Do DSLR cameras even have a practical future?

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/24/2005 01:20:54 AM · #51

Originally posted by gruvin:

Well that's azaming. Tell me - you you shoot much small apperture stuff? It's certainly true that low F numbers for aperture blur the dush beyond recognition. Try some F22 or higher shots of white clouds and report back. You've probably got dust all over the place is my guess. :|

Yeah, you're right, I do a lot of large aperture shooting. At f22 there is some dust, but nothing a bit of cloning won't fix. Damn, now you've made me aware of it, I was quite blissful in my ignorance ;-)

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

01/24/2005 02:02:29 AM · #52

some people act as if the CMOS is made of tissue paper. You must know that they put some pretty tough glass over the electronics. If touching this glass covering the sensor is concidered to beso tricky, how do you clean the front or rear elements of your lenses? Why the difference?

I live in a dusty house up a dirt road in northern California where we see no rain for six months out of the year. Dust is a fact of life. The Cooperhill method work fine for me, been doing it for a year and it is only slightly tougher than cleaning a pair of sunglasses. If it is extremely dry out and dust is visibly hanging in the air, while a neighbour is using a tractor or something, I will run the shower for a few minutes to get the dust knocked down(the poor man's clean room) before a cleaning session, but in NZ your air is about as wet as a shower most of the time anyway.
I'm not sure if you are doing something wrong to get more than normal dust on the sensor, or are more sensitive to what is a normal amount of dust, but this is not an experimental technology at this point, these things can be made to work.

01/24/2005 05:05:33 AM · #53

Originally posted by gruvin:

Thanks Chris. NZ Distributor noted - though at that price, I think I'll be talking to a chemist and visiting the rubber spatula section of Countdown LONG before I shell out.

I would at least spring for the eclipse fluid if I were you...

The problems you had with streaking will either be contaminants in your cleaning fluid, or the cleaning fluid attacking the swab, and getting contaminents for that.

What type of material are your swabs?

Cheers, Chris H.

01/24/2005 05:27:47 AM · #54

Originally posted by Arcy:

... Perhaps you should read up on how to use them (and how to clean dslr's for that matter) before you go prophesizing about the future of cameras and stuff.

I dare say I have invested a great deal more time and effort "reading up on" D70's and cleaning them than you ever will. I've probably also spent more money on purchasing them than you have. AND I've "READ" the manual and the warranty disclaimer stating that in NO CIRCUMSTANCES MUST THE CAMERA OWNER TOUCH THE CCD/FILTER - EVER.

So you have ZERO dust problems? You've "torture" tested it? Yeah right. Like ANYONE is gonna believe that. I started this thread to get good advice from good HONEST people. You can just carry on as you were thanks.

Message edited by author 2005-01-24 05:33:23.

01/24/2005 05:40:00 AM · #55

Originally posted by Anjella:

.... At f22 there is some dust, but nothing a bit of cloning won't fix. Damn, now you've made me aware of it, I was quite blissful in my ignorance ;-)

Sorry :( Imagine how I felt! Had to throw an expensive camera in the bin and buy a new one!

What is most annoying is that the official word from Nikon is to NEVER attempt cleaning the CCD yourself. So instead of providing constructive, professional advice as a responsible manufacturer should do imo, we are left to figure something out ourselves. In my case I got unlucky I guess. It only takes ONE wrong move to wreck the things.

Obviously it's not practical to pay $100 plus days of down time everytime a bit of dust gets on the sensor that air wont blow off. They know that. What are they hiding? Or this hole in my pocket just lighting up my paranoia? I sure hope not - I've always liked Nikon. Olympus is looking mighty good to me right now though I have to say.

Anyway - the point is - they ARE user cleanable and we have to do so. The advice in here has been excellent. REAL advice from real people who've made it work. Great stuff! (So don't worry :)

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/24/2005 05:45:35 AM · #56

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

... but in NZ your air is about as wet as a shower most of the time anyway.
I'm not sure if you are doing something wrong to get more than normal dust on the sensor, or are more sensitive to what is a normal amount of dust, ...

Ah! You raise a good point - one I've neglected to mention. I believe it is the very fast that our air is so moist that is causing the seriousness of the problem. See, the dust is also so moist! It "sticks" in ways dry dust never would.

Also, when using alcohol, especially Methanol (Copperhill/Elclipse), in theory, it will rapidly soak up H2O from the moist air and leav it deposited on the glass. 100% Isopropyl does exactly that here, whereas many on the Internet claim it dries streak free. They seem to live in drier climates. Lucky them!

