Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dust on sensor, Sensor Brush = hogwash solution?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 12:25:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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 Brushâ„¢ 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!
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 8:06:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:25:46 -0800, MeMe <ewffff@ef.com> 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
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 8:08:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:25:46 -0800, MeMe <ewffff@ef.com> 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
Related resources
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 8:44:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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.

> 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!
February 10, 2005 10:58:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:ngcm01ddn1vg4m83bda488mv86va44p60h@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:25:46 -0800, MeMe <ewffff@ef.com> 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
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 1:03:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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.
February 10, 2005 1:03:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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
February 10, 2005 2:31:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:cuft4j$hvs$3@inews.gazeta.pl...
> 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
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 2:58:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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.
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 3:05:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

George wrote:

> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> 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.
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 5:20:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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." <pillowhead@canada.com> wrote in message
news:LVGOd.6295$Sx6.980681@read2.cgocable.net...
>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.
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 5:20:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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 ...
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 5:52:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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" <ara__@SPAMNOT.wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:420b5fb0$0$57523$cd19a363@news.wanadoo.nl...
> 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 $3 worth of materials and shipping, instead of the
> gross amount currently charged.
>
> Al..
>
> "Jason P." <pillowhead@canada.com> wrote in message
> news:LVGOd.6295$Sx6.980681@read2.cgocable.net...
>>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.
>
>
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 5:52:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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 ...
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 10:40:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"MeMe" <ewffff@ef.com> 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
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 2:40:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <bicm01llssd5r035c4rg3ejrouc7du6b2c@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:25:46 -0800, MeMe <ewffff@ef.com> 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: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | 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 ---
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 5:41:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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/nikonusa.cfg/php/e...

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" <ewffff@ef.com> 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 ...
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 8:25:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com 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
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 11:58:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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?
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 1:25:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jason P." <pillowhead@canada.com> wrote in message
news:VkZOd.21849$m22.6865@read1.cgocable.net...
> 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/nikonusa.cfg/php/e...
>
> 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" <ewffff@ef.com> 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 ...
>
>
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 3:59:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In rec.photo.digital Jason P. <pillowhead@canada.com> 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.
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 4:55:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:58:56 -0800, MeMe <ewffff@ef.com> 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
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 6:33:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Doug Payne ( dwpayne@ist.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:

> http://www.bythom.com/cleaning.htm

Gawd! Another Canadian sock puppet pointing us to a site that encourages
the use of the criminally overpriced "Sensor Brush"(TM).

Methinks someone is panicking about losing his lucrative franchise!
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 6:34:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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".
>
> You want to look at Nikon's own article on cleaning a low pass filter?
>
> http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/e...
>
> 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."

And then the Minolta 7D manual, (Same sensor as D70, not sure about
anti-aliasing filter), p110.

"Clean the CCD in a dust-free environment. Use a blower brush to remove the dust
- compressed air can damage the camera."

--
-- 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.
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 8:53:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> 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?
>

I've seen some tech manuals on the Net. It looks like Nikon uses something
like wooden chopsticks and a pad and fluid. They work in a circular pattern
from the center to the outer edges. I'm guessing the kits they sell for
cleaning the CCD is about as close as you can get to how the factory does
it. And the small rubber spatula you wrap the pad around would seem to be
far safer than using something stiff like wood.

And, for my two cents, I doubt a vacuum is as good as a blower. The vacuum
would have to be very close to the sensor and the particle would have to be
very loose for the vacuum to pull it off. A blower will dislodge the
particle with a puff of air, and hopefully blow it completely out of the
camera. In a perfect world, you would use both at the same time; a blower
to knock the particle loose, and a vacuum to get it out of there.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 12:53:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <studnZSu478I9JDfRVn-uQ@comcast.com>,
Sheldon <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>
>I've seen some tech manuals on the Net. It looks like Nikon uses something
>like wooden chopsticks and a pad and fluid. They work in a circular pattern
>from the center to the outer edges. I'm guessing the kits they sell for
>cleaning the CCD is about as close as you can get to how the factory does
>it. And the small rubber spatula you wrap the pad around would seem to be
>far safer than using something stiff like wood.

Agreed.

>And, for my two cents, I doubt a vacuum is as good as a blower. The vacuum
>would have to be very close to the sensor and the particle would have to be
>very loose for the vacuum to pull it off. A blower will dislodge the
>particle with a puff of air, and hopefully blow it completely out of the
>camera. In a perfect world, you would use both at the same time; a blower
>to knock the particle loose, and a vacuum to get it out of there.

The discussions of the various cleaning methods and the
associated problems has set me to thinking. As a result, I have been
considering fabricating a special device for the function which does
combine the two functions in a single device.

It would consist of a pair of concentric tubes, with a vacuum
pulled on the inner tube, and (lightly) compressed air in the outside.
The ring at the end would be drilled with multiple holes at an angle
towards the center.

The idea would be that the particles dislodged by the gentle
airflow would be blown towards the center of the pattern by all of the
converging air jets, and be picked up by the vacuum in the central tube.

The incoming air would go through a small HEPA filter such as is
used in medium sized disk drives (also *very* sensitive to dust
particles) prior to being directed down the outer tube. The air, before
the HEPA filter would be split into two paths, one to the HEPA filter
and the outer tube, and the other through a venturi to generate a
vacuum. The venturi's vacuum port would be connected to the inner tube.
There would be a pair of needle valves to adjust both airflows.

To set the two needle valves, you would first adjust the one to
the outer tube to give the desired airflow for a gentle brush-off. Then
a balloon would be slipped over the outer tube (with a bit of a leak so
the balloon would not fully inflate and burst. Then the needle valve to
the venturi would be adjusted so the balloon would hold a given slack
size, even if the neck is pinched tightly around the outer tube. This
would assure that the net flow into and out of the camera body through
the device would be zero, so you would not be drawing dust-laden air
into the camera body while cleaning.

