| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/20/2007 10:53:25 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by Brad:
Originally posted by Steveinnz:
In New Zealand we get a think called Post it Notes. The sticky part of these are good as they leave no residue. They are not as sticky as tape. I have used these for some time now with great results. |
Do some research on this as I did.
Transparent/Scotch tape can and often does leave a very minute amount of residue when it is lifted off, where as the blue painter's tape doesn't. The adhesive on the blue tape is like the Post-It Notes. Ever see a painter use Scotch tape for masking? It's far too aggressive. The blue tape leaves nothing behind, and the area where it was lifted off can be painted over with no clean-up. |
they also have a low-tack painters tape that is specifically made to not pull up the paint you are taping to. that might be even better for an application like this. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 11:01:21 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by IreneM:
[...] I use my vacuum cleaner (the nozzle part and very, very, very carefully) to hoover out the dust first and get rid of any hard dust particles, wet clean afterwards using the copperhill method. Worked like a charm up to now. |
there's one possible issue with using a vacuum. when you "suck" stuff off the sensor, air comes in from the outside world bringing in more dust. using compressed-gas or a bulb blows the sensor with (in theory) clean air, which slightly increases the air pressure within the camera and no new air (and no dust) gets in.
that's the way containment areas are set up. you figure out if you want to focus on letting nothing bad get in (like when cleaning your sensor, or setting up a room for a "bubble boy") in which case you use a positive pressure method (blowing clean air in), or if you want nothing bad to get out (like toxic chemicals, or a patient with a contagious disease like tuberculosis) in which case you want a negative pressure method (like a vacuum). |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 11:03:42 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by Nikolai1024:
It seems a bit hard to believe. Light has to be already focused and directional as it hits the sensor. I guess I'll have to test it out for myself. |
Not true. At a wide open aperture, you have very shallow depth of field. Only a small portion of the light coming in is focused, the rest of it is out of focus. But at a very small aperture, most of the light coming in is focused.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2007 11:25:03 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Originally posted by kudzu:
I have yet to find a speck of dust that the rocket blower won't get rid of...
sure you're squeezing that thing hard enough? |
LOL I think so! :P The rocket blower has been doing a good job to get rid of MOST of my dust, but I have some dust boogers that seem to be stuck really well and just stay there cleaning after cleaning. |
lesson learned: never pick your nose while changing lenses.
thanks for that bit of earned wisdom, cindi!
|
|
|
|
04/20/2007 11:27:39 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by kudzu:
lesson learned: never pick your nose while changing lenses.
thanks for that bit of earned wisdom, cindi! |
Yeah, yeah, I'm a fountain of useless knowledge! lol
|
|
|
|
04/20/2007 11:35:00 AM · #56 |
It seems like you should be able to test the technique by using scotch tape to clean the front of one of your lens filters. Then you can easily look at it from the top, with light coming from behind, and use a magnifying glass or even a microscope to see if there's residue.
(If you have a microscope, you could try it on a glass slide)
Anyone want to try it?
|
|
|
|
04/20/2007 11:47:14 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
It seems like you should be able to test the technique by using scotch tape to clean the front of one of your lens filters. Then you can easily look at it from the top, with light coming from behind, and use a magnifying glass or even a microscope to see if there's residue.
(If you have a microscope, you could try it on a glass slide)
Anyone want to try it? |
i have access to a microscope, some glass slides, and various types of tape. i even have my camera with me, but don't have a t-mount or any adapter to capture images of it, but i'll do my subjective test this afternoon, and then try and see if i can get some before and after images. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 11:48:14 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by Nikolai1024:
It seems a bit hard to believe. Light has to be already focused and directional as it hits the sensor. I guess I'll have to test it out for myself. |
The reason what he says works is because the dust doesn't
move in relationship to the sensor.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2007 11:53:54 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Now repeat all of the above steps but with the smallest aperture available on your lens. Obviously it will be a long exposure. That's okay. |
Sure, it's ok, but why bother. Just use your flash! ;)
|
|
|
|
04/20/2007 12:09:08 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Brad:
Do some research on this as I did...The blue tape leaves nothing behind, and the area where it was lifted off can be painted over with no clean-up. |
This...is not entirely true. This is from experience. I used the blue painters tape to cover over aluminum molding on the camper (I built) while priming it. Removed after being on for an hour. Some residue WAS left, and after it has been sitting all winter, waiting to be finished and painted, I am finding more places that have collected dust that is stuck to the aluminum.
May just be an aluminum thing...don't know.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2007 12:22:40 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by dwterry:
Now repeat all of the above steps but with the smallest aperture available on your lens. Obviously it will be a long exposure. That's okay. |
Sure, it's ok, but why bother. Just use your flash! ;) |
I just run outside and take a picture of empty sky at f/22.
Small aperture does make a difference, if you've ever run around with a piece of mulch on your sensor for a few days, you'd know.
Gaffers tape, not painters tape.
Corners: fold tape over but don't crease and use the small flat side of the curve to blot the corners lightly.
