 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / May 2005Dust on sensor
Hi, who already had dust on the sensor? How did you remove it? Dust should get easily onto the sensor. It is bad if you have dust on the film, but since you do not exchange the sensor, it must be worse with digital SLRs. My local dealer told me, I had to send the camera to the respective manufacturer to clean the sensor? Regards Lars - yet without digital SLR - > Hi, > > who already had dust on the sensor? How did you remove it? Dust inevitably gets on you sensor. You blow it off with a rubber bulb. If it does not come off that way, you can take it in for cleaning, or you can attempt to clean it yourself (and at your own risk) with swabs and denatured alcohol. >> Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cleaning, or you can attempt to clean it yourself (and at your own > risk) with swabs and denatured alcohol. A Yahoo search "sensor cleaning" results in http://tinyurl.com/3psk5 Enjoy. Ken.  Signaturehttp://www.rupert.net/~solar Return address supplied by 'spammotel' http://www.spammotel.com > > Dust inevitably gets on you sensor. You blow it off with a rubber > > bulb. If it does not come off that way, you can take it in for > > cleaning, or you can attempt to clean it yourself (and at your own > > risk) with swabs and denatured alcohol. > A Yahoo search "sensor cleaning" results in > http://tinyurl.com/3psk5 Thank you. But tutorials ar only part of the answer I am looking for: I am rather interested in how much of a problem dust on sensors is. E.g. how often do you have to clean it? How difficult and risky is it? Anyone damaged his sensor, yet? Regards Lars >Thank you. But tutorials ar only part of the answer I am looking for: I >am rather interested in how much of a problem dust on sensors is. E.g. >how often do you have to clean it? It's totally dependant on how often you change lenses, how careful you are about it, & how dusty an environment you do it in. I've only cleaned my 10D sensor once, so far (about a year), but it's picked up a few small specks since then. Still, I'll probably need to clean it again before the next time I do any outdoor shooting. (Dust tends to be most visible in blue sky.) > How difficult and risky is it? Moderately. Again, it depends a lot on the individual. > Anyone >damaged his sensor, yet? Not that I've heard of, but I imagine that many people would be too embarrassed to admit to it. ;) SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- >>Thank you. But tutorials ar only part of the answer I am looking for: I >>am rather interested in how much of a problem dust on sensors is. E.g. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > before the next time I do any outdoor shooting. (Dust tends to be most > visible in blue sky.) I'm told by an acquaintance who claims lots of use of a 10D, including outdoor lens changes, that the single biggest preventative factor is turning off the camera before removing the lens. He says the second is always holding the camera with the opening down (back up) while changing lenses. He says that sensor dust can be a problem for those with sloppy lens changing habits. Maybe that means he doesn't have sensor dust problems, I don't know, didn't ask. Any comments about this? Will D. > >>Thank you. But tutorials ar only part of the answer I am looking for: I > >>am rather interested in how much of a problem dust on sensors is. E.g. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Any comments about this? It is baloney. >>>> Thank you. But tutorials ar only part of the answer I am looking >>>> for: I am rather interested in how much of a problem dust on [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > It is baloney. I would tend to agree that turning off the camera has absolutely no bearing on the 'dust-on-sensor' problem. It just makes good (electronic) sense to power down when changing lenses. As to pointing the camera down - might help, marginally, depending on the circumstances. I have had my 10D for a year and a half and have yet to clean the sensor. It is due, I know, but that will have to wait until I get back home in April and I can order the appropriate cleaning system (not obtainable here in Honduras). Cleaning system you ask? http://www.visibledust.com/index.htm From the reviews this seems to be the answer (for me). Your mileage may vary. Regards Ken. Signaturehttp://www.rupert.net/~solar Return address supplied by 'spammotel' http://www.spammotel.com >> "Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote in message <snip> >> Any comments about this? >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Regards > Ken. Interestingly enough, the site you cite states that a sensor's protective cover will generate a mild charge while in operation. The physics involved are pretty well known, I think. If there is no specific mechanism to drain this charge while the camera is in operation, ie, powered up, I'd be hard