I'm still going to try Methanol of course, though it's utterly impossible to keep it beyond 90% pure in our atmosphere. (It sucks up water from the air quite rapidly.)

colda

Nikon D800

01/24/2005 05:46:48 AM · #57

Originally posted by gruvin:

Originally posted by Arcy:
... Perhaps you should read up on how to use them (and how to clean dslr's for that matter) before you go prophesizing about the future of cameras and stuff.

I dare say I have invested a great deal more time and effort "reading up on" D70's and cleaning them than you ever will. I've probably also spent more money on purchasing them than you have. AND I've "READ" the manual and the warranty disclaimer stating that in NO CIRCUMSTANCES MUST THE CAMERA OWNER TOUCH THE CCD/FILTER - EVER.

So you have ZERO dust problems? You've "torture" tested it? Yeah right. Like ANYONE is gonna believe that. I started this thread to get good advice from good HONEST people. You can just carry on as you were thanks.

I fully intend to clean my sensor myself, and I do think that sensors are a bit more robust than many people seem to think. If they are so sensitive then we would have to be far more careful of basic atmospheric conditions when changing lenses. I think that the instruction in the manual not to touch the sensor is a sensible one, alternativly people would use spit and an abasive cloth to clean the thing. Many computers say 'do not open' but as long as you are sensible then upgrading components does not require a return to the manufacturer.

It seems that your response to Arcy is a little harsh.

01/24/2005 05:47:52 AM · #58

Originally posted by gruvin:

It only takes ONE wrong move to wreck the things.

Out of curiosity, what did you do to kill it?

I have a friend who scratched his 1D sensor, but it didn't make the camera a total loss, Canon replaced the anti-aliasing filter for something like $800 NZ.

He was trying to get a hair that was caught up in the mirror hinge with a pair of tweezers, and sneezed... I kid you not. That's an expensive sneeze!

Cheers, Chris H.

Arcy

Nikon D200

01/24/2005 05:56:36 AM · #59

Originally posted by colda:

It seems that your response to Arcy is a little harsh.

true, but i'm not surprised.

the phenominon of digital camera users in online forums is a very interesting one. oh well.

anyway, he basically just shed light on the silliness of the original post.

01/24/2005 05:59:13 AM · #60

Originally posted by KiwiChris:

The problems you had with streaking will either be contaminants in your cleaning fluid, or the cleaning fluid attacking the swab, and getting contaminents for that.

What type of material are your swabs?

Cheers, Chris H.

I've tried swabs provided by Photo Wharehouse "Made especially for CCD cleaning". There'y only half the width needed though. I wrapp lint free paper around it. (pek padd? Guess that's an American brand - can't find "pek" anything down here)

Actually, I believe the streaking is the Isopropyl soaking up water from the air as it evaporates.

The best success I had was with a spatula-rubber type of thing, full sensor width for one swipe and no edge, and a thin alcohol solution I wont be mentioning - just in case someone tries it and it does damage. (I'll be trying everything else, known to others before I risk that again - just in case it had something to do my demise.) Methanol is next. It's readily available in very high quality from chemists - don't waste money on "special CCD cleaning" stuff.

[Long story... but when you buy "special" stuff in bottles, go ask your chemist "How much for for a bottle of this cryptic chemical forumla?" You'll be AMAZED how cheap it is in pure grade without the fancy label and so-called-"special design/use." - I'm talking 1/100th the price or less in most cases!]

Has anyone else tried the "Copperhill" method (spatula and lint-free-paper) with Chemist grade 100% Isopropyl? Did it streak? If not - is your atmostphere high or low humidity? Thanks.

01/24/2005 06:07:57 AM · #61

Originally posted by colda:

It seems that your response to Arcy is a little harsh.

I may have edited it since you read it. That would mean I agree. But clearly the Arcy was telling "white lies." Everyone - surely - who knows anything about anything knows there's not a (D)SLR camera in the WORLD that can be dust "torture tested" and not get dust in it's private parts. Enough said.

Re. the "do not touch the CCD" from the manufacturer. Where does that leave us who paid $160 for the extended warrantee? The warranty is out the window the first time you clean your sensor! Just know that and DON'T bother with buying it. It's not worth the paper it's written on - clearly. Shouldn't there be SOME advice as to at least where to get training and correct equipment to clean the things? Yes? No?

Arcy

Nikon D200

01/24/2005 06:22:11 AM · #62

Originally posted by gruvin:

Originally posted by colda:
It seems that your response to Arcy is a little harsh.

I may have edited it since you read it. That would mean I agree. But clearly the Arcy was telling "white lies." Everyone - surely - who knows anything about anything knows there's not a (D)SLR camera in the WORLD that can be dust "torture tested" and not get dust in it's private parts. Enough said.

