 |
 | 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 / March 2005Dust becomming a major DSLR issue?
I notice they are now selling $2/ea q-tips for removing dust from the sensor windows. Is this becomming a major issue for DSLR owners and does the Olympus system for removing it actually work well? -Rich >I notice they are now selling $2/ea q-tips for removing dust > from the sensor windows. Is this becomming a major issue > for DSLR owners and does the Olympus system for removing it > actually work well? > -Rich There are many way's to remove dust from a dslr sensor, but a q-tip ain't one of em. I don't think the problem is any worse than with any other camera that has interchangeable lenses, you just have to be a lot more careful since you are dealing with an image sensor that can be easily(?) scratched. >>I notice they are now selling $2/ea q-tips for removing dust >> from the sensor windows. Is this becomming a major issue [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > careful since you are dealing with an image sensor that can be easily(?) > scratched. Actually, I think the problem *is* a lot worse than in film SLRs. In a film SLR, a *new* piece of film is pulled out of the cassette for each picture; any dust that was deposited on the previous piece of film is wound up in the roll, and with luck comes off in the felt when the film is rewound. Also, the CCD sensor develops a static charge which actually *attracts* dust. Of course, digital doesn't ever get those awful scratches through a whole roll of film because a piece of grit got trapped in the felt light-trap in the cassette, either.  SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >>>I notice they are now selling $2/ea q-tips for removing dust >>> from the sensor windows. Is this becomming a major issue [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >whole roll of film because a piece of grit got trapped in the felt >light-trap in the cassette, either. Canon recommends turning off the camera to reduce static charge effect prior to removing lens. > Canon recommends turning off the camera to reduce static charge effect > prior to removing lens. And would anyone change the lens with the camera turned on? I also doubt turning the camera off does anything about the surface charge on the sensor, sure doesn't seem to "decharge" a monitor/TV unless it's been off for a LONG time... SignatureStacey Stacey responds: >>Paul Revere wrote: > Canon recommends turning off the camera to reduce static charge effect > prior to removing lens. And would anyone change the lens with the camera turned on? I also doubt turning the camera off does anything about the surface charge on the sensor, sure doesn't seem to "decharge" a monitor/TV unless it's been off for a LONG time... << Dunno about changing lenses, but Pentax recommends turning the camera on, removing the lens, locking the mirror up, and cleaning the CCD. Turn the camera off to return the lens to its usual position, and then re-install the lens. >> Canon recommends turning off the camera to reduce static charge effect >> prior to removing lens. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sensor, sure doesn't seem to "decharge" a monitor/TV unless it's been off > for a LONG time... Well, I'm not used to turning off a film camera before changing the lens, and I don't recall my manual telling me to turn it off before changing the lens. If it were important, it could happen automatically when I pressed the lens release. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >>>Canon recommends turning off the camera to reduce static charge effect >>>prior to removing lens. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > changing the lens. If it were important, it could happen > automatically when I pressed the lens release. Yep. 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. >>> Canon recommends turning off the camera to reduce static charge effect >>> prior to removing lens. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> sensor, sure doesn't seem to "decharge" a monitor/TV unless it's been off >> for a LONG time... I posted the information, for whatever it's worth, to anyone who might find it helpful. Its Canon's recommendation, not mine, please feel free to ignore it. >Well, I'm not used to turning off a film camera before changing the >lens, and I don't recall my manual telling me to turn it off before >changing the lens. If it were important, it could happen >automatically when I pressed the lens release. 1. A "film camera" isn't a DSLR, and a recommendation that applies to a DSLR may not apply to a "film camera". In this case, the recommendation applies ONLY to a DSLR; therefore, what you do or do not do with your "film camera" is irrelevant to this discussion. 2. The fact that something "could happen automatically" doesn't mean that it DOES or ever WILL "happen automatically". There are more factors to consider when deciding whether or not to automate a feature and incorporate that automatic feature into a product than simply whether or not it CAN be done. > 2. The fact that something "could happen automatically" doesn't mean that it > DOES or ever WILL "happen automatically". There are more factors to consider > when deciding whether or not to automate a feature and incorporate that > automatic feature into a product than simply whether or not it CAN be done. True, but the point that was trying to be made was much simpler than that, which essentially was: "if its really important, make the product idiot-proof". -hh > And would anyone change the lens with the camera turned on? I also doubt > turning the camera off does anything about the surface charge on the > sensor, sure doesn't seem to "decharge" a monitor/TV unless it's been off > for a LONG time... That 7v max surface charge isn't going to hold ANYTHING onto that sensor. When was the last time you saw dust being attracted to 9v battery terminals? > That 7v max surface charge isn't going to hold ANYTHING onto that sensor. > When was the last time you saw dust being attracted to 9v battery > terminals? When did any battery create a static charge? Why do you think these sensors are such dust