I would not be able to declare your camera\'s lenses as \"fungus free\" with the provided photos. Even close-up, back lit photos taken with the camera\'s lenses wide open might not reveal fungus that is readily visible to the naked eye.
The presence of desiccant in a storage container does not guarantee exclusion of moisture and likely would do little to lower humidity levels within the lens. In other words, the effects of previous exposure to moisture or a high humidity environment would probably not be precluded and only minimally reduced with the presence of desiccant. Desiccant has limited capacity to absorb moisture. There is a physical maximum amount of moisture it can absorb. Once it is saturated it no longer absorbs moisture so desiccant packs must be replaced on a regular basis. In a closed lens case it also depends on natural convective air movement in order for it to function. With positive air flow (think air conditioning) effectiveness is considerably improved.
Is it possible that you overlooked the reported fungus? Fine \"spidery\" fungus may only be visible with the right conditions (ie. lighting, angle, magnification etc...) and may also be limited to the outer edges of elements where it is less obvious to the naked eye. Personally, I believe that is more likely that the fungus was there and that you somehow overlooked it.
The answer is to have the buyer ship the camera back. You would need to make the buyer aware that you would need to inspect the camera for yourself before taking any action. This would have to be with the understanding that shipping costs would be at the buyer\'s expense in the event that fungus is not found.
Oct 10, 2009 at 07:26 AM
Previous versions of pengland's message #7622755 « Please Delete »
