A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dust on sensor, Sensor Brush = hogwash solution?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 11th 05, 05:40 AM
DoN. Nichols
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
RichA wrote:
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.


Even more rife with fraud is the high-end audiophile
marketplace. There are companies charging several hundred US dollars
*each* for wooden knobs for your preamp and amplifier, with the claim
that the wood makes them *sound* better. :-)

And the amazingly expensive power outlet strips, wall sockets,
and plugs, which claim to affect the sound output (without bothering to
replace all the wiring from the outlet back to the power transformer on
the street with silver wire of heavier gauge, which might have a *tiny*
effect on the sound, if only by providing more stable voltage, isolating
it from the varying loads in the house (but still no protection from
*external* variations. :-)

And the magic crystals which simply have to be put somewhere
between the amplifier and the speakers (not really *connected* to
anything).

When you pay enough (e.g. too much) for something, you are more
willing to believe that it did something beneficial than to believe
that you are a fool. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
  #13  
Old February 11th 05, 06:49 AM
MeMe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ken Davey wrote:
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......?


.... a smart guy, if he knows what he's doing.
  #14  
Old February 11th 05, 07:10 AM
jean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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?


  #15  
Old February 11th 05, 08:41 AM
Jason P.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 ...



  #16  
Old February 11th 05, 01:59 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #17  
Old February 11th 05, 05:58 PM
MeMe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?
  #18  
Old February 11th 05, 06:20 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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...

  #19  
Old February 11th 05, 06:25 PM
Sheldon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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 ...





  #20  
Old February 11th 05, 06:35 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
20D and dust spots Lester Wareham Digital Photography 35 January 2nd 05 11:53 AM
20D and dust spots Lester Wareham Digital Photography 0 December 31st 04 02:25 PM
Solution to dust causing spots in Nikon D70 ? Dan DeConinck of PixelSmart 35mm Photo Equipment 8 November 10th 04 03:29 PM
Solution to dust causing spots in Nikon D70 ? Dan DeConinck of PixelSmart Digital Photography 4 November 9th 04 09:57 PM
Minilabs, Dust, and Costco Greg Lovern Film & Labs 1 February 19th 04 12:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.