By torture tested, I simply meant blue sky/white wall shots at stopped down apertures; in other words, situations which are ideal for seeing the dust. Meaning, of course, that in real-life situations the dust becomes less visible. But even in those unrealistic tests I haven't had any problems. I did get a small speck on my viewfinder once but I gave it a quick gust of air from my Giottos Rocket and it was gone.

maybe i'm just lucky. either way i think people worry too much. just go take photos.

Message edited by author 2005-01-24 06:23:33.

01/24/2005 06:40:10 AM · #63

Originally posted by gruvin:

Actually, I believe the streaking is the Isopropyl soaking up water from the air as it evaporates.

That is possible, IPA is not the best for cleaning optics of any kind, it's a good de-greaser, and great for making homebake, but apart from that I'd leave it at the chemist...

My understanding was you can't buy IPA pure in NZ over the counter any more, due to it's use in drug manufacture. Does the stuff you've got smell sickly sweet? Pure IPA dosn't smell of anything in particular, the bottle I have here from the local pharmacy almost smells like cat piss...

Originally posted by gruvin:

Methanol is next. It's readily available in very high quality from chemists - don't waste money on "special CCD cleaning" stuff.

Ummm, but did you just spend $1500 because your cleaning efforts went wrong? ColsonCo Imaging Systems can also sell eclipse and pec-pads which are heaps cheaper by them selves than with the sensor swabs. It might be a good idea to try the 'real' cleaning fluid out, I'm certainly happy with it, as are many other people.

Originally posted by gruvin:

Has anyone else tried the "Copperhill" method (spatula and lint-free-paper) with Chemist grade 100% Isopropyl? Did it streak? If not - is your atmostphere high or low humidity? Thanks.

Using Isopropyl dosn't sound like a good idea to me, from my experience it is hard to get a streak free finish on critical surfaces with the stuff. I used to service all sorts of electronics gear in a past life, and we used IPA for all sorts of general cleaning tasks, but for optical surfaces such as front silvered laser mirrors pure methanol was the go, and the stuff we tried from pharmacy's wasn't much chop, depsite the claims of purity.

We sourced it from a scientific outfit who sold it for cleaning microscope optics.

I really think that you're pinching pennies on this one, After all we're talking about saving a few bucks on cleaning products for a $1500 camera.

For what it's worth, my advice would be to buy some eclpise, and try that. From memory it's $40 NZ and comes with some pec-pads.

As always, just my 2c worth..

Cheers, Chris H.

Message edited by author 2005-01-24 06:44:07.

01/24/2005 04:00:03 PM · #64

Originally posted by KiwiChris:

Originally posted by gruvin:
It only takes ONE wrong move to wreck the things.

Out of curiosity, what did you do to kill it?

I guess I wasn't real clear on that. What happened is that some "liquid" got between the filter glass and CCD itself. We're not exactly sure what liquid that was.

It could have been propellant from an air-can (which did occur in a small spurt the day before, I think. It's hard to keep the body inverted and the can vertical. A small lapse in concentration is all that's needed if you attempt both at once. I was getting pretty desperate.

Or, it could have been isopropyl alcohol from an (overly moist?) swab that ran off the edge and around the corner. See, I typically clean the sensor then invert the camera as quick as possible to try and prevent fresh dust falling straight back in - as "always" seems to happen.

There was an option to send the camera to Japan for an estimated $1,200+tax and a three to four week wait. Since a new one is around $1450 (body only of course), that simply didn't make any sense.

Amoung other things, it's becoming clear that there simply must be more "moist" dust in my house environment than most other D70 owners' homes. I live by the sea... perhaps that has someting to do with it? I need to find a neg. ion generator for this room. No one seems to sell consumer models any more. :(

01/24/2005 04:07:38 PM · #65

Originally posted by KiwiChris:

Good point. But I don't think it would matter what the liquid was if it got in behind the filter glass like in this case.

I'm interested to hear that chemist grade methanol is not likely to be "mcuh chop". Surely that can't claim 100% pure, less than 5p.p.m on the bottle if it's not? $40 is less than I thought Eclipse was. I guess that's within the realms of reasonability - it should last for a long time. I'm kind of broke at the moment - as you might well imagine!

BTW - 100% IPA from the Chemist was purchased on the advice of the camera shop after lengthy conversation on the matter. They said "That's what everyone uses. (But we don't recommend... blah blah)" Grr!

Thanks for the advice.

01/24/2005 04:09:28 PM · #66

Originally posted by Arcy:

... maybe i'm just lucky. either way i think people worry too much. just go take photos.

Fair comment.

DieHappy

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/25/2005 12:17:33 AM · #67

camera shops take apart film cameras and clean then, do you think any will start to offer dust removal for dslrs?

