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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dust on sensor, Sensor Brush = hogwash solution?
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. Their website (http://www.visibledust.com) states that an ordinary nylon brush cannot be used for the following reasons: "Sensor Brush™ has been designed from the start specifically as a cleaning tool for delicate objects. There are many types of brushes in the market but they are not designed to be sensor-cleaning tools. For example, glues used in traditional brushes are quite destructive to the surface of the ND filter glass or cover glass. The polymers contained in many traditional brushes will cause a fatigued look on the glass due to the staining of the sensor. There are also many deformities in the brushes that are not visible by naked eyes. They can cause severe damage by creating microscopic scratches, which after accumulating overtime will create a fatigued look or catheter vision. We have done a lot of research in these brushes to bring the highest quality products made for the exact purpose of removing dust from delicate objects." I think this is absolute hogwash! - The glues used in synthetic brushes are in the ferrule, and will never contact the sensor surface. - Polymers (plastics) "staining" the sensor from an occasion light wipe on the surface? Balderdash! Maybe -- MAYBE -- if you let the brush rest for months against the sensor cover (also a plastic), some interaction may occur, but I doubt it. - Deformities in the brush not visible to the naked eye?! LOL! I have inspected a typical nylon artist's brush with a microscope and I see nary a "deformity" anywhere. This "Sensor Brush (TM)" product will surely go down in the history of photography as one of the worst scams of all time. How we are all going to laugh in years to come! 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! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 only brushes that ever worked in an anti-static capacity were for vinyl records and were treated with polonium. -Rich |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. -Rich |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"RichA" wrote in message ... 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 only brushes that ever worked in an anti-static capacity were for vinyl records and were treated with polonium. -Rich And those ionized the air around them (i.e., made the air electrically conductive). Now, since you have to have your dSLR POWERED to have the mirror up while cleaning the sensor, are you sure you want to introduce randomly conductive electrical paths? George |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Jason P. wrote:
Although you make good points about this product... 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. 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. Best idea - a blower... which you can get for a few bucks from any camera store. 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. -- -- 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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Browne wrote:
Jason P. wrote: Although you make good points about this product... 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. 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. Best idea - a blower... which you can get for a few bucks from any camera store. 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? Clyde |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Browne" wrote in message ... Jason P. wrote: Although you make good points about this product... 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. 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. Best idea - a blower... which you can get for a few bucks from any camera store. 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. -- -- 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. 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.) George |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 -- -- 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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Adrian wrote:
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... A simple experiment you could do at home is take a dusty surface and lightly brush it once with a grounded nylon brush (ground it by touching it to a bare metal source) from an art store, then visually ascertain the amount of dust remaining after the stroke. Then repeat the experiment with the same brush in another area, but this time "charge" the brush electrostatically with a long blast of air from a can of compressed air. Theoretically, the "charged" brush should do a better job of lifting dust by attracting dust particles. Let us know the outcome ... |
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 |