put to understand how a glass plate can avoid being charged. After all, we're not talking AC here. So I think the assertion that "It is baloney", without supporting evidence, is simply an opinion, nothing more. It's worth noting, perhaps, that such summary declaratives are classic flame bait, and do not contribute to the discussion. Took a look at visibledust.com. Some of the statements sound like they might hav a basis in fact, don't know. OTOH, assertions that the manufacturers simply want to extort extra money for sensor cleaning services sound like smoke and mirrors to me. I've read, in this newsgroup, accounts stating that Canon service centers are very likely to perform routine cleaning for no charge, and that sounds quite reasonable for a company that is interested in maintaining a reputation. Don't know about Nikon, or the rest. So, given that the people at visibledust acknowledge that sensors develop a charge on the protective covering during operation, such that is likely to attract dust, I think I'll continue to expect that powering down to change lenses is a good thing, specifically for keeping crap off the sensor. As far as not leaving the body cavity up during lens changes, that makes sense for any camera, not just digitals. Will D. SNIP > So, given that the people at visibledust acknowledge that > sensors develop a charge on the protective covering during > operation, such that is likely to attract dust, I think I'll > continue to expect that powering down to change lenses is > a good thing, specifically for keeping crap off the sensor. Turning off the camera, doesn't immediately drain the charge from the coverglass, but the dust that could enter while changing lenses, cannot reach the coverglass untill the shutter curtain opens. So as for dust being attracted by residual charge *while* changing lenses, it seems impossible to me. > As far as not leaving the body cavity up during lens > changes, that makes sense for any camera, not just digitals. I agree. Pointing the lens cavity down while changing, won't prevent dust from floating up the opening (and it's that type of dust that causes problems), but it will prevent 'stuff' falling in. Bart > SNIP >> So, given that the people at visibledust acknowledge that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > for dust being attracted by residual charge *while* changing lenses, > it seems impossible to me. Good, some explanations! So what is happening, presumably, is that what dust *is* inside the camera gets attracted to the sensor cover when the shutter is open. Now, I wonder if the charge from the sensor cover glass is strong enough to pull dust into the cavity, even though it's behind the shutter. Presumably, the shutter is one of those vertical types with carbon fiber blades. One would think that would definitely interact with an electrostatic field, though just how is just as definitely unclear. Instead of shielding the sensor cover field, it might shape it somehow. Don't know. I think that, given the speed with which the 20D boots, powering down to change lenses is a reasonable default procedure. Except when a lens change is needed quickly, and the buffers are still transferring to the memory card... I really don't want to hear that such a change is not possible ;) >> As far as not leaving the body cavity up during lens >> changes, that makes sense for any camera, not just digitals. > > I agree. Pointing the lens cavity down while changing, won't prevent > dust from floating up the opening (and it's that type of dust that > causes problems), but it will prevent 'stuff' falling in. In point of fact, I try to keep both the camera and lens more or less level, as both the cavity and the rear elements need to be kept clean. But you're probably right that it is the floating stuff that is most likely to wind up on the sensor cover, I would think. Thanks for the reasonable response. Will D. Another thought: Are long exposures more likely to allow dust to get to the sensor cover? That would seem likely, I think. > I think that, given the speed with which the 20D boots, powering down to > change lenses is a reasonable default procedure. Except when a lens > change is needed quickly, and the buffers are still transferring to the > memory card... I really don't want to hear that such a change is not > possible ;) Man, you can really do that? Your hands must be incredibly fast! > Another thought: Are long exposures more likely to allow dust to get to > the sensor cover? That would seem likely, I think. >> I think that, given the speed with which the 20D boots, powering down to >> change lenses is a reasonable default procedure. Except when a lens [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Man, you can really do that? Your hands must be incredibly fast! One of the reviews complained that one cannot pull the memory card before the buffers have down loaded. If that really is a problem (waiting for the writing to conclude