magnets? SignatureStacey >> That 7v max surface charge isn't going to hold ANYTHING onto that sensor. >> When was the last time you saw dust being attracted to 9v battery >> terminals? > When did any battery create a static charge? Why do you think these sensors > are such dust magnets? Any insulator will eventually become charged by handling. Even though the filter itself isn't being handled, the things around it are. And the material from which the filter is made is a very good insulator. Andrew. >>> That 7v max surface charge isn't going to hold ANYTHING onto that >>> sensor. When was the last time you saw dust being attracted to 9v [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Andrew. But this remains true whether the sensor is on or off. My point was that a sensor with its normal operating voltage does not attract more dust than one that's powered down. > But this remains true whether the sensor is on or off. My point was that > a sensor with its normal operating voltage does not attract more dust > than one that's powered down. That's EXACTLY what I said! SignatureStacey For sensor-dust issues see http://www.geocities.com/sensorclean/ >>>> That 7v max surface charge isn't going to hold ANYTHING onto that >>>> sensor. When was the last time you saw dust being attracted to 9v >>>> battery terminals? >>> When did any battery create a static charge? Why do you think >>> these sensors are such dust magnets? >> Any insulator will eventually become charged by handling. Even though >> the filter itself isn't being handled, the things around it are. And >> the material from which the filter is made is a very good insulator. > But this remains true whether the sensor is on or off. My point was > that a sensor with its normal operating voltage does not attract > more dust than one that's powered down. That's right. Andrew. >> That 7v max surface charge isn't going to hold ANYTHING onto that >> sensor. When was the last time you saw dust being attracted to 9v [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sensors > are such dust magnets? I don't. That was my point. I was being ironic. If there is any electrostatic charge holding dust to a sensor it's the charge that the dust brought to that meeting, not the sensor. >one of em. I don't think the problem is any worse than with any other >camera that has interchangeable lenses, you just have to be a lot more >careful since you are dealing with an image sensor that can be easily(?) >scratched. The problem is much worse with DSLRs than with film, because with film, every time you change the roll, you effectively reset the dust-count to zero. With a DSLR, the dust builds up on the same sensor over the life of the camera. -Joel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > and does the Olympus system for removing it > actually work well? Yes it does. E1 users with lots of time and field lens changes say they still have yet to have any dust issues. SignatureStacey > Yes it does. E1 users with lots of time and field lens changes say they > still have yet to have any dust issues. That's great. I wished Minolta had adopted the same anti-dust strategy (licence it from Oly in exchange for a licence to use the Minolta A-S, perhaps [if indeed it needs to be licenced]). Looking at the Maxxum 7D, they've put in a substantially smaller mirror than in the Maxxum 7 so there's a lot of free space for dust to get at the sensor. Cheers, Alan. 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. >> Yes it does. E1 users with lots of time and field lens changes say they >> still have yet to have any dust issues. > > That's great. I wished Minolta had adopted the same anti-dust strategy > (licence it from Oly in exchange for a licence to use the Minolta A-S, > perhaps [if indeed it needs to be licenced]). I'll bet panasonic is going to use this technology when they release their dSLR's. It's sure nice being able to change lenses just like on a film camera without having to worry about this. SignatureStacey >I'll bet panasonic is going to use this technology when they release their >dSLR's. It's sure nice being able to change lenses just like on a film >camera without having to worry about this. Lets face it, they are going to have to do something amazing to attempt any serious competition with Nikon, Canon, Minolta and Olympus. Anyway, you *should* have been worrying about dust and other contaminants getting into the film area. The shutter is relatively delicate and will last longer if it doesn't get gummed up. -- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga the E-1), I recall reading articles where Minolta was saying the movement of the anti-shake sensor was incompatible with the movement used for dust cleaning in the Olympus cameras. And yes, as I understand it, both companies have patents on their methods (KM on AS, Oly on dust-busting). > Looking at the Maxxum 7D, they've put in a substantially smaller mirror than > in the Maxxum 7 so there's a lot of free space for dust to get at the sensor. SignatureMichael Meissner email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org http://www.the-meissners.org > > Yes it does. E1 users with lots of time and field lens changes say they > > still have yet to have any dust issues. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Cheers, > Alan. try turning the anti-shake on and shake the hell outta tha body...hehe Joe > try turning the anti-shake on and shake the hell outta tha body...hehe I await your experimental results... Cheers, Alan 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. > does the Olympus system for removing it > actually work well? It does; my E1 is now >18.000 clicks (3-lens kit), and I have yet to see the first dust-speck... I do take care of my equipment but I basically change lenses just like I did with film. Lourens Is there any proof that there is a static charge formed on the CCD or CMOs sensors that attract dust. I think is just another myth started from somewhere. It takes A BIG voltage potencial to attract a small dust partical to an object . I bet there is at the most 5 volts working in the sensor and at that its not on the front of it. If there were 500 volts maby I