Obviously, the end of this device would have to be made of a
material soft enough to be unlikely to damage the sensor covering, and
neutral enough to not contaminate it. At first thoughts, I think that
Teflon would be a good choice for that. The total diameter of the probe
would be 1/4" or perhaps 3/16" (6mm or 4.75mm roughly, for the
metric-inclined among you).

Any opinions about this device?

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | 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 ---
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 12:53:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Any opinions about this device?

Will it fit through the door?
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 6:35:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Not quite. Canada's large land mass has nothing to do with its small
> population of 25 million people.

Wow, does visibledust.com have that many employees? Jesus... wake up. Hey,
do you know Rob Callahan? He lives in the USA.

> 1) That means you absolutely discourage the use of the Canadian "Sensor
> Brush(TM)" product. Am I right?

I wouldn't let that brush get near my cameras if you paid me. Maybe it
works, maybe it doesn't. Personally, I don't want to find out.

> 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?

Yup... unless you properly know how to use a sensor swab or brush.

> 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?

Which is exactly what people do when trying to clean a sensor with a brush
when they have no idea what they're doing... they will stab at it, they will
rub it, and they'll blow their compressed air directly at the sensor. I'm
not saying a fine nylon brush can't clean a sensor properly... I'm saying
most people can't properly clean a sensor with a nylon brush.
February 12, 2005 1:19:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have a D70. I've read the various blurbs, advertising and otherwise,
about cleaning the "sensor." With several decades of experience in cleaning
rooms and objects of various sizes, I'd like to suggest that "removing" dust
by blowing it around with a bulb or brush is not effective in the long run.

Having read Nikon's advice and that of those selling swabs, fluids,
etc., I'd be very interested to know what the low-pass filter is made of--
synthetic, glass or what? Fact is, if you attempt to take the job on
yourself, what you're swabbing is the filter, not the CCD.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 4:09:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Sheldon wrote:

> And, for my two cents, I doubt a vacuum is as good as a blower. The vacuum
> would have to be very close to the sensor and the particle would have to be
> very loose for the vacuum to pull it off. A blower will dislodge the
> particle with a puff of air, and hopefully blow it completely out of the
> camera. In a perfect world, you would use both at the same time; a blower to
> knock the particle loose, and a vacuum to get it out of there.

Ever notice how hard it is to dislodge a stubborn piece of dust? A little bulb
blower won't it, often even a blast of canned air won't do it. A vacuum won't
do it either. But vacuum and a soft brush to dislodge the piece of dust and it
is gone.

Whatever you do, do not use canned air in the sensor compartment. You will
either get propelent in there (eventually) or the blast will damage something
like the shutter curtains.

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.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 6:23:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"MB" <marciabeinhauer@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:cukhmv$djt$02$1@news.t-online.com...
SNIP
> Having read Nikon's advice and that of those selling swabs, fluids,
> etc., I'd be very interested to know what the low-pass filter is
> made of-- synthetic, glass or what? Fact is, if you attempt to take
> the job on yourself, what you're swabbing is the filter, not the
> CCD.

This is an example of a Canon multilayer low-pass filter:
http://www.canon.com/technology/detail/digi_35mm/lo_fil...
Although they don't specify the material used, it is possibly Lithium
Niobate.

The swabbing/brushing will take place on the dichroic mirror coating
on the IR absorption glass.

Bart
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 6:23:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
> "MB" <marciabeinhauer@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:cukhmv$djt$02$1@news.t-online.com...
> SNIP
>
>> Having read Nikon's advice and that of those selling swabs, fluids,
>> etc., I'd be very interested to know what the low-pass filter is made
>> of-- synthetic, glass or what? Fact is, if you attempt to take the
>> job on yourself, what you're swabbing is the filter, not the CCD.
>
>
> This is an example of a Canon multilayer low-pass filter:
> http://www.canon.com/technology/detail/digi_35mm/lo_fil...
> Although they don't specify the material used, it is possibly Lithium
> Niobate.
>
> The swabbing/brushing will take place on the dichroic mirror coating on
> the IR absorption glass.
>
> Bart

Thanks, this gets to the heart of the matter. The nylon brush hairs will
be touching a dielectric coated interference mirror. Read about them
here http://optics.unaxis.com/en/Dichro_548.asp (attached pdf there is
good).

The manufacturers claim that such mirrors have the "highest scratch and
mechanical resistance" and are made, inter alia, of "heat resistant
borosilicate glass". I'm not sure if this is the exact sort of dichroic
mirror on the typical dSLR sensor, but if it is, the concerns so far
voiced by people like the Canuck "Jason P" seem absurd.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 10:41:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <NJmdnUBisYhf6JDfRVn-qg@comcast.com>,
Sheldon <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>> Any opinions about this device?
>
>Will it fit through the door?

Yes -- though the air pump would probably be best left on the
floor, with two small diameter hoses to feed the compressed air and the
vacuum connections to the handpiece.

Probably one of the little pumps used for airbrushes would be
sufficient, though I already have a serious air compressor in my machine
shop, and some smaller ones which I use when tuning concertina reeds.
The one used for tuning also lives in the shop, with the hose running up
to the computer room where the tuning is performed, so the noise of the
pump does not affect the measurements of pitch of the reeds (and annoy
the individual doing the tuning, or his wife. :-)

The disk drive HEPA filter which I have in mind is about
1x1-1/2" in size, and it would be mounted down near the pump, along with
the manifold with the needle valves. That filter should suffice to
assure that no dust particles of appreciable size come up the hose to
the handpiece.

It certainly would not fit in the gadget bag for field use,
however. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | 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 ---
!