Canon EOS Integrated Cleaning System??

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

arcade@wizmail.net - 25 Aug 2006 19:56 GMT

So does anyone know when/if is this going to be available the other
canon cameras?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P8_LNmpFSc

Also here:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1156392006.html

It's apparently going to be on the Digital Rebel XTi, but I'd love to
know if it's really going to work and if so what plans they have to
roll it to other models. I guess one concern is that if the dust
doesn't "shake" off then cleaning it may be more of an issue.
Especially with the "sticky" catch areas on the sides of the film since
you could perhaps damage those.

Jim

Reply to this Message

Bill - 25 Aug 2006 20:51 GMT

>So does anyone know when/if is this going to be available the other
>canon cameras?

It'll have to be part of new models, not something they can just slap
into current models.

>It's apparently going to be on the Digital Rebel XTi, but I'd love to
>know if it's really going to work and if so what plans they have to
>roll it to other models. I guess one concern is that if the dust
>doesn't "shake" off then cleaning it may be more of an issue.
>Especially with the "sticky" catch areas on the sides of the film since
>you could perhaps damage those.

The anti-dust vibration systems do not really work on any other camera,
so there's no reason to expect this one to work either. It's another
marketing gimmick, and Canon added it simply because some of the other
companies have it.

If you find your sensor gets dirty, you'll have to clean it the same way
other clean their sensors. No big deal really.

Reply to this Message

mark.thomas.7@gmail.com - 26 Aug 2006 03:10 GMT

> The anti-dust vibration systems do not really work on any other camera

That's good to know. (O; So Olympus, Sony, Canon have all just added
this as a gimmick? I would have thought a simple campaign of
information *proving* it was a gimmick would have been much less
expensive than simply following the 'pack'.. But I suppose that they
*had* to respond to the posts from people who have (imaginary) dust
problems, and the gloating, biased folk who have anti-dust systems and
who foolishly think/pretend that they work...?

And of course when it proves that the system doesn't work, I guess
they'll.. er.. er... Hmm, what will they do? Gee, these worthless
'gimmicks' are pretty tricky when you start to actually think them
through....

Or, perhaps, just possibly, maybe it *does* work to a greater or lesser
degree, and maybe it *is* a useful addition, esp. for those
photographers who work in dirty environments and have to change lenses
frequently. How do you shoot, Bill, and what is your personal
experience?

I'm not saying that there aren't people who make silly claims about how
perfect and wonderful and essential anti-dust systems are. And it is
very clear from pro reviews and posts all over the Internet that some
DSLR's have almost zero dust problems, but that others have serious
dust problems, whether it be because of design, static problems,
whatever. But claiming it is a gimmick, that Canon added it to simply
fool their users, and that it doesn't work is just as silly as the
other extreme.

The truth, as always, is probably somewhere between.. My reading of
reviews and forums suggests that these systems can significantly reduce
the need for cleaning, and that they vary in effectiveness - the Oly
systems seem to work well by most accounts, and the newer Sony one
appears to be less effective, although it is early days.

> If you find your sensor gets dirty, you'll have to clean it the same way
> other clean their sensors. No big deal really.

It would be a bloody annoying deal if you noticed the problem while the
action is happening, and you have a choice between leaving it until
after the shoot to fix, or sit there cleaning it as the action passes
you by. Ever shot weddings or sport?

A gimmick to you may be a useful adjunct for someone else.

Reply to this Message

shutterbug - 26 Aug 2006 05:52 GMT

I wonder really how many people change their lenses with any kind of
frequency. My guess is that most just use the lens that it came with.

As digital slrs get cheaper, perhaps the best thing to do is have two
cameras ready and dont worry a few dust flacks that probably can be fixed
with onboard firmware or a photoshop type program.

John

>> The anti-dust vibration systems do not really work on any other camera
> That's good to know. (O; So Olympus, Sony, Canon have all just added
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> A gimmick to you may be a useful adjunct for someone else.

