. Why? because that's about
were you should switch to a tripod. Anything lower is really
considered a time exposure of objects (that had better not be
moving, unless it's a special effect). At this point you have to be
honest - how many of us routinely use a tripod to take picture-even
those of us that specialize in night or low light photography?

A few, sure, on special occasions, but 98% of the time it's going
to be 1/20th or faster shutter time.

Cleaning up a few second pixels every once and a while is no big
deal, in my opinion. Cleaning them up all the time is.

Click to expand...

I've been told Qimage can do this -a $35 dollar program that is especially good for printing. (I plan on trying and buying -but- I have not used it yet.) Also, this website http://www.mediachance.com/digicam/hotpixels.htm has a free program (I think it's free?) that is for removing hot pixels. ...and any other program that has a "clone" feature where you could copy nearby pixels over the hot one. You can do that in many programs and possibly Camedia has a clone feature???

There is another technique of taking a lens cap (dark/black) photo immediately after your original to capture the "current" hot pixel state and use this photo to eliminate the hot pixels in the original. I think it is called the dark frame subtraction technique, but here is a link to show some examples of this technique: http://www.carlngray.com.au/panorama/eclipse/index.htm

Let me know if you learn of another method, as I'll be having to do this to my low light/night photos due to hot pixels on my CCD.
Thanks.

Dave H. said:

Dave H.

tko said:

My criteria w/b about 1/20 of a second. Why? because that's about
were you should switch to a tripod. Anything lower is really
considered a time exposure of objects (that had better not be
moving, unless it's a special effect). At this point you have to be
honest - how many of us routinely use a tripod to take picture-even
those of us that specialize in night or low light photography?

A few, sure, on special occasions, but 98% of the time it's going
to be 1/20th or faster shutter time.

Cleaning up a few second pixels every once and a while is no big
deal, in my opinion. Cleaning them up all the time is.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I haven't noticed a difference with my low end laptop. But this 'straight through' digital monitor shows all the lowlight background info that can not be seen on a CRT. In Photoshop you can go in and bring it out, but not without making a mess of things. In the digital - analog conversion process something is lost, at least down in the 'noise level', very dim pixel info.

As to the ISO, I agree it is a compartive term. However, I've observed that in the lower ISO settings there is less noise than in the higher ISO range. So for very bright outdoor pictures, a 50 ISO will give much nicer colors with less noise, such as in a bright blue sky.

I have no PHD in this either, so I'm just speaking from what I've observed. It really bugs me to see a nice picture, but the clear blue sky is 'Noisy', and the higher the ISO setting the worse this seems to be.

JayM said:

Martin P. said:

JayM said:

Dean said:

Do you own a digital w/no hot pixels at 2sec exposure? Please post
"in here" your model, and note "when" a hot pixel does appear
w/your camera after the 2 second test. I'm hoping to establish a
"base line" for various models as to what can be expected w/CCDs
without pixel problems at 2-seconds.
Perhaps there is a "cut off" time or trend to clue us in when a CCD
might pass a "set point" in time, and then the drop-off in hot
pixels is significant statistically.
I'm sure the camera/ccd industry keeps such statistics? Anyone seen
any published info about this?
My C2100 does not pass the 2-second test, so I can't help w/this one.
Dean

Click to expand...

Hi Dean,
Here are my numbers.
c2100, manual mode, f2.8, ISO 100, lens cap on
No hot pixel areas until 2 sec.
At 2 sec 1:1 none visible; 16:1 one area medium dim
At 4 sec 1:1 one area; 16:1 2 gray areas start showing up, still dim

The above numbers are from additional black frame tests after my
2100 was a few days old. My initial testing, almost right out of
the box, had 1 hot pixel area at 1 sec, 2 hot pixel areas at 2 sec,
many at 4 secs, and hundreds at 8 secs. I still have some concern
about the different results. If any one has any ideas about this,
I'd like to see them.

JayM

Click to expand...

Could the room temperature have been different from one test to the
next? I had a similar problem, (which I mentioned somewhere in
this thread). At 85(JM) degrees F, I originally had hundreds of hot
pixels at an iso 100, 8 second exposure. I cooled the camera to 65
degrees, and I had 5 hot pixels at 8 seconds.

Click to expand...

Martin,
There could have been. I did the first test within a short time
after receiving the camera. It was delivered about 1:30 in the
afternoon by Fedex. I'm in southern California (the SF valley) so
it's not really winter here.(In fact the peach trees in Balboa park
are blooming.) I had been tracking it and the package left the
Fedex depot early in the morning, so it's possible the camera was
warmed up in the back of the Fedex truck. I suspect their trucks
are not air conditioned since they usually seem to drive with the
doors open. A possibility.

I wonder if weak batteries might indirectly cause hot pixel areas.
How old (to you) was your camera when you had the multitude of hot
pixels?
JayM

Click to expand...

Jay:

I was doing most of my testing with the AC adapter. My camera is 7 months old, but I never tested it for hot pixels before, at these long shutter speeds. I've never noticed any on darker pictures that I've taken, and at the high temperature, it doesn't have any at shutter speeds less than 1/2 second, which is what almost all of my pictures were taken at anyway.

So, although originally I was a little concerned with this, it really isn't affecting my pictures. And I also see that, by far, this is a problem with digital cameras in general, not just Olympus ones. This is an interesting post, and generates very useful data, but I hope it doesn't generate negative opinions about Olympus, when I assume it's going on with all Manufacturers, to some extent. And the worst part is, I see that some of those other digital cameras don't even have long shutter speeds. So if someone says their camera has no hot pixels, but the shutter speed only goes to 1/8 second, it's definately not a valid test.

Overall, I've been really happy with my C3000. Although I don't like to see any hot pixels on it, I'd still recommend it as an excellent choice for a digital.

Martin P.