Dust on sensor, Sensor Brush = hogwash solution?
 

I see the most recommended treatment /du jour/ for the vexing "dust
specks on sensor" with digital SLRs is a brush that is charged up by
spraying it with compressed air. Problem is, the company selling these
brushes is extorting money from people, IMO, by charging around $100 for
an item with a manufacture cost of pennies.

Their website (http://www.visibledust.com) states that an ordinary nylon
brush cannot be used for the following reasons:

"Sensor Brush™ has been designed from the start specifically as a
cleaning tool for delicate objects. There are many types of brushes in
the market but they are not designed to be sensor-cleaning tools. For
example, glues used in traditional brushes are quite destructive to the
surface of the ND filter glass or cover glass. The polymers contained in
many traditional brushes will cause a fatigued look on the glass due to
the staining of the sensor. There are also many deformities in the
brushes that are not visible by naked eyes. They can cause severe damage
by creating microscopic scratches, which after accumulating overtime
will create a fatigued look or catheter vision. We have done a lot of
research in these brushes to bring the highest quality products made for
the exact purpose of removing dust from delicate objects."

I think this is absolute hogwash!

- The glues used in synthetic brushes are in the ferrule, and will never
contact the sensor surface.

- Polymers (plastics) "staining" the sensor from an occasion light wipe
on the surface? Balderdash! Maybe -- MAYBE -- if you let the brush rest
for months against the sensor cover (also a plastic), some interaction
may occur, but I doubt it.

- Deformities in the brush not visible to the naked eye?! LOL! I have
inspected a typical nylon artist's brush with a microscope and I see
nary a "deformity" anywhere.

This "Sensor Brush (TM)" product will surely go down in the history of
photography as one of the worst scams of all time. How we are all going
to laugh in years to come!

I encourage everyone to go to an art supply store and buy a high quality
nylon brush for a couple of dollars, and a can of compressed air. Voila!

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:25:46 -0800, MeMe wrote:

I see the most recommended treatment /du jour/ for the vexing "dust
specks on sensor" with digital SLRs is a brush that is charged up by
spraying it with compressed air. Problem is, the company selling these
brushes is extorting money from people, IMO, by charging around $100 for
an item with a manufacture cost of pennies.

The only brushes that ever worked in an anti-static capacity
were for vinyl records and were treated with polonium.
-Rich

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:25:46 -0800, MeMe wrote:

I see the most recommended treatment /du jour/ for the vexing "dust
specks on sensor" with digital SLRs is a brush that is charged up by
spraying it with compressed air. Problem is, the company selling these
brushes is extorting money from people, IMO, by charging around $100 for
an item with a manufacture cost of pennies.
The photography market has always been rife with
fraud. I once saw a darkroom faucet "adapter" that
cost $50 and split one faucet output into two.
Turns out, it was a hardware store hose splitter
worth about $6.00.
-Rich

"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:25:46 -0800, MeMe wrote:

I see the most recommended treatment /du jour/ for the vexing "dust
specks on sensor" with digital SLRs is a brush that is charged up by
spraying it with compressed air. Problem is, the company selling these
brushes is extorting money from people, IMO, by charging around $100 for
an item with a manufacture cost of pennies.

The only brushes that ever worked in an anti-static capacity
were for vinyl records and were treated with polonium.
-Rich

And those ionized the air around them (i.e., made the air electrically
conductive).
Now, since you have to have your dSLR POWERED to have the mirror up
while cleaning the sensor, are you sure you want to introduce randomly
conductive
electrical paths?

George

Alan Adrian wrote:

I am looking forward to the day that the research gets into the
public domain (someone else does some looking and reports it to the
Internet),and a known source for the appropriate (clean) brush...

A simple experiment you could do at home is take a dusty surface and
lightly brush it once with a grounded nylon brush (ground it by touching
it to a bare metal source) from an art store, then visually ascertain
the amount of dust remaining after the stroke.

Then repeat the experiment with the same brush in another area, but this
time "charge" the brush electrostatically with a long blast of air from
a can of compressed air.

Theoretically, the "charged" brush should do a better job of lifting
dust by attracting dust particles.

Let us know the outcome ...

"MeMe" wrote in message
news:mfCOd.57797$mt.13237@fed1read03...
SNIP
I think this is absolute hogwash!

Nobody is forcing you to buy their brushes. They work as promised on
my sensors.
SNIP

I encourage everyone to go to an art supply store and buy a high
quality nylon brush for a couple of dollars, and a can of compressed
air. Voila!

Why don't you take your own advice?

Bart

Jason P. wrote:
What I was referring to was not the Sensor Brush, but the alternative
he posted. Low pass filters are extremely fragile brush bristles of
any kind can damage the surface.

I see you are posting from Canada, which just coincidentally is the home
of visibledust.com. I'm not implying that you are a sock puppet for that
company, but it /is/ an interesting coincidence.

You say that "bristle brushes" can damage low pass sensors. You are
spreading FUD, aren't you? A hog's hair bristle brush used for oil
painting is indeed a harsh item, but we are not discussing that sort of
"bristle" brush here. We are taking about soft nylon hairs, such as may
be found in synthetic brushes.

So, now, on what basis do you state that soft nylon hairs can "damage" a
plastic filter? I'm just tickled pink that you are here, saying these
things. Please continue ...

Jason P. wrote:

Although you make good points about this product...

What points? It was just a rant; there was no substantiation of his
claims. If I "encouraged" you to stick your foot into a wood chipper,
would you do it?

I would never recommend using compressed air in the chamber of a
digital
camera.

Oh no!

If you use an aerosol/compressed air it becomes very easy get liquid
proplent on the CCD.

The people who make these cans of air usually take the time to print a
set of instructions on their sides. Have you read them? In addition
to being told not to stick the nozzle into your ear, or allow young,
impressionable children or otherwise clueless professional
photographers unsupervised use, there is the important one: "Do not
shake the can."

To this I add, if it is not obvious: do not aim-and-blow. Instead,
blow and bring the object into the flow. This serves the "do not
shake" rule, as well as cleaning out the nozzle of whatever condensates
that may have gathered there.

I also usually recommend against using a brush of any kind... as the
bristles can damage the extremely delicate filters that sit overtop
of the
sensor.

http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/ama...ed/t8_4_2.html

Compare hardness of typical plastics and glass. Short of using the
brush as a chisel, or brushing really hard knowing there is further
(harder) crap on the surface, there is basically nothing to worry
about.

Best idea - a blower... which you can get for a few bucks from any
camera store.

It is essential to remove dangerous stuff from the surface -- things
that can scratch it if dragged across pressure of a cleaning. But as a
full sensor clean, it simply doesn't work. Next suggestion?

Bart van der Wolf wrote:

"MeMe" wrote in message

I think this is absolute hogwash!


Nobody is forcing you to buy their brushes. They work as promised on
my sensors. SNIP

Guess which asshole spent $100 on a $2 brush? LOL!

MeMe wrote:
Bart van der Wolf wrote:

"MeMe" wrote in message

I think this is absolute hogwash!


Nobody is forcing you to buy their brushes. They work as promised on
my sensors. SNIP

Guess which asshole spent $100 on a $2 brush? LOL!

And that would make someone who stuck a two dollar brush into a two thousand
dollar camera a......?
--
http://www.rupert.net/~solar
Return address supplied by 'spammotel'
http://www.spammotel.com