before removing the card), then maybe lens changes during that time might also be. I can remove the lens from the body a lot faster than I can remove the memory card, I think. Lots of unknowns, and having already been burned by precipitous purchase of a digital camera, I'd rather do all the investigation before I consider buying one. Will D. SNIP > Another thought: Are long exposures more likely to allow dust > to get to the sensor cover? That would seem likely, I think. Yes, after the mirror starts some turbulence as it swings out of the optical path, the shutter races out of the way, there is most likely to exist an airflow towards the sensor. As it builds up charge, some of the dust from the cavity is likely to wind up in the wrong place. So all we can do is try and keep the dust out of the cavity (and make sure the lens mount and cap is clean), which is not an easy thing. Bart > SNIP >> Another thought: Are long exposures more likely to allow dust [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Bart Okay, thanks for the response! Another thought: Having read somewhere that the 1Ds MkII has really bad dust susceptibility, I wonder if there is some connection between that and the number of pixels (total charge?). In other words, perhaps the 20D is apt to be discernably more vulnerable to gathering dust on the sensor cover than the 10D. The more pixels, the more dust? Not good. I guess the identification of proper and effective sensor cover cleaning equipment, etc, is a good thing to pursue before I get one of these things. Thanks again, Will D. >>> "Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote in message > <snip> >>> Any comments about this? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> From the reviews this seems to be the answer (for me). >> Your mileage may vary. > Interestingly enough, the site you cite states that a sensor's > protective cover will generate a mild charge while in operation. The > physics involved are pretty well known, I think. If there is no > specific mechanism to drain this charge while the camera is in > operation, ie, powered up, I'd be hard put to understand how a glass > plate can avoid being charged. After all, we're not talking AC here. Right, but not with voltages anything like high enough to matter: the power supply voltage is only 5v or so, maybe 15v if it's CCD rather than CMOS. However, the filter is something like lithium niobate, which is an extremely good insulator, maybe 10^14 ohms/cm. In regular use, insulators tend to pick up a static charge because things around them pick up a static charge. > Took a look at visibledust.com. Some of the statements sound like they > might hav a basis in fact, don't know. Or maybe not. It's a sales site, and rather light on facts. > So, given that the people at visibledust acknowledge that sensors > develop a charge on the protective covering during operation, such > that is likely to attract dust, I think I'll continue to expect that > powering down to change lenses is a good thing, specifically for > keeping crap off the sensor. I don't see how this follows -- there's no evidence that static charge on the filter is caused by power in the camera. (Or, for that matter, that it's static charge that's primarily responsible for attaching dust to the filter. I don't know.) Andrew. <snip> >> Interestingly enough, the site you cite states that a sensor's >> protective cover will generate a mild charge while in operation. The [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > use, insulators tend to pick up a static charge because things around > them pick up a static charge. Okay, food for thought, thanks. >> Took a look at visibledust.com. Some of the statements sound like they >> might hav a basis in fact, don't know. > > Or maybe not. It's a sales site, and rather light on facts. Interesting observation. The site seems to want to give the impression of representing authoritative knowledge. I watched the video clips, and was rather unimpressed; they were singularly lacking in production value, one could not see what was being done, only that something was going on. Three versions of blowing air on the brushes: amazing!! Maybe I've been hanging around geeks too much, but the entire business seemed lacking in anything substantial.. :) >> So, given that the people at visibledust acknowledge that sensors >> develop a charge on the protective covering during operation, such [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Andrew. Don't know either, Andrew. Anyway, the consensus seems that powering down doesn't make any difference, though perhaps long exposures might. Thanks, Will D. > >> I'm told by an acquaintance who claims lots of use of a 10D, > >> including outdoor lens changes, that the single biggest preventative > >> factor is turning off the camera before removing the lens. He says > >> the second is always holding the camera with the opening down (back > >> up) while changing