Dust on sensor, Sensor Brush = hogwash solution?

"MeMe" a écrit dans le message de
news:knVOd.63072$mt.54939@fed1read03...
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!

Well, count me in the asshole group, for some weird reason, I did not want
to dunk a swab in liquid and streak it across MY camera's sensor nor did I
want to use a $2 brush to remove the dust particles the bulb did not remove.
What you do with your camera and your money is your business, what I do with
mine is my business. If it didn't work, I would have felt like I was
screwed, since it works, then I am happy.

Jean

PS Yes, I am from Canada, but my camera is from Japan, probably just like
yours, does that mean only Japanese can say their cameras work?

Hahaha... Canada is the second largest country on the face of the planet!
That's like saying "You're from the USA... you must be working for NASA".

You want to look at Nikon's own article on cleaning a low pass filter?

http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin...ted=1053089297

See the part there that says "The use of a blower-brush is not recommended
as the bristles may damage the filter ... Under no circumstances should the
filter be touched or wiped."

How does that tickle you?

"MeMe" wrote in message
news:43POd.61487$mt.19613@fed1read03...
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 ...

In rec.photo.digital Jason P. wrote:
What I was referring to was not the Sensor Brush, but the alternative he
posted. Low pass filters are extremely fragile

Lithium Niobate has a hardness of about 5 Mohs, which is a little bit
less than optical glass or a knife blade at about 5.5. No, I'm not
recommending anyone attempt sensor cleaning for themselves, but
"extremely fragile" is going too far.

Andrew.

Alan Browne wrote:
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


If you blow, you move particles around. I understand that. I'm just
saying that sucking should also move particles around. Any movement of
air inside your camera would move particles around. Then again, that is
the point - isn't it? You are trying to move particles off of your sensor.

You have a creative method to control the amount of air that is moving,
but I don't see the point. If you blow or suck at different rates, you
still have to move air to move the particles. High speed air movement
just does it faster than low speed air movement.

I'm sure that very low speed air movement (blowing or sucking) will move
some particles off of your sensor. If you don't move the air fast, those
particles aren't likely to be moved far. That would protect them from
going deep into those mythically dangerous places deep into your camera.

The question is, do they move far enough? Is the air movement hard
enough to move all the particles, even ones that are semi-stuck on the
sensor? If you move enough air to move the particles, what is to stop
other particles from moving back on the sensor? I know that dust doesn't
settle easily when there is air flow, but at some point the air has to
stop flowing. (Hum, there's an idea... continuous air flow across the
sensor.) When it does stop, wouldn't dust resettle?

Therefore, I still don't see how sucking is any better than blowing. I
also don't see how either of them removes all the dust particles off the
sensor. Well, unless you do this in a dust-free environment - which I
certainly do not have.

Clyde

Jason P. wrote:
Hahaha... Canada is the second largest country on the face of the
planet! That's like saying "You're from the USA... you must be
working for NASA".

Not quite. Canada's large land mass has nothing to do with its small
population of 25 million people.

You want to look at Nikon's own article on cleaning a low pass
filter?

[snip]


See the part there that says "The use of a blower-brush is not
recommended as the bristles may damage the filter ... Under no
circumstances should the filter be touched or wiped."

How does that tickle you?

1) That means you absolutely discourage the use of the Canadian "Sensor
Brush(TM)" product. Am I right?

2) How about all the people that find the blower method (recommended by
Nikon) to be ineffective? What is their solution? A trip to the service
center?

3) Do you realize that gently drawing fine nylon hairs across a sensor
is not the same as stabbing a blower brush's bristles into the sensor,
as would happen if you held a blower brush close to the sensor and
started pumping on the bellows?

Jason P. wrote:

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.

Do you realize how many cameras come back to camera shops with crap
all over
the CCD because some idiot was told to point a can of compressed air
onto
the sensor? You give people too much credit for use of common sense.
Telling
someone blindly to clean the inside of their camera with an aerosol
is
irresponsible.

Do you realize I think you are a FUDster?

www.google.com: define:FUD

Do you also realize your claims about the sensor being "extremely
fragile" are total bunk? Your implicit accusation that someone --
anyone -- here has "[told] someone [to] blindly [...] clean the inside
of their camera with an aerosol" is a complete misrepresentation, if
not a flat out lie?