User copperhill instead of all of the above if you know what's good for you. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 12:56:47 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Hey I told you guys once...there's no need to do it yourself...and no need to come to Pittsburgh to kick my arse...Come here for the day and I'll show you around the city (or the countryside -- which isn't too far) and while we're at it, I'll clean your sensor for you. |
I might have to take you up on that....now that I'm a few hours away in York. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 12:57:05 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
I suggest calling and finding out how much a new sensor costs if you ruin it. Then decide if it's worth the chance. Last year tried the tape method. Since it does'nt get the corner I then tried the stickem note method. Then to get the double tape residue off I used a photo swab. I then noticed the scratches. I then paid several hundred dollars at Canon replacing the sensor. I too thought I was being careful. Don't do it unless you can afford a new sensor. Kinda like being in front of a Las Vegas slot machine. Sometimes you win but the casino always takes you money in the end. |
You're not actually cleaning the sensor with these methods - you are cleaning the hot mirror - so the question would be "how much would a new hot mirror cost?" not how much would a new sensor cost. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 12:57:47 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
[quote=Brad]
Do some research I am finding more places that have collected dust that is stuck to the aluminum.
May just be an aluminum thing...don't know. |
I"ve seen the blue tape leaves residue also. But...... only when it's been on for a while. I suspect if you left scotch tape on a sensor for a few weeks you'd be in trouble. But it will only be on for a second or two. I'll never use it because I have enough problems with sticky dust anyway. No way I could put sticky tape in my light chamber. The product that was shown would possibly be the only exception. And at the price point they're getting for double sided tape I wouldn't be able to do it. ;)
|
|
|
|
04/20/2007 12:58:55 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
I just run outside and take a picture of empty sky at f/22. |
Yeah, I always forget about that. The thing is, I'm usually cleaning my sensor at night. So I'm down in my studio pointing the camera at a white wall.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2007 01:06:25 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by pineapple:
Originally posted by pccjrose:
I ended going with a kit from Microtools. The kit comes with a little bottle of methanol (dries fast, no residue) and the cleaning tools - no brushes - rather a soft disposable cloth on an applicator.
Works really well and cleans the sensor very effectively.
Microtools |
The fatal flaw in that method is that if you have a hard dust particle (for instance a sand grain) in there you would simply be stamping it around the entire sensor. The method defies logic. |
agreed ... but first I always use the Rocket Blower to get any loose grit and dust off ... then I check to see what's left ... and if the sensor still shows dust then I use the Micro Tools wet method ... |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 01:07:47 PM · #67 |
| I'd say just get a Visible Dust brush. expensive but well worth it! |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 01:17:18 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
I suggest calling and finding out how much a new sensor costs if you ruin it. Then decide if it's worth the chance. Last year tried the tape method. Since it does'nt get the corner I then tried the stickem note method. Then to get the double tape residue off I used a photo swab. I then noticed the scratches. I then paid several hundred dollars at Canon replacing the sensor. I too thought I was being careful. Don't do it unless you can afford a new sensor. Kinda like being in front of a Las Vegas slot machine. Sometimes you win but the casino always takes you money in the end. |
You're not actually cleaning the sensor with these methods - you are cleaning the hot mirror - so the question would be "how much would a new hot mirror cost?" not how much would a new sensor cost. |
HUH? no one here is talking about cleaning any mirror. They are referring to locking the mirror up and actually cleaning the sensor.
MattO |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 01:27:41 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by Megatherian:
You're not actually cleaning the sensor with these methods - you are cleaning the hot mirror - so the question would be "how much would a new hot mirror cost?" not how much would a new sensor cost. |
HUH? no one here is talking about cleaning any mirror. They are referring to locking the mirror up and actually cleaning the sensor. |
There is a plate of glass over the sensor that is an IR filter in most modern dSLRs that is named the 'Hot Mirror'. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 01:30:26 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by noisemaker:
I'd say just get a Visible Dust brush. expensive but well worth it! |
I'm with you ... I use copperhill brush and occassional swabs. Expensive is relative; imho copperhill is cheap compared with the cost of replacing the sensor or the camera. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 01:30:47 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by _eug:
There is a plate of glass over the sensor that is an IR filter in most modern dSLRs that is named the 'Hot Mirror'. |
OMG, Eugene is right... again! *faint* ;)
|
|
|
|
04/20/2007 01:43:35 PM · #72 |
This kit is reportedly being used at Canon service centers and sold only in Japan directly from the service centers - although it appears that it can be ordered on the site. Some discussion of how to use this adhesive-based product is at #14 here.
I use a giant turkey baster as a large volume blower and then the copperhill system. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 01:47:54 PM · #73 |
check out the tutorial on replacing your hot mirror
About 2/3 down the page you'll see a picture of some cyan glass they are removing from over the sensor - that's what you are actually cleaning. It's glued and sealed onto the sensor - so it's actually nearly impossible to get dust on the ACTUAL sensor. Worst case scenario when cleaning is you get the glass dirty or scratch it, your sensor should be safe though. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 01:52:20 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by jemison:
This kit is reportedly being used at Canon service centers and sold only in Japan directly from the service centers - although it appears that it can be ordered on the site. Some discussion of how to use this adhesive-based product is at #14 here.
I use a giant turkey baster as a large volume blower and then the copperhill system. |
This system works really well and is sold by Micro-tools in the USA. (See earlier post by me with the direct link) |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 02:25:46 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
It seems like you should be able to test the technique by using scotch tape to clean the front of one of your lens filters. Then you can easily look at it from the top, with light coming from behind, and use a magnifying glass or even a microscope to see if there's residue.
(If you have a microscope, you could try it on a glass slide)
Anyone want to try it? |
I would really like someone to try this. Actually if I get a chance I'll do it myself. I have 3M Scotch Tape, Blue masking tape and maybe even some cheap scotch tape around. I could look at it with my otoscope which would get some magnification, but I could only take pictures with my macro.
I'll report back with some findings later tonight.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/04/2025 10:38:40 AM EDT.
