Thats a tough call, down here in the South with the pollen, dust and rain almost everyday with the occasional Hurricane thrown in it's a toss between a sweat soaked T- shirt and Bounty............
You do realize Scott that it's not the brand that's important but the physical size of the tissue (Those in the know refer to this as 'tissue format' while those on the outside looking in will call it ' tissue crop'.) Some would argue (and go on and on and on and on) that size matters versus those who say the actual ability of the tissue to collect fine details of dirt and get the job done is more important. It is said that a larger tissue, which has full lens capability, is superior simply because it's bigger. But it has been shown that there is some loss of picker-upper ability at the edges which results in poor edge-to-edge performance especially on wide angle lenses. But experienced users know that the smaller tissue will actually do the job better as it has superior performance across the entire tissue.
The question that needs to be asked is, in the end, does size really matter as long as the dirt, grime, and nasties are transfered to the tissue? Will most even notice? Some will argue it does, some will argue is doesn't. Who is right? Who is wrong?
You realize Scott you've opened up a can of worms here that may never be decided even in a 120+ exchanges.
Be at peace my friends and may the tissues be with you.
grmedhat1 wrote:
You do realize Scott that it's not the brand that's important but the physical size of the tissue (Those in the know refer to this as 'tissue format' while those on the outside looking in will call it ' tissue crop'.) Some would argue (and go on and on and on and on) that size matters versus those who say the actual ability of the tissue to collect fine details of dirt and get the job done is more important. It is said that a larger tissue, which has full lens capability, is superior simply because it's bigger. But it has been shown that there is some loss of picker-upper ability at the edges which results in poor edge-to-edge performance especially on wide angle lenses. But experienced users know that the smaller tissue will actually do the job better as it has superior performance across the entire tissue.
The question that needs to be asked is, in the end, does size really matter as long as the dirt, grime, and nasties are transfered to the tissue? Will most even notice? Some will argue it does, some will argue is doesn't. Who is right? Who is wrong?
You realize Scott you've opened up a can of worms here that may never be decided even in a 120+ exchanges.
Be at peace my friends and may the tissues be with you....Show more →
Watch out Garry, I feel a tissue flame war comin' on
Al.
Real pros use single-ply Scott. Only rich amateurs go with the (supposedly better) full-frame solutions such as Bounty.
What you have to realize is that "full-frame" is a fallacy. Each format has its pluses and minuses. While the "Scott-Charmin" format is perfectly fine for the majority of uses, I'm certainly not going to pooh-pooh the folks who opt for the medium format "Kleenex-Puffs" solution or the large-format Bounty. Over the years the technology has improved, so that the smaller formats are now doing the same job that we used to need the larger formats to accomplish.
However, those who choose 2-ply as opposed to single-ply are obviously un-informed idiots.
...oh, and I know a guy whose cousin's girlfriend's brother was at a party where he met a guy who knows a tissue-paper engineer at Scott, and he says to watch for an announcement this fall. He wouldn't tell me what it is, but it's going to be huge - he says it's going to leave all the other tissue suppliers far behind.
Seriously, my favorite lens cleaner is a mirco-fiber cloth. Wash it with dish soap (NOT dishwasher detergent), rinse in distilled H2O. Lasts nearly forever, and picks up dust and even fingerprints.
genghis45 wrote:
The question is, do Scott Tissues have a 1.5 magnifcation factor?
Scott Wong
Good question Scott. I'm not familiar with the Scott brand but to me the size of the tissue doesn't matter and is irrelevent. Different tissue formats simply have a different FOS (Field of Swipe)
On second thought, you should stay away from Marcel. If you look at in under a microscope, you can see that it contains a gritty looking substance, probably pine bark. It almost looks like grain in film, or digital noise. It's an uncanny resemblance.
genghis45 wrote:
Can somebody recommend the best lens tissue for my Nikons? I'm having a hard time choosing between Scott and Marcel toilet paper.
Scott Wong
If you're willing to save a few pennies I believe the used Scott tissue holds up better than Marcel. Just make sure you buy used with a couple clean corners. I'm sure some of the better eBay sellers will have pictures.
Man oh man are you guys in luck. My cousin Jim is in town for the " Bronze Blues and Brewsfest" this weekend. He has the most important job in the world; he makes toilet paper at a mill in Albany, OR. He stated that there are many differences between the grades of toilet paper his company manufactures. He suggested that we purchase a non-scented and non-lotioned premium paper for commercial use. Top quality and much less expensive. It will scratch lenses much less than the bargain varieties. All lenses will have the same edge to edge roughness when cleaned, be they Carl Zeiss, Canon or Nikon. He ought to know, he is one half Japanese and one half German.
