 |
 | 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 / January 2007Why a dust shedding system is a boon
Yes, you can clean your sensors when they get dirty. Problem is, even the slightest drag of a tiny piece of grit across it when cleaning can sleek or scratch the sensor. At the microscopic level (pixels aren't much bigger than bacteria) that the sensors operate at, something like a tiny scratch so close to the image plane (the sensor window) will show up as a well-defined streak. When a tiny scratch (unless it produces prismatic effects) is put on the front of a lens, it matters far less because it isn't in focus on the sensor. The blur spreads it out so all it does is reduce contrast a minute amount, inconsequential. But the scratch on the coating on a sensor window is almost on top of the sensor surface itself. So, anything the camera can do to minimize cleaning and dust adhesion is good. > Yes, you can clean your sensors when they get dirty. Problem is, even > the slightest drag of a tiny piece of grit across it when cleaning can [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > itself. So, anything the camera can do to minimize cleaning and dust > adhesion is good. Hard to disagree. Anyone who has used a sensor wipe without proper care and then done an extreme levels check finds that the streaks from cleaning fluid, let alone small scratches, really show up. We've now been using older Minolta DSLRs and the new Sony side by side for six months. I'm generally having to tackle one or two persistent dust locations on stopped down Minolta images - not worth the effort of cleaning and not visible wide open or on many subjects - but the Sony just turns up the occasional spot, gone entirely on the next subject. About one frame in 100, and so far, no persistent dust locations at all. Same for the Canon 400D - so far, 4 months use, no dust blobs. New Nikon D80 - a dozen and more dust blobs out of the box...! David > We've now been using older Minolta DSLRs and the new Sony side by side > for six months. I'm generally having to tackle one or two persistent [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Same for the Canon 400D - so far, 4 months use, no dust blobs. New Nikon > D80 - a dozen and more dust blobs out of the box...! It's intersting to hear your positive vote on the Sony A100 anti dust system. (I assume you mean the "dust shaker" that rids the sensor of dust). I too "digitally" remove dust when it appears. I've only 'cleaned' the sensor on two occasions using a blower bulb to get the worst of the dust off of the sensor. It takes several tries to get most of it out. Assuming that Sony make a better go of the next DSLR (at least a Maxxum 7 class machine, if not Maxxum 9 class) in 10 or 12 Mpix (full frame would be lovely), then I will be a very happy camper. The A100, alas, is a bit short of the mark. Thanks, 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: Remove FreeLunch. >> We've now been using older Minolta DSLRs and the new Sony side by side >> for six months. I'm generally having to tackle one or two persistent [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > would be lovely), then I will be a very happy camper. The A100, alas, > is a bit short of the mark. Our experience is apparently not all that typical, with all DSLRs. I may just be a careful lens changer, or avoid working in extreme dust and filth. Sand, road dust, sea spray, yes - but not motocross in direct line of fire from spinning tyres or working in a dust-storm. David > >> We've now been using older Minolta DSLRs and the new Sony side by side > >> for six months. I'm generally having to tackle one or two persistent [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > David If Nikon is right, some of that dust comes from the inner camera mechanism workings so you could leave the lens on forever and dust would get in. Additionally, non-sealed cameras (most DSLRs) will allow dust in at some point. It's annoying. You can have a surface vertical for most of the time and yet some of what settles on it isn't just dust, it actually has an adhesive power. > If Nikon is right, some of that dust comes from the inner camera > mechanism workings so you could leave the lens on forever and dust [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and yet some of what settles on it isn't just dust, it actually has an > adhesive power. As a Nikon user: I find a lot less dust appearing since I instituted the policy of removing my batteries from the camera prior to changing the lens. I also dust the lens & camera exteriors prior to the change. I also blow off the rear element of the lens to be placed just prior to the removal of the on camera lens. 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". > As a Nikon user: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > blow off the rear element of the lens to be placed just prior to the > removal of the on camera lens. Huh? I know you must be joking? Nobody is that foolish or stupid to remove the battery before changing lenses, not even a Canon user. Do you actually find time to take pictures after this ritual bullshit? I change my lenses in dust storms since I have Nikon's new automatic sensor cleaner. http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/sensor.htm Rita > > As a Nikon user: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Rita Rita, according to Thom Hogan Nikon has been using an antistatic coating to the AA filter since the D70 (I believe). So this is a passive dust system There is also a point while you may scratch the sensor, the sensor is generally sealed behaind the AA filter, so you are cleaning a hardened surface of glass rather than the sensor. I still have only had to use a blower twice on my D200 in 10 months (2000+ images) and I shoot primes and change lenses a lot. I have shot on a beach, in the desert etc. Tom > Rita, according to Thom Hogan Nikon has been using an antistatic > coating to the AA filter since the D70 (I believe). So this is a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > shot > on a beach, in the desert etc. Yep! And dust in a dSLR is basically a non-issue that people get so worried about. By the time dust ever becomes an issue you will be trading up to the next model dSLR due to planned obsolecence. Rita > Yep! And dust in a dSLR is basically a non-issue that people get so > worried about. Rita is righta. My third Pentax DSLR is dust-sealed and has a dust shaker, but with the previous two lesser models and full bag of lenses