Reply to this Message

Bill - 26 Aug 2006 15:24 GMT

>I wonder really how many people change their lenses with any kind of
>frequency. My guess is that most just use the lens that it came with.

Bingo! Give that man a prize!

I've seen some people at events carrying the Rebel XT just like me. Most
are your average joe consumer, the group at which this camera is
targeted. But I don't think one of them had a good lense, and most still
had nothing but the 18-55 kit lense, no external flash, and a tiny bag
to carry just the camera. Oddly enough, most had protective filters on
their 18-55 lenses (a salesman gimmick).

Generally the people I've seen with better varied lenses had better
camera bodies to go with them like 20D, 1D, Nikon D70, D200, etc.

Personally, I change lenses several times during a shooting event. I use
a short zoom as a walk around lense, but switch to my telephoto at
events where I need to get closer to the action. I also use primes for
low light shots or macros or where DOF is critical. I use what I need to
get the results I want.

And I generally don't worry about dust because it's rarely an issue.

Reply to this Message

MadHatter - 26 Aug 2006 20:05 GMT

> I wonder really how many people change their lenses with any kind of
> frequency. My guess is that most just use the lens that it came with.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> John

You're probably right. The majority of people I see with entry level
DSLRs only have the kit lens. I'm probably in a minority, but I change
my lenses very often. And back before I got a macro lens, I was using
an extension tube. I had that thing mounted and then off so many times
a day.

Reply to this Message

Bill - 26 Aug 2006 15:11 GMT

>> The anti-dust vibration systems do not really work on any other camera
>
>Or, perhaps, just possibly, maybe it *does* work to a greater or lesser
>degree,

As I've mentioned in previous posts, it does function and a few of the
smallest of dry dust particles might come off, but all the other dust
particles remain.

The ads suggest the sensor goes from dirty to spotless. But in reality,
it doesn't work at all like they suggest. As an example, a sensor with
100 spots may improve to 97 spots after the cleaning process runs.

But it makes the uneducated consumer feel warm and fuzzy thinking it
actually works, all because the companies know that most of these users
don't have a clue what they're doing. They don't know how to check for
dust, and they don't know what aperture means, and they don't change
lenses because they have what came in the kit.

>The truth, as always, is probably somewhere between.. My reading of
>reviews and forums suggests that these systems can significantly reduce
>the need for cleaning, and that they vary in effectiveness - the Oly
>systems seem to work well by most accounts, and the newer Sony one
>appears to be less effective, although it is early days.

So you've heard about the results, but haven't seen it.

How about you test it yourself?

>It would be a bloody annoying deal if you noticed the problem while the
>action is happening, and you have a choice between leaving it until
>after the shoot to fix, or sit there cleaning it as the action passes
>you by. Ever shot weddings or sport?

Ever thought of checking your camera before you leave for a shoot?

Ever realized that dust is mostly rendered irrelevant due to focus?

Dust is generally not going to be visible at all in most shots. How many
times do you need to stop down to f/16 or more to get a sports or
wedding shot.

This whole dust on the sensor thing is like dirt on the lense - it just
isn't as big of a problem as the marketing suggests. But I still see
people outside "polishing" their lenses over and over because they got a
fingerprint on the front element.

Reply to this Message

mark.thomas.7@gmail.com - 27 Aug 2006 12:50 GMT

> As I've mentioned in previous posts, it does function and a few of the
> smallest of dry dust particles might come off, but all the other dust
> particles remain.

That's quite a generalisation/claim. A lot depends on what the nature
of the dust is, and the design of the camera, eg the surface of the
sensor, whether it holds a static charge, etc. Canon themselves are
referring to their efforts to reduce the amount of potential dust from
the internal componentry of the camera..

