 |
 | 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 / December 2006The horror of sensor dust
How is Joe Public, who migrates from his P&S to a DSLR going to cope with stuff like this? Check out the shots 8 posts in. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=21189207 Now you know why entry-level DSLRs are coming with dust reduction. > Now you know why entry-level DSLRs are coming with dust reduction. Aw, gees Dr. Anderson ... here we go again. But does it work?  SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : How is Joe Public, who migrates from his P&S to a DSLR going to cope : with stuff like this? : : Check out the shots 8 posts in. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=21189207 : Now you know why entry-level DSLRs are coming with dust reduction. > But does it work? No, that one doesn't, but this is the only dSLR with an automatic dust removal system on the market that works 100% of the time. http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/sensor.htm Rita >> But does it work? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Rita Hmmmm... Did you catch the review of Kodiak's new Gelatin Enhanced Film? http://www.mendosus.com/film/pdreview.html J. > But does it work? > > -- Sigma's does, a window near the lens mount. But, if you listen to Nikon, some of the sensor contaminants come from inside the camera. Olympus's does, that is proven. Rarely do Olympus users have to clean their sensors. Canon's probably does because their system based on a similar "frequency of vibration" model to Olympus's. Sony's apparently doesn't work too well. One little known cause of sensor contamination is the tiny shavings that come off of the brass lens mounts when you insert or remove a lens. The best thing is when going through a cleaning cycle, to make sure to lightly moisten a Qtip with some sensor cleaner and go around in the area just inside the mirror box in a circular motion to catch all of this junk prior to cleaning. The LAST thing you want is to clean a sensor with these shards floating around on the sensor or in proximity to the sensor. It's not rocket science. Back in the day (for those old enough to remember) we cleaned our rubber and metal capstans in a tape recorder or cassette deck to maintain it's performance. It's not really much different in the case of sensor cleaning......like all things.......it's just about maintenance. Some are afraid of it....but need not be. >> But does it work? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "frequency of vibration" model to Olympus's. > Sony's apparently doesn't work too well. > One little known cause of sensor contamination is the tiny shavings that > come off of the brass lens mounts when you insert or remove a lens. The best [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > cleaning......like all things.......it's just about maintenance. Some are > afraid of it....but need not be. I think you'll find that most of today's cameras have stainless steel lens mounts, which is more resistant to shavings coming off. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> One little known cause of sensor contamination is the tiny shavings >> that come off of the brass lens mounts when you insert or remove a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Colin D. I hate to sound like Rich/RichA but I don't like plastic lensmounts. I feel a plastic lensmount rubbing on a stainless steel body mount, is too much like a chisel on wood. > >> One little known cause of sensor contamination is the tiny shavings > >> that come off of the brass lens mounts when you insert or remove a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > feel a plastic lensmount rubbing on a stainless steel body mount, is too > much like a chisel on wood. Wood carvers use wood chisels, and wood chisels have many uses. SignatureWould thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian". > One little known cause of sensor contamination is the tiny shavings that > come off of the brass lens mounts when you insert or remove a lens. The best Brass? Where have you been? H. >> But does it work? Not really. It might help prolong manual cleaning, but it doesn't keep sensors spotless. I've included two pages which show the results of some "tests" of the effectiveness of built-in sensor cleaners. The Ephotozine site is the only one I've found so far that has photos showing the actual results. > Sigma's does, a window near the lens mount. But, if you listen to > Nikon, some of the sensor contaminants come from inside the camera. > Olympus's does, that is proven. Rarely do Olympus users have to > clean > their sensors. Scroll down about 2/3 of the page below to the section where they show the results of the Sony and Olympus cameras. The Olympus worked a bit better, but there was still lots of dust on the sensor and a manual cleaning would be required: http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=468 > Canon's probably does because their system based on a similar > "frequency of vibration" model to Olympus's. > Sony's apparently doesn't work too well. Reports from Canon owners suggest that it's not any better than the other guys, more of a marketing gimmick to allay consumers' fears. The 400D test at the same site has this page and again, scroll down 2/3 of the page to see the results of the sensor cleaning: http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=486 The authors conclusions are different from what I see (perhaps he's a Canon fan). The sensor is a bit cleaner than before with similar results to the Olympus, and again far from spotless. If you want a really clean sensor, you have to do it manually. But remember that spots like these usually are only visible at small apertures, say f/16 or so before you can see them. Shooting at such small apertures is bad practice due to softness from diffraction. Unless there is no other way to get the shot, it's usually best to use larger apertures and stay above f/16 or f/11. SignatureHappy Holidays! RIGHT ON BILL!!!!! Great info for consumers as well as a reality check regarding diffraction limitations of digital format cameras and lens combinations. Indeed F16 and above are to be discouraged. Glad you had the guts to mention that. As a result many won't (shouldn't) even be seeing sensor dust. Now everyone can go back to enjoying their shooting experience and get over it. >>> But does it work? > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Unless there is no other way to get the shot, it's usually best to use > larger apertures and stay above f/16 or f/11. Its all about marketing... Joe Public hears horror stories about sensor cleaning and demands a 'solution' to the 'problem'; so we have the various auto cleaning systems. Whether they work or not is not really relevant as it's just a box to tick for sales droids... "This model comes with automatic sensor cleaning..." Slightly more clued up people know that you will have to manually clean the sensor eventually - and it's really not that big a deal anyway.... Guy > How is Joe Public, who migrates from his P&S to a DSLR going to cope > with stuff like this? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Now you know why entry-level DSLRs are coming with dust reduction. > How is Joe Public, who migrates from his P&S to a DSLR going to cope > with stuff like this? > > Check out the shots 8 posts in.http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=2118... > > Now you know why entry-level DSLRs are coming with dust reduction. Rich, Nikon started using an anti staic coating on their AA filters (where the dust is, not the sensor) with the D70 and seems to work well. Most owners of the D200 say they haven't had a dust problem. I know with mine it was 8 months to have my first noticeable dust, then a blowout solved the problem. I use prime lenses and change lenses a lot. I look at the antidust shakers as one more thing to go wrong. (yes I know that everyone that has had a spec of dust on there Nikon is now going to flame me) Tom > > How is Joe Public, who migrates from his P&S to a DSLR going to cope > > with stuff like this? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Tom The antistatic coating may work pretty well. If dust above a certain size falls off the sensor, you may never see the smaller specs if you never go below f8 (for e.g.) with your lenses. I'm sure there's a mathematical formula to determine dust spec size and at what point it actually shows up on the image. The idea (Nikon) of moving one of the filters in front of the sensor further from it while maintaining a seal between the two is a good idea since it won't allow sharp-edge shadows of dust particles to fall directly on the sensor. >The idea (Nikon) of >moving one of the filters in front of the sensor further from it while >maintaining a seal between the two is a good idea since it won't allow >sharp-edge shadows of dust particles to fall directly on the sensor. That certainly wasn't Nikon's idea. I had a Panasonic video camera bought around 1985 (long before digital still cameras, let alone dSLRs appeared) that had a sealed filter about 10mm in front of the CCD. I still have some of the parts, including the CCD and drive circuit. It wasn't ever mentioned as a "feature" and I believe this was "standard practice" for many CCD video cameras at the time since it also appears on a Sony service manual I have. I doubt that even Nikon put their filters 10mm in front of the CCD! SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) > How is Joe Public, who read usenet going to cope > with stuff like this? |
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.