> Hey Bill,
>
> There is a 2.5" screen on the back, but because this is an SLR style
> camera, it has to be held up to the head to "shoot", because you look
> directly through the optical viewfinder. The screen is always off
> when taking the picture.
>
> I hear you - I don't feel anything from using the camera, and most
> people here so far have said they probably wouldn't worry about it.
> It may not even go as high as it shows, because it's an outdated
> meter. But - like I said in my last reply to someone else, I'd still
> rather shield it.
>
> Best,
>
> R.
>
>
> --- In [hidden email] <eSens%40yahoogroups.com>, "Bill Bruno"
> <wbruno@...> wrote:
> >
> > I have heard of people reacting to cameras.
> >
> > What's probably important is the field inside your skull,
> > i.e. try to put the meter where you brain is, not right up
> > to the camera. But I would not want 3 milligauss even.
> > Short exposure is better than long, but pulses can be bad.
> >
> > Having a screen on the back may be better, although a smaller
> > screen could be safer compared to the new big ones.
> > Bill
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 6:19 PM, rticleone <rticleone@...> wrote:
> >
> > > I have really gotten into photography in the last couple of years.
> > > With the advent of digital cameras, I am able to take pictures without
> > > dealing with developing chemicals, or the cost of many takes in film
> > > to keep one shot.
> > >
> > > I was recently gifted (birthday gifted) a Digital SLR Camera. It
> > > works very well and takes great pictures.
> > >
> > > First thing I did was check it's EMF output. Very low electrical
> > > fields. That can be dealt with simply. Great!, I thought.
> > >
> > > Then I check it's magnetic fields. And I thought, "sh*t!". Because
> > > naturally whenever the lens focuses automatically, or the shutter
> > > opens to take a picture, there is a burst of a magnetic field from the
> > > motor. I can't BELIEVE I didn't think of this before. Gah...
> > >
> > > It jumps to about 35 milligauss on average (meter up against the
> > > camera, just like the face of whoever's using it - this is the kind
> > > where you look through the viewfinder, it's not a point and shoot
> > > where you use the screen).
> > >
> > > Do I have reason to be concerned about these bursts of magnetic
> > > fields? I mean, it's not constantly against my head, and they last for
> > > perhaps a second or less at a time, only when the shutter fires. I
> > > can even get away from the motor focusing the lens most of the time by
> > > using manual focus and adjusting it by hand.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, I can't just take this thing apart and try and shield
> > > the motor from the inside, myself. There is a very thin and flexible
> > > foil called Met Glas that sounds like it could be used for such a
> > > purpose, but it's the matter of getting it inside that's the issue.
> > >
> > > Maybe I can find a technician who's willing to do it?...Hmm...
> > >
> > > I can theoretically shield some parts of the camera from the outside
> > > with this material.
> > >
> > > But - what are your thoughts on these brief magnetic fields?
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > R.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>