Sensor cleaning with tape?? - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

04/30/2005 11:01:38 PM · #5

Originally posted by krazyivan:

You seem to place all sorts of value in doing research and that's exactly what he's trying to do. Ivo, I posted a thread on this forum [1] about my (very successful) experiences cleaning my D70 ccd filter with scotch magic tape. I also posted before and after samples on the dpreview.com forum post about the same information [2].

Everyone will tell you not to do it and none of the people who tell you this have ever done it. I did it and I will do it again. It is a quick, simple cleaning and once you've done it once you realize it's not the big deal everyone seems to think it is. I am not telling you to do it, but don't be deterred by the feedback from those who have never actually done it. Do the research yourself and make your own educated decision.

Sensor dust happens. It just will, no matter what. You're going to have to learn to deal with it yourself unless you are willing to pay for cleanings every 6 months to a year, which I will not.

[1] DPChallenge Forum Thread
[2] dpreview forum thread with image samples*

* Note about the sensor samples. The images are heavily overcontrasted and in the after shots, I will focussed enough that the surface of the wall shows in the shot. There are not, as it would seem, smears on the ccd, it's just the texture of the background. My sensor is very clean now.

Ivo

04/30/2005 11:32:12 PM · #6

Originally posted by krazyivan:

I understand that the sensor is not actually exposed and therefore the consequence of touching the protective "glass" should not damage the sensor itself. If this method works on film, why not the sensor's protective covering? Of course, the only solution is to try it out but who else has used this method and what pitfalls should I try to avoid. More thoughts??

rebelo

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

05/01/2005 03:48:10 AM · #7

Here's a link to the eclipse/pecpad method gone awry. I see this quite often on the dpreview.com forums and if you care to do a search there you will find many people who have ended up with much sensor headaches as a result of the wiping methods. Look for posts by a guy called 'macwrite' if you want a laugh.

oops streaks on my ccd
check out what macwrite did to his ccd filter, i love this kid

(edit: found a macwrite post for fun)

Message edited by author 2005-05-01 03:49:34.

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

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

05/01/2005 04:41:59 AM · #8

Originally posted by rebelo:

Here's a link to the eclipse/pecpad method gone awry. I see this quite often on the dpreview.com forums...

Although the thread that you linked was talking about a guy who didn't actually follow the instructions.

05/01/2005 09:04:50 AM · #9

Which is the crazier thing to do - use an inexpensive, commonly available tape to clean your expensive sensor, or pay an exorbitant price (econo-kit = $86) for some brushes that should be selling for a few bucks?

If you believe that modern technology can put eight million photosensors in a space less than a square inch, then why can't you accept that modern technology can create a tape that won't leave any residue?

The tape method desreves serious consideration.

blemt

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

05/01/2005 09:18:46 AM · #10

Originally posted by coolhar:

The tape method desreves serious consideration.

When you go and start cleaning your sensor with tape- then I'll start giving it more serious consideration. :)

As it is- I work in the camera/camera repair business. This one ranks very, very high on my list of things not to do to the camera.

Clara

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR

05/01/2005 09:55:43 AM · #11

I think I'm going to start selling sensor tape sticks, put some tape over the end of a cotton swab, two dozen to a box, and sell them for about $69.95. I'll need help writing pages and pages of descriptions for my website, any volunteers? ;)

But seriously, if done carefully, why couldn't tape be an effective tool for removing dust? People are already using the speck grabbers, which is essentially the same idea, and I haven't heard any stories of how that method is ruining sensors.

jmlelii

Nikon D850

05/01/2005 10:01:11 AM · #12

GAH. I wouldnt go near my sensor with a piece of tape, Magic or not. Besides, how well can you trust "magic" tape?

Look at those magicians! All they do are slides of the hand, its not real!

*clicks heels* Theres no place like the home of the spatula, theres no place like the home of the spatula */click heels*

blemt

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

05/01/2005 10:04:03 AM · #13

Originally posted by coolhar:

But seriously, if done carefully, why couldn't tape be an effective tool for removing dust?

Again- I don't disagree. But until you start using tape to clean your sensor I shall reserve judgement. :)

Clara

Leica 18-56mm f/3.5-5.6 Vario Elmar-T ASPH

05/01/2005 10:16:37 AM · #14

Mine is clean right now, and I have begun being very careful when changing lens. But I think I'll try this next time.