I never found dust to be a problem. About the only time you might notice a little dust is when you shoot a picture of mostly sky while stopped down to F/22 (never my favorite stop) and even then it is ridiculously easy to remove from the image with a clone brush. And I don't worry about planned obsolecence... the delicate buttons and switches on these all-electronic DSLRs will fail long before you really need a newer camera. Just recall how long your computer's simple keyboard lasted before it had to be replaced. SignatureAnti-Spam address: my last name at his dot com Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA > My third Pentax DSLR is dust-sealed and has a dust shaker, but with > the previous two lesser models and full bag of lenses I never found > dust to be a problem. This sounds like a neat idea. I never explored this, but I must ask what happens to the dust after it is vibrated off the sensor? Is there some type of catch bin or filter that need be replaced? Rita Rita ? Berkowitz wrote: > > My third Pentax DSLR is dust-sealed and has a dust shaker, but with > > the previous two lesser models and full bag of lenses I never found [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > happens to the dust after it is vibrated off the sensor? Is there some type > of catch bin or filter that need be replaced? > Rita Sony or Canon have an adhesive pad below the sensor, but since the system actuates each time the camera is started, where the dust ends up isn't as important as it being shook off. Besides, the amount of material shed on each shake probably wouldn't even be visible to the human eye. > Sony or Canon have an adhesive pad below the sensor, but since the > system actuates each time the camera is started, where the dust ends > up isn't as important as it being shook off. Besides, the amount of > material shed on each shake probably wouldn't even be visible to the > human eye. I'm not sure where the dust ends up isn't important. I sure as hell wouldn't want this dust to end up in my lenses where I can't clean it. Maybe it's better to not have all this modern snake oil and witchcraft when a good old manual swabbing will do a better and safer job. Rita Rita ? Berkowitz wrote: > > Sony or Canon have an adhesive pad below the sensor, but since the > > system actuates each time the camera is started, where the dust ends [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Maybe it's better to not have all this modern snake oil and witchcraft when > a good old manual swabbing will do a better and safer job. Given the people buying entry-level DSLRs now, would you still think it's safer for them to touch a sensor, with anything? > Given the people buying entry-level DSLRs now, would you still think > it's safer for them to touch a sensor, with anything? Hell - half these people don't practice personal grooming!!! 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". >> I'm not sure where the dust ends up isn't important. I sure as hell >> wouldn't want this dust to end up in my lenses where I can't clean [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Given the people buying entry-level DSLRs now, would you still think > it's safer for them to touch a sensor, with anything? Well, since you put it that way I must concede defeat considering the level of reasoning put forth by some of the dust related nonsense I've been reading. Removing batteries to change a lens come to mind? Yeah, right, that'll work wonders. Rita > Removing batteries to change a lens come to mind? Yeah, right, > that'll work wonders. Give it a shot- it might make you happy.....just what the Dr. ordered! 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". > > Yep! And dust in a dSLR is basically a non-issue that people get so > > worried about. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > favorite stop) and even then it is ridiculously easy to remove from the > image with a clone brush. uh huh. Try it with 400 wedding pictures on a white dress sometime and peoples faces. > And I don't worry about planned obsolecence... the delicate buttons and > switches on these all-electronic DSLRs will fail long before you really > need a newer camera. ???? > Just recall how long your computer's simple > keyboard lasted before it had to be replaced. As in never. 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". > > > Yep! And dust in a dSLR is basically a non-issue that people get so > > > worried about. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Try it with 400 wedding pictures on a white dress sometime and peoples > faces. You must have more problems with dust then anyone else I know. About the only time I see the effects of dust on the sensor is when I am shooting at f/16 or higher and then it can only be seen on a very uniform background, like the sky. I have never seen dust ever on someone's face, mostly just in a blue sky. I change my lenses all the time. Dust is just not an issue for me. Scott >>>>Yep! And dust in a dSLR is basically a non-issue that people get so >>>>worried about. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Dust is just not an issue for me. Dust is an issue for me - I shoot a fair amount of studio product work on an opal perspex light table and the default aperture is f13, sometimes down to f22 when depth of field for the subject is critical. I prefer not to have big blobs to clone out from the white/graded background. One clean a year is enough with the KM 7D I have permanently in the studio. It's not going to pick up new dust very readily since the lens is never changed now. But I now many fellow professionals who shoot archicture, weddings, portraits and studio product work for whom the dust-gathering properties of certain Canon models mean weekly or daily sensor cleaning. David > You must have more problems with dust then anyone else I know. About > the only time I see the effects of dust on the sensor is when I am [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Scott Actually in the last year no problems, after all I've been taking the batteries out "remember". Or did you gloss over that in your haste to denigrate and scoff at someone -as usual. Coupled with having the sensor cleaned by Nikon as needed I am fairly happy. 