I'm just going by what I read in forums and reviews (see below for
quotes). Olympus DSLR users (and reviewers) very rarely report that
they have to clean their sensors. Yet other users, including Canon and
Nikon owners, often refer to having a regular cleaning regime. Here's
a quote from Jeff Keller (do you know who he is? - would he be biased
towards Sony for any reason?)
"Now I can't tell you how well the (Sony anti-dust) system works, but I
didn't have any trouble with dust during my weeks with the camera --
unlike most other D-SLRs that I've tested."
..and then, about whether the short delay for anti-dust systems to
operate is worthwhile..
"I'd rather wait a second longer to have dust-free photos, but that's
just me."

> The ads suggest the sensor goes from dirty to spotless. But in reality,
> it doesn't work at all like they suggest.

Like I said, the truth is somewhere between. If anyone claims it is a
100% effective process, they are being stupid - but who does?

> As an example, a sensor with
> 100 spots may improve to 97 spots after the cleaning process runs.

And that is a *real* example is it?

> But it makes the uneducated consumer feel warm and fuzzy thinking it
> actually works, all because the companies know that most of these users
> don't have a clue what they're doing.

I have a bit more faith in consumers. If 'most' is 51%, that still
leaves 49%.

> They don't know how to check for
> dust, and they don't know what aperture means, and they don't change
> lenses because they have what came in the kit.

Generally, generalisations are just that (O; If 'they' don't know how
to check for dust, why would they be swayed by a feature they do not
understand? Should real users of DSLR's be denied this feature, simply
because 'they' don't change lenses? I thought one of the reasons
serious photog's bought DSLR's *was* so they could change lenses...
You can't base your argument on the fact that someone doesn't change
lenses. DSLR's are designed for those who do.

> >The truth, as always, is probably somewhere between.. My reading of
> >reviews and forums suggests...
> >the Oly systems seem to work well by most accounts, and the newer
> >Sony one appears to be less effective, although it is early days.
>
> So you've heard about the results, but haven't seen it.

Yes. And I didn't claim otherwise. So far, at least two professional
reviews have mentioned that the Sony system *appears* not as effective
as the Olympus. Eg:
(ephotozine): "After five cleaning cycles the (Olympus) SuperSonic Wave
filter appears to be much more effective than Sony's solution as it has
removed much of the dust from the sensor surface."

(cameralabs): "As such, Sony's anti-dust system appears less effective
than the one from Olympus."

There are other similar references around. So I'm merely reporting
what I read - which cameras have you personally seen and tested?
Alternatively, what similar quotes/reviews can you supply to back up
your argument? I'm *not* claiming experience, just trying to summarise
what I see. If you believe I am being hoodwinked by professional
reviews and forum posters who talk about their good experiences with
a-d systems, or their bad experiences with dust or cleaning, that's
your prerogative. All I am saying is that I read the situation
differently to you.

> How about you test it yourself?

As soon as you do the same.. But in the meantime, your comments, imo,
do not necessarily reflect reality. I invite you to supply references
and links to support you.

> >It would be a bloody annoying deal if you noticed the problem while the
> >action is happening, and you have a choice between leaving it until
> >after the shoot to fix, or sit there cleaning it as the action passes
> >you by. Ever shot weddings or sport?
>
> Ever thought of checking your camera before you leave for a shoot?

When do *you* think the dust is most likely to get on the sensor - when
it is at home, or when it is out and about, with lenses being changed?
In other words... *during* a shoot. Unless of course you are one of
those folks who don't change lenses.. (O;

> Ever realized that dust is mostly rendered irrelevant due to focus?

Except when in the sky, or in large featureless areas, or when you use
small apertures. You don't do any of that? Fine. But please don't
speak for me.

> Dust is generally not going to be visible at all in most shots. How many
> times do you need to stop down to f/16 or more to get a sports or
> wedding shot.

I referred to weddings and sport simply as examples where you
*definitely do not* want to stop and clean your sensor. Do wedding and
sport photog's not shoot anything else?
I shoot landscapes in dry dusty Australia, sometimes using 4WDs to get
places.... Is that the same sort of thing as weddings and sport? At
the moment I don't use a DSLR, relying on older film SLR's and MF
equipment, along with a (dust free) sealed prosumer (Oly C8080). My
wishlist for a DSLR includes >10Mp, low noise at high iso's, in-camera
IS and anti-dust. No-one is quite there yet, but I'm patient. Your
wishlist is clearly different and depending on what you shoot, it
probably should be, nothing wrong with that...