would beleave it. > I notice they are now selling $2/ea q-tips for removing dust > from the sensor windows. Is this becomming a major issue > for DSLR owners and does the Olympus system for removing it > actually work well? > -Rich The real issue is why camera manufacturers discourage people from cleaning their sensors. Now we see that a simple cosmetics brush is all that is needed to do the job. http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/How_to/a_Brush_Your_Sensor/a_Brush_Your_Senso r.html http://makeashorterlink.com/?F22E256AA >>The real issue is why camera manufacturers discourage people from cleaning their sensors. Now we see that a simple cosmetics brush is all that is needed to do the job. http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/How_to/a_Brush_Your_Sensor/a_Brush... << What I am curious about is what, exactly, we are cleaning. I've variously been told that there is a low pass filter on top of the sensor (making scratches much less of a problem), and/or a glass protective plate (doing the same). Yet there is a lot of worry about scratching--most of us are not dragging carborundum or diamond dust off our sensors, I'd think. What I am curious about is what, exactly, we are cleaning. I've variously been told that there is a low pass filter on top of the sensor (making scratches much less of a problem), and/or a glass protective plate (doing the same). Yet there is a lot of worry about scratching--most of us are not dragging carborundum or diamond dust off our sensors, I'd think. Scratching the AA filter (and I believe all CCD and CMOS sensors have them (but for the Astro mods)) would be just as critical an event as scratching the sensor. Depending on exactly what the outermost coating is made from, and how hard it is, would determine how easy it is to scratch. I'm pretty sure you are touching something softer than glass in all cases. It is possible that they make the outer coat of some scratch resistive material though.. There are cases of people reporting that they've managed to ruin the sensor by cleaning it though... so whatever's on there isn't indestructible. The reasons they prohibit invasive cleaning by the owner IMHO is because they have no control over how the client does it... It's easy to say "I followed directions and when I was done there was this big scratch in there..."... and it's easy to say "you must have violated your warrantee because you managed to touch the sensor in order to make a scratch on it".... Al... >Some one else wrote, but was sabotaged by Charlies software: >>What I am curious about is what, exactly, we are cleaning. I've [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >and how hard it is, would determine how easy it is to scratch. I'm pretty >sure you are touching something softer than glass in all cases. At least some of the Nikon filters are made of LiNo, which is extremely hard - similar to Quartz crystal. I don't know exactly what on which camera, or what other manufacturers are doing. > It is >possible that they make the outer coat of some scratch resistive material >though.. There are cases of people reporting that they've managed to ruin >the sensor by cleaning it though... so whatever's on there isn't >indestructible. By scratching it? It seems to me the bigger problem is introducing a foreign contaminate, which would just make the problem worse. >The reasons they prohibit invasive cleaning by the owner IMHO is because >they have no control over how the client does it... It's easy to say "I >followed directions and when I was done there was this big scratch in >there..."... and it's easy to say "you must have violated your warrantee >because you managed to touch the sensor in order to make a scratch on >it".... Yep. -- Owamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga >>Some one else wrote, but was sabotaged by Charlies software: >>>What I am curious about is what, exactly, we are cleaning. I've [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >extremely hard - similar to Quartz crystal. I don't know exactly what >on which camera, or what other manufacturers are doing. It's the hardness of the anti-reflection coating on the window that matters, not the substrate. -Rich Alan Adrian states: >>Scratching the AA filter (and I believe all CCD and CMOS sensors have them (but for the Astro mods)) would be just as critical an event as scratching the sensor. Depending on exactly what the outermost coating is made from, and how hard it is, would determine how easy it is to scratch. I'm pretty sure you are touching something softer than glass in all cases. It is possible that they make the outer coat of some scratch resistive material though.. There are cases of people reporting that they've managed to ruin the sensor by cleaning it though... so whatever's on there isn't indestructible. The reasons they prohibit invasive cleaning by the owner IMHO is because they have no control over how the client does it... It's easy to say "I followed directions and when I was done there was this big scratch in there..."... and it's easy to say "you must have violated your warrantee because you managed to touch the sensor in order to make a scratch on it".... << I'm not sure what the material is, either, but...not all manufacturers "prohibit" "invasive" cleaning. Pentax provides pretty good directions for cleaning without using a brush--the kind of blower they show, though, is almost totally useless, IME. They don't say a thing about using Sensor Swabs, which I did late this morning. Worked a treat. Yeah, you can destroy the sensor or its covering with too rough handling. I doubt very much you can scratch it using a good, soft brush or a Sensor Swab and Eclipse, but, hey, some people can do damned near anything. I recall no statement about indestructibility: if quartz or glass is used, about the only thing likely to do any scratching is diamond or carborundum dust. I didn't write anything about any other kind of rough handling. It seems reasonable to supposed that a delicate touch is better than swinging a ball bat at the sensor, assuming you could get the bat into position. |
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.