Olympus 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 M.Zuiko Digital ED

01/25/2005 02:26:02 AM · #68

Originally posted by gruvin:

I'm interested to hear that chemist grade methanol is not likely to be "mcuh chop". Surely that can't claim 100% pure, less than 5p.p.m on the bottle if it's not?

We never got to the bottom of that one, but from memory it came down to storage method and term of storage. Chemists don't actually have much use for pure methanol, and they keep it in little plastic bottles of 50-100ml with an air gap above the fluid, where moisture gets in every time the bottle is opened, along with dust etc.. So over the life of a bottle the results would get progressively poorer.

The stuff that was 'real' optical equipment cleaner probably started life out as the same product, but came in much smaller (10ml?) bottles that were like a small bellows, so you squeezed out the fluid through a small 'dripper' and only ever let a very small amount of air back in. They also had quite a short self life marking, although we ignored that for what we were doing...

Cheers, Chris H.

jonr

Olympus OM-D E-M5

01/25/2005 05:13:11 AM · #69

BTW, the E-1 "little brother" is now available. 8MP for less than $1000. And no dust. :)

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/25/2005 09:45:14 AM · #70

Originally posted by DieHappy:

camera shops take apart film cameras and clean then, do you think any will start to offer dust removal for dslrs?

They already do...

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

01/25/2005 11:34:59 AM · #71

Originally posted by gruvin:

Originally posted by KiwiChris:
Ummm, but did you just spend $1500 because your cleaning efforts went wrong? ColsonCo Imaging Systems can also sell eclipse and pec-pads which are heaps cheaper by them selves than with the sensor swabs. It might be a good idea to try the 'real' cleaning fluid out, I'm certainly happy with it, as are many other people.

Good point. But I don't think it would matter what the liquid was if it got in behind the filter glass like in this case.

I'm interested to hear that chemist grade methanol is not likely to be "mcuh chop". Surely that can't claim 100% pure, less than 5p.p.m on the bottle if it's not? $40 is less than I thought Eclipse was. I guess that's within the realms of reasonability - it should last for a long time. I'm kind of broke at the moment - as you might well imagine!

BTW - 100% IPA from the Chemist was purchased on the advice of the camera shop after lengthy conversation on the matter. They said "That's what everyone uses. (But we don't recommend... blah blah)" Grr!

Thanks for the advice.

gruvin,
couple comments on the "consumables". I don't actually use eclipse, I use "HPLC Grade" methanol" which does have <5ppm residue. The advantages of methanol over 2-propanol (IPA) are:
- Dries MUCH faster
- Still can pick up water, but not to as great an extent
- Methanol is much easier to manufacture in a pure, dry state.
- Here in the US, high-purity (<5ppm residue) methanol is more expensive than 2-propanol, but still only $30USD/500cc, and 500cc will last you a good long time.
- The residue specifications on IPA don't include incidental volatiles (like water). It's insanely difficult to get IPA more than 99% pure.

With respect to the tools, do consider pec-pads,they are far superior to other "lens papers". Combined with a good, custom-cut spatula, it's very easy to get great results.
With respect to humiditiy, can't you do your cleaning in an air-conditioned environment? no matter how high the himidity outside, an air conditioned space typically will not have humidity higher than about 65%. While a bit "wet" this should be just fine.
A final thought on the cost of eclipse. I know here in the US, it's less expensive to buy a (small) bottle of eclipse than a (large) bottle of hi-purity methanol. Since maintaining purity over time is a question, it might just be better for you to buy the small bottle of eclipse, which should last you a year or more, than to deal with the larger container, which will of course pick up a bit of water each time it's opened.

hyperfocal

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

01/25/2005 01:44:53 PM · #72

I'm on my third D70 and had two d100s before them, and I've had to clean the sensor maybe ten times. And of the ten times only once did I need to touch the sensor with anything other than air. In fact I bought a pack of sensor swabs and cleaning fluid (about $75 total) last summer and have yet needed to open them up.

Practice good camera hygene. Keep your camera bag vaccumed out, try not to change the lens in windy or dusty environments & NEVER take the lens off with out turning the camera off (no electricity running through the sensor).

01/25/2005 02:55:37 PM · #73

Originally posted by DieHappy:

camera shops take apart film cameras and clean then, do you think any will start to offer dust removal for dslrs?

That would be a good thing - but I can't see many doing it while Nikon are demanding only their trained and certified technicians do it.

GoldBerry

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

01/25/2005 03:03:50 PM · #74

As far as I know I don't have any dust issues either. That being said, my sensor would no doubt like a good cleaning.

If you're willing to cough up that much coin to replace a camera just because the sensor is dirty, then next time take it into an official nikon dealer to be professionally cleaned. I have a feeling it'd be a wee bit cheaper.