> This whole dust on the sensor thing is like dirt on the lense - it just
> isn't as big of a problem as the marketing suggests.

Of course it isn't "as big of(sic) a problem as the marketing suggests"
- we agree there! It's called marketing hype.. But you said "The
anti-dust vibration systems do not really work on any other camera, so
there's no reason to expect this one to work either. It's another
marketing gimmick". *That* sounds like hype to me too. You don't
correct an extreme view by simply going to the other extreme.

> But I still see
> people outside "polishing" their lenses over and over because they got a
> fingerprint on the front element.

Those people aren't *everyone*, and I have more faith in the ability of
good photographers to know their stuff and be able to reject the hype.
(And if I was shooting into the light, I'd be cleaning the damn thing
off too! - am I a fool for knowing about flare?)

Just realise that your experience is not the only one, your choice of
subjects isn't the only one, and your shooting style isn't the only
one.

I disagree that it is merely a gimmick, and some people who should
clearly know better, do too...
(dcviews):"although all DSLR users know how annoying dust on the sensor
can be, Olympus is still the only one to do anything about it"
(dpreview):"Lets not forget another unique Olympus feature, the
Supersonic Wave Filter, a big name for a solution to a problem many
D-SLR owners have to live with, dust on the sensor. It seems to work,
we didn't experience any images with dust artifacts and haven't once
needed to clean the E-300 (or our E-1)."

And for a laugh, read Ken Rockwell's comments on his experience with
the Nikon D1x...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d1xpits.htm

Reply to this Message

Rita Ä Berkowitz - 27 Aug 2006 13:11 GMT

>> As I've mentioned in previous posts, it does function and a few of
>> the smallest of dry dust particles might come off, but all the other
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> referring to their efforts to reduce the amount of potential dust from
> the internal componentry of the camera..

I watched Canon's presentation of their system and I must say in theory it
looks good, but the disclaimer at the end of the presentation says it all.

I like Canon's fine print disclaimer, "The effect is different depending on
the kind of dust." Does this mean I have to select what kind of dust I put
on my sensor to have this system work? How many choices do I get? Do I
have to special order my dust? Would my warranty be void if I use dust that
isn't certified by Canon?

Seriously, a gentle stream across the sensor with nitrogen does a great job
of removing most of these dust bunnies. It seems there is no substitute for
doing things the old fashioned way, by hand.

Rita

Reply to this Message

John McWilliams - 27 Aug 2006 15:37 GMT

>>> As I've mentioned in previous posts, it does function and a few of
>>> the smallest of dry dust particles might come off, but all the other
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> on my sensor to have this system work? How many choices do I get? Do I
> have to special order my dust?

Similar to cholesterol, there is good dust and bad dust. You want to
increase your intake of the good dust (which adheres quietly to the
sides of the lens box) and decrease the bad (which goes straight to the
arteries (sensor) and clogs things up grandly.)

Dust, too can be converted from bad to good before you put it into the
camera, but involves complex processes which change the electric charge
they carry.

Signature

john mcwilliams

Reply to this Message

ian - 29 Aug 2006 22:53 GMT

what kind of dust I put

>> on my sensor to have this system work? How many choices do I get? Do I
>> have to special order my dust?
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> camera, but involves complex processes which change the electric charge
> they carry.

Like the wrong kind of snow on railway tracks.

Reply to this Message

Bill - 30 Aug 2006 02:37 GMT

>>> on my sensor to have this system work? How many choices do I get? Do I
>>> have to special order my dust?
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>Like the wrong kind of snow on railway tracks.

Obviously there is humour intended in all of the above comments.

However, he's right. Electric charge of the dust particle greatly
affects if it is pulled or pushed from the surface of the filter.

Reply to this Message