lenses. By definition, if you are holding the camera with the opening down, you are holding the lens with the rear element UP. Thus the dust you avoided falling into the camera falls onto the lens, with the same net result that it's sloshing around inside the camera. Not that I think it makes a compelling difference anyway (the sensor will eventually get dirty and need to be cleaned), but the best way to avoid dust settling would be to have the opening/lens parallel to the ground. KeS >> >> I'm told by an acquaintance who claims lots of use of a 10D, >> >> including outdoor lens changes, that the single biggest preventative >> >> factor is turning off the camera before removing the lens. Hmm ... that would at least reduce the electrostatic charge on the sensor, so it would reduce the attraction of the dust to the sensor. Hmm ... I wonder whether one of those Zero-stat guns for eliminating surface charge on vinyl records would be a good pre-treatment for the sensor before gentle puffing or vacuuming. >> >> He says >> >> the second is always holding the camera with the opening down (back [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >falling into the camera falls onto the lens, with the same net result that >it's sloshing around inside the camera. perhaps if you hold the rear cap just beside the lens mount, you can transfer the lens into the cap quickly enough to minimize this dust. >Not that I think it makes a compelling difference anyway (the sensor will >eventually get dirty and need to be cleaned), but the best way to avoid >dust settling would be to have the opening/lens parallel to the ground. If the sensor is not charged and actively attracting dust, yes. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <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 --- > >By definition, if you are holding the camera with the opening down, you > >are holding the lens with the rear element UP. Thus the dust you avoided > >falling into the camera falls onto the lens, with the same net result that > >it's sloshing around inside the camera. Not the same net result. Dust on the lens is not in the focal plane, so will not show up as an object on the image. Anyway, dust on a lens is unavoidable, but easily dealt with. Merritt > Not the same net result. Dust on the lens is not in the focal plane, so > will not show up as an object on the image. Anyway, dust on a lens is > unavoidable, but easily dealt with. Dust on the lens will show as flare if you shoot into the light. Signature-- 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. >> >By definition, if you are holding the camera with the opening down, you >> >are holding the lens with the rear element UP. Thus the dust you avoided [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >will not show up as an object on the image. Anyway, dust on a lens is >unavoidable, but easily dealt with. Note that once you mount the lens back on the camera, that dust is now inside, and can migrate to the sensor. (One of many possible mechanisms is for the mirror to fan it off, and on a subsequent shot it can migrate to the sensor -- perhaps in stages. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <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 --- > By definition, if you are holding the camera with the opening down, you > are holding the lens with the rear element UP. Thus the dust you avoided > falling into the camera falls onto the lens, with the same net result that > it's sloshing around inside the camera. But, it's a hell of a lot easier to clean the rear element of the lens than it is to clean the sensor, assuming all these gravity theories play out. If gravity was "really" our friend it would keep the dust on the ground where it belongs. > A Yahoo search "sensor cleaning" results in > http://tinyurl.com/3psk5 Right. But I am more interested in how much hassle dust on the sensor is rather But >> A Yahoo search "sensor cleaning" results in >> http://tinyurl.com/3psk5 > > Right. But I am more interested in how much hassle dust on the sensor is > rather Well, if you suffer from an obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, it could be quite a problem. If you are a go with the flow type, it's no problem. I just blow the big chunks off with an ear syringe and call it good enough! > > A Yahoo search "sensor cleaning" results in > > http://tinyurl.com/3psk5 > > Right. But I am more interested in how much hassle dust on the sensor is > rather It's an annoyance when shooting large areas of a single colour at small aperture. Shoot a clear blue sky or a plain white wall at f16 or smaller and dust on the sensor will show in the image. If you always shoot wide open or thereabouts, you'll never notice it. SignatureColm Ugh, I've got a big hunk of dust *inside* my lens. I wonder if that's fixable. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Lars > - yet without digital SLR - |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.