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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 --- |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 $2 brush? LOL! And that would make someone who stuck a two dollar brush into a two thousand dollar camera a......? .... a smart guy, if he knows what he's doing. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"MeMe" a écrit dans le message de news:knVOd.63072$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 $2 brush to remove the dust particles the bulb did not remove. What you do with your camera and your money is your business, what I do with mine is my business. If it didn't work, I would have felt like I was screwed, since it works, then I am happy. Jean PS Yes, I am from Canada, but my camera is from Japan, probably just like yours, does that mean only Japanese can say their cameras work? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Hahaha... Canada is the second largest country on the face of the planet!
That's like saying "You're from the USA... you must be working for NASA". You want to look at Nikon's own article on cleaning a low pass filter? http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin...ted=1053089297 See the part there that says "The use of a blower-brush is not recommended as the bristles may damage the filter ... Under no circumstances should the filter be touched or wiped." How does that tickle you? "MeMe" wrote in message news:43POd.61487$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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |