![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 $100 for an item with a manufacture cost of pennies. The only brushes that ever worked in an anti-static capacity were for vinyl records and were treated with polonium. -Rich And those ionized the air around them (i.e., made the air electrically conductive). Now, since you have to have your dSLR POWERED to have the mirror up while cleaning the sensor, are you sure you want to introduce randomly conductive electrical paths? George |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Alan Adrian wrote:
I am looking forward to the day that the research gets into the public domain (someone else does some looking and reports it to the Internet),and a known source for the appropriate (clean) brush... A simple experiment you could do at home is take a dusty surface and lightly brush it once with a grounded nylon brush (ground it by touching it to a bare metal source) from an art store, then visually ascertain the amount of dust remaining after the stroke. Then repeat the experiment with the same brush in another area, but this time "charge" the brush electrostatically with a long blast of air from a can of compressed air. Theoretically, the "charged" brush should do a better job of lifting dust by attracting dust particles. Let us know the outcome ... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "MeMe" wrote in message news:mfCOd.57797$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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 ... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
20D and dust spots | Lester Wareham | Digital Photography | 35 | January 2nd 05 10:53 AM |
20D and dust spots | Lester Wareham | Digital Photography | 0 | December 31st 04 01:25 PM |
Solution to dust causing spots in Nikon D70 ? | Dan DeConinck of PixelSmart | 35mm Photo Equipment | 8 | November 10th 04 02:29 PM |
Solution to dust causing spots in Nikon D70 ? | Dan DeConinck of PixelSmart | Digital Photography | 4 | November 9th 04 08:57 PM |
Minilabs, Dust, and Costco | Greg Lovern | Film & Labs | 1 | February 19th 04 11:25 AM |