With this in mind, please excuse me if I do not initially believe it
when you suggest "many cameras come back to camera shops with crap all
over the CCD" and so forth. Maybe this is true, but you are in
"MeMe"'s position now: you'll have to document your claims before I'll
consider accepting them. Actually, that is a bit of a slight of
"MeMe", since at least there is some cogent physics on his side...

"Jason P." wrote in message
...
Hahaha... Canada is the second largest country on the face of the planet!
That's like saying "You're from the USA... you must be working for NASA".

You want to look at Nikon's own article on cleaning a low pass filter?

http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin...ted=1053089297

See the part there that says "The use of a blower-brush is not recommended
as the bristles may damage the filter ... Under no circumstances should
the filter be touched or wiped."

How does that tickle you?

They also acknowledge there are wipes and fluids available to clean the CCD,
but if you damage the sensor it will void your warranty. Think about it.
How do you think Nikon cleans the camera when you send it in? They use
wipes and fluids. You just have to be confident that you can do it
yourself, and understand the liabilities of doing this yourself. So far,
all I've had to use is a hand blower, but I'm prepared to do more, within
reason, if I have to.

This a bit like owning a car. The owner's manual will tell you to take the
car to the dealer to do pretty much anything except put gas in it. Some
people do, many people maintain their car by themselves. Obviously, most of
us would never attempt an engine overhaul, but plugs and filters are not
that difficult if you have good instructions. And yes, you could scratch
the windshield and paint if you don't know the basics of how to wash a car.



"MeMe" wrote in message
news:43POd.61487$mt.19613@fed1read03...
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 ...

jean wrote:

Well, count me in the asshole group, for some weird reason, I did not
want
to dunk a swab in liquid and streak it across MY camera's sensor

The technique works fine for me. In fact, this is what Canon itself
apparently does -- after one cleaning I had them do, I could see (at
f/64) some just barely perceptible evidence of streaking on the sensor.

nor
did I
want to use a $2 brush to remove the dust particles the bulb did not
remove.
What you do with your camera and your money is your business, what I
do with
mine is my business. If it didn't work, I would have felt like I was
screwed, since it works, then I am happy.

But "MeMe" (and myself) still reserve the right to laugh at suckers.
And after reviewing some of "Visible Dust's" promotional materials, the
"snake oil" alarms were going off fairly loud. $50 (or whatever) for a
nylon brush? Seriously?

Unlike "MeMe" though, I'm not laughing yet because first someone has to
prove you are a sucker. My sensor has a few blobs on it (slightly
visible at f/8) ... maybe a walk to the local art store is in order.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:58:56 -0800, MeMe wrote:

Jason P. wrote:
Hahaha... Canada is the second largest country on the face of the
planet! That's like saying "You're from the USA... you must be
working for NASA".

Not quite. Canada's large land mass has nothing to do with its small
population of 25 million people.

snip

Well ... in the interest of accuracy, between 32-33 million, actually.

And not all of us are small. :-)

Scott B

Clyde wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
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.



snip

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


If you blow, you move particles around. I understand that. I'm just
saying that sucking should also move particles around. Any movement of
air inside your camera would move particles around. Then again, that
is the point - isn't it? You are trying to move particles off of your
sensor.
You have a creative method to control the amount of air that is
moving, but I don't see the point. If you blow or suck at different
rates, you still have to move air to move the particles. High speed
air movement just does it faster than low speed air movement.


snip

Therefore, I still don't see how sucking is any better than blowing. I
also don't see how either of them removes all the dust particles off
the sensor. Well, unless you do this in a dust-free environment -
which I certainly do not have.


I use a blower with a bulb about 1.5 inches in diameter. I've been able
to do the squeeze part (blow) with snoot in a position to blow on the
sensor, and the release part (suck) away from the field of operation. It
takes quite a bit of time/squeezing to make me believe I've done as much
as I can with that tool/technique.

I also enlist gravity, holding the camera with the gaping hole facing
down. Every little 32 f/s/s helps.

Works good so far. I anticipate with anxious angst the day it becomes
necessary to (shudder) _touch_ the sensor with Plan B's $200/in² brush,
and may never come to terms with Plan C, using a Copper-something
_fluid_ to *scrub* the sensor (aaarrgh!).

By the way: Does anyone know for certain what method the Factory
Technician will use when I chicken out completely and send it in for
service?


--
Frank ess

"Because of the Swiss Cheese nature of everyone's life experience and
education, the Whoosh Bird can drop a load on anyone's head, without
warning." -Albrecht Einstein