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". > Actually in the last year no problems, after all I've been > taking the batteries out "remember". Or did you gloss over that in > your haste to denigrate and scoff at someone -as usual. Your own hand has victimized you when you bought into this placebo effect. You see, once battery power is disconnected it generally takes 27.35 minutes for the flux capacitor to bleed down. Bleeding resistors were incorporated into the design, but they were found to dramatically shorten battery life. Next year's model will include a selenium rectifier to manage these current problems much better. > Coupled with having the sensor cleaned by Nikon as needed I am fairly > happy. OH MY GOD! You don't clean your own sensor? For shame! Rita Your becoming very tiresome. 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". >Actually in the last year no problems, after all I've been >taking the batteries out "remember". Or did you gloss over that in your >haste to denigrate and scoff at someone -as usual. What do you feel this does? >> Actually in the last year no problems, after all I've been >> taking the batteries out "remember". Or did you gloss over that in >> your haste to denigrate and scoff at someone -as usual. > > What do you feel this does? A local photographer blew three flux capacitors in his Nikon screwing around like this. It almost landed him in the hospital. Cannon seemed to get around this problem by installing MOVs in their dSLR bodies. Fortunately when the clueless try this maneuver the MOVs clamp down on the current in a nanosecond. Seriously, why do people buy dSLRs and put themselves through all this mental misery and trauma? Rita > A local photographer blew three flux capacitors in his Nikon ... I know what flux (of several different types!) is and what a capacitor is (though we used to call them condensers). But what is a "flux capacitor"? Mike. SignatureIf reply address = connectfee, add an r because it is free not fee. > > A local photographer blew three flux capacitors in his Nikon ... > > I know what flux (of several different types!) is and what a capacitor is > (though we used to call them condensers). But what is a "flux capacitor"? You need to keep up on the classic moives more, it is all about time. Scott > > A local photographer blew three flux capacitors in his Nikon ...I know what flux (of several different types!) is and what a capacitor is > (though we used to call them condensers). But what is a "flux capacitor"? > > Mike. > -- > If reply address = connectfee, add an r because it is free not fee. Ahh.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_capacitor See with this you can simply go back in time to before the dust got onto your sensor and simply prevent it from getting there in the first place..... > See with this you can simply go back in time to before the dust got > onto your sensor and simply prevent it from getting there in the first > place..... LOL! It beats the hell out of removing a battery to change a freaken lens. Rita > A local photographer blew three flux capacitors A result of all that hot air on your side, no doubt. 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". > What do you feel this does? All I can say is I have less dust issues. 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". >>Yep! And dust in a dSLR is basically a non-issue that people get so >>worried about. > > Rita is righta. > > My third Pentax DSLR is dust-sealed ?? until you change lenses ?? If you mean the K10 then all that accomplishes is keeping dust out of the electronics. Does nothing for the sensor. 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: Remove FreeLunch. > > As a Nikon user: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/sensor.htm I should consider the source "RITA" and I'll keep this otherwise a nice response: I have two identical cameras, therefore I seldom change lenses. I have three different range lenses so I usually change the lenses prior to ever leaving the studio. What works -works regardless of "nameless" opinions. 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". > I have two identical cameras, therefore I seldom change lenses. > I have three different range lenses so I usually change the lenses > prior to ever leaving the studio. Hell, I got two bags full of lenses and four bodies, but I'm not going to let a little thing like dust stop me. Next you will be telling us that you carry around a 55-gallon trash bag full of ozone and change your lenses "in the bag" when on the road. I have a deep vacuum pump and an ozone generator if you want to change lenses. For Christ's sake! Rita > I find a lot less dust appearing since I instituted the policy of > removing my batteries from the camera prior to changing the lens. > I also dust the lens & camera exteriors prior to the change. I also > blow off the rear element of the lens to be placed just prior to the > removal of the on camera lens. I don't see where removing the batteries will help. Some notion that their is a charge on the sensor with the batteries in? Even if that were so, the charge would remain in place after the batteries are removed. I would bet that your other preventative measures as well as plain old luck are the real reason you get less dust motes. 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: Remove FreeLunch. > I find a lot less dust appearing since I instituted the policy of > removing my batteries from the camera prior to changing the lens. That's not useful. There isn't enough charge on the exposed surface above the sensor to attract dust. Even if there is, it would still be there after cutting power; you're not talking about a current flow, but a static charge, and removing the battery won't discharge it. > I also dust the lens & camera exteriors prior to the change. I also > blow off the rear element of the lens to be placed just prior to the > removal of the on camera lens. I take off the lens, swap the rear cap to it from the new one, and toss the new one on. I don't even shut off the camera first. I haven't yet had to contact-clean the sensor, but I have blown it out several times (3 or 4) in the 20 months or so that I've had my current camera. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com You do what you want and so will I. 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". It's amazing how someone who neither owns a camera nor has any understanding of photography can continue to demonstrate their lack of knowledge. > It's amazing how someone who neither owns a camera nor has any > understanding of photography can continue to demonstrate their lack of > knowledge. So why do you? 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". |
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.