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

In the case of a Sensor Brush, the air is to charge and clean the brush ...
it's used away from the camera.

I myself view the Sensor Brush as a case of someone trying to capitilize on
a bit of research into what works best, and some added value of clean room
(I hope) techniques in packaging... But If 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...

So that we can pay the $3 worth of materials and shipping, instead of the
gross amount currently charged.

Al..

"Jason P." wrote in message
...
I would never recommend using compressed air in the chamber of a digital
camera. If you use an aerosol/compressed air it becomes very easy get
liquid proplent on the CCD.

Jason P. wrote:

Although you make good points about this product... I would never recommend
using compressed air in the chamber of a digital camera. If you use an
aerosol/compressed air it becomes very easy get liquid proplent on the CCD.
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. Best idea - a blower... which you can get for a few bucks from any
camera store.

Better to vacuum. Blowers move things around and drive particles ever deeper
into the camera to cause future problems or merely come back and repeat what
they were doing. A very low pressure vacuum, mind you, with a light brushing to
dislodge particles.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:
Jason P. wrote:

Although you make good points about this product... I would never
recommend using compressed air in the chamber of a digital camera. If
you use an aerosol/compressed air it becomes very easy get liquid
proplent on the CCD. 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. Best idea - a blower... which you can
get for a few bucks from any camera store.


Better to vacuum. Blowers move things around and drive particles ever
deeper into the camera to cause future problems or merely come back and
repeat what they were doing. A very low pressure vacuum, mind you, with
a light brushing to dislodge particles.


When you vacuum, where does the air come from? Yes, I know it comes from
inside the camera. When you pull that air out, it gets replaced with air
from somewhere else. i.e. You don't actually create a vacuum inside the
camera. Why wouldn't this replacement air also contain dust? I would
think it would, unless you were doing this in a dust free room.

So, why is vacuuming any better than blowing?

Clyde

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Jason P. wrote:

Although you make good points about this product... I would never
recommend
using compressed air in the chamber of a digital camera. If you use an
aerosol/compressed air it becomes very easy get liquid proplent on the
CCD.
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. Best idea - a blower... which you can get for a few bucks from
any
camera store.

Better to vacuum. Blowers move things around and drive particles ever
deeper
into the camera to cause future problems or merely come back and repeat
what
they were doing. A very low pressure vacuum, mind you, with a light
brushing to
dislodge particles.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Not a bad idea BUT you might want to get one of those little ESD vacuums for
computer
use... Reason is that airflow past some materials (such as G10, circuit
board material) will
create a static charge. (ESD vacuums don't ionize the air, the nozzles and
hoses are slightly
conductive so that a charge can't build up.)

George

Clyde wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

Better to vacuum. Blowers move things around and drive particles ever
deeper into the camera to cause future problems or merely come back
and repeat what they were doing. A very low pressure vacuum, mind
you, with a light brushing to dislodge particles.


When you vacuum, where does the air come from? Yes, I know it comes from
inside the camera. When you pull that air out, it gets replaced with air
from somewhere else. i.e. You don't actually create a vacuum inside the
camera. Why wouldn't this replacement air also contain dust? I would
think it would, unless you were doing this in a dust free room.

So, why is vacuuming any better than blowing?

It's a good question, but think about it. If you 'blow' then as I said, you
just move things around, usually deeper in the camera. Further, if you blow
something out, then something has to replace it (no different than a vacuum).

Some time ago I described in detail how to make a simple low pressure vacuum
system that would also reduce ambient dust from entering the camera. (Note that
dist does not settle easilly when there is airflow).

http://tinyurl.com/66epq

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

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 ...