Dust on sensor, Sensor Brush = hogwash solution?

George wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

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.


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.)

Good point. See also http://tinyurl.com/66epq which I wrote some time ago.

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.

"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

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.

"Alan Adrian" wrote in message
...
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:
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

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 ---

wrote:

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...


Oh...*NOW* you tell me!

What's that? Speak up lad...






mike

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.