MAK

Leica M Monochrom

05/01/2005 10:31:07 AM · #15

I use an airbrush compressor to clean my sensor, I do it every 2 weeks because to prevent is better than having to cure. If I did get slimey goo all over my sensor then FOR SURE I would send it into Nikon for repair. I do not doubt the tape technique or the wipe style either but I would not attempt either. Keep it clean and use REAL air from a compressor and not from a tin, the best advice I have is that.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

05/01/2005 11:02:05 AM · #16

OK, so I'm biased, and I need to air that out first-off. I use the Copperhill method, and have had nothing but outstanding results with it.
I'm also a mechanical engineer with 27 years experience in electronics, including materials design and analysis for electronics applications. So, from an engineering perspective, let's look at the tape option. The goal here is to remove particulate or other matter on the surface of the glass covering the sensor, while hopefully leaving the glass there, and not damaging or changing its surface.
It's possible to design a tape adhesive that leaves almost no residue. These adhesives are usually silicone-based, and are significantly different than the adhesives found on "magic" tape. Magic tape may not leave a visible residue, but you can bet there is residue there, and in fact the residue will very likely attract dust, just what we don't want. Another scary aspect of using tape is the mechanical force needed to remove it. While it's not a large force, you are essentially pulling up on the glass. If I'm going to apply any force, I'd rather push it down against its mounting surface.
Yet another aspect to the tape scenario that I don't like is the fact that I'm going to be fumbling around in the camera trying to position that tape *just right*, get it stuck 100% with no air bubbles, and then remove it, all without getting up against the shutter, mirror, etcetera.
The tape method is actually going to take me longer to do than the Copperhill method, will very likely leave residues that may enhance adherence of dust, and increase the possibility of collaateral mechanical damage.
Bottom line, as an engineer, no way am I using tape to clean my sensor.
Now let's look at the Copperhill method from an enginering perspective. We use an ultra-low-residue (<5ppm) solvent, methanol, that is commonly used in electronics cleaning applications, and apply it to a pec-pad, which is designed specifically for cleaning optical surfaces. We have the pad wrapped around a soft rubber swab specifically designed to fit the chamber, and carefully make two gentle passes. The methanol immediately evaporates, leaving an undetectable amount of residue (we can never say NONE). The solvent will also often remove stuck specks that are not dust, though several passes may be necessary. Tape will fail at this task. The solvent will also remove any oily residues (such as smoke residue) that tape will only smear. The one downfall of methanol as a cleaning solution is that there are water-soluble contaminants that are not soluble in methanol. I've run into this when cleaning lenses. You can clean and clean with methanol, the spots will not come off, but just breathe on the lens surface, and follow qickly with methanol, and they are gone (the water-methanol solution is a powerful cleaner, able to clean both polar and non-polar soils). I'd never recommend breathing on the sensor, but experince tells me that the water-soluble soils occasionally found on lenses are rarely found on sensors. If I did encounter these soils on my sensor cover glass, I'd feel confident removing them with a methanol/distilled water mix, followed immediately with a second cleaning with pure methanol.

riot

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Helios 40-1 85mm f/1.5

05/01/2005 12:15:14 PM · #17

Originally posted by coolhar:

If you believe that modern technology can put eight million photosensors in a space less than a square inch, then why can't you accept that modern technology can create a tape that won't leave any residue?

Because you pay hundreds if not thousands for the sensor, and a pocketful of change for the tape.

holmes

Canon EOS-10D

05/15/2005 02:25:22 AM · #18

All this talk about canned air and blowers. Then everybody complains about dust specks in their viewfinder. When you blow dust around it has to go somewhere. I made up a small sucker/blower motor that has a good suction to lift out all the dust in the sensor compartment, never touching the sensor face.

colda

Nikon D800

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

05/15/2005 04:41:12 AM · #19

I use the magic tape method and am very happy with it.

Personally I think that there is less chance of damage when I put the tape on a spec of dust and remove it directly rather than the risk of fine scratches caused by dragging a cleaning pad across it.

If you had a little grit in your eye, would you prefer it to be lifted straight out or dragged across your eye?

Remember, we are not touching the sensor but rather a protective layer of glass in front of it.

When using liquid based solutions what are the risks of the fluid actually finding a path through to the sensor itself and causing real damage?

gppacecar

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

05/15/2005 06:59:56 AM · #20

colda, you've missed the way in which the brush works. The compressed air is blown on the brush, not the sensor. The compressed air charges the bush which will lift, not drag, the contaminant into the brush and not across the sensor.

Just a little clarification ;)

colda

Nikon D800

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

05/15/2005 07:32:39 AM · #21

Originally posted by gppacecar:

I know about that method, and it's rather a good (best?) one in my opinion (albeit overpriced), I was refering more to the Copperhill (and similar) methods.