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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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 $2 brush to remove the dust particles the bulb did not remove. What you do with your camera and your money is your business, what I do with mine is my business. If it didn't work, I would have felt like I was screwed, since it works, then I am happy. Jean PS Yes, I am from Canada, but my camera is from Japan, probably just like yours, does that mean only Japanese can say their cameras work? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Hahaha... Canada is the second largest country on the face of the planet!
That's like saying "You're from the USA... you must be working for NASA". You want to look at Nikon's own article on cleaning a low pass filter? http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin...ted=1053089297 See the part there that says "The use of a blower-brush is not recommended as the bristles may damage the filter ... Under no circumstances should the filter be touched or wiped." How does that tickle you? "MeMe" wrote in message news:43POd.61487$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 ... |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"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 ... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dust on sensor, Sensor Brush = hogwash solution? | MeMe | Digital Photography | 23 | February 12th 05 04:51 PM |
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 |