Dust on sensor, Sensor Brush = hogwash solution?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by MeMe, Feb 10, 2005.

  1. MeMe

    MeMe Guest

    I see the most recommended treatment /du jour/ for the vexing "dust
    specks on sensor" with digital SLRs is a brush that is charged up by
    spraying it with compressed air. Problem is, the company selling these
    brushes is extorting money from people, IMO, by charging around $100 for
    an item with a manufacture cost of pennies.

    Their website (http://www.visibledust.com) states that an ordinary nylon
    brush cannot be used for the following reasons:

    "Sensor Brush™ has been designed from the start specifically as a
    cleaning tool for delicate objects. There are many types of brushes in
    the market but they are not designed to be sensor-cleaning tools. For
    example, glues used in traditional brushes are quite destructive to the
    surface of the ND filter glass or cover glass. The polymers contained in
    many traditional brushes will cause a fatigued look on the glass due to
    the staining of the sensor. There are also many deformities in the
    brushes that are not visible by naked eyes. They can cause severe damage
    by creating microscopic scratches, which after accumulating overtime
    will create a fatigued look or catheter vision. We have done a lot of
    research in these brushes to bring the highest quality products made for
    the exact purpose of removing dust from delicate objects."

    I think this is absolute hogwash!

    - The glues used in synthetic brushes are in the ferrule, and will never
    contact the sensor surface.

    - Polymers (plastics) "staining" the sensor from an occasion light wipe
    on the surface? Balderdash! Maybe -- MAYBE -- if you let the brush rest
    for months against the sensor cover (also a plastic), some interaction
    may occur, but I doubt it.

    - Deformities in the brush not visible to the naked eye?! LOL! I have
    inspected a typical nylon artist's brush with a microscope and I see
    nary a "deformity" anywhere.

    This "Sensor Brush (TM)" product will surely go down in the history of
    photography as one of the worst scams of all time. How we are all going
    to laugh in years to come!

    I encourage everyone to go to an art supply store and buy a high quality
    nylon brush for a couple of dollars, and a can of compressed air. Voila!
     
    MeMe, Feb 10, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. MeMe

    RichA Guest

    On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:25:46 -0800, MeMe <> wrote:

    >I see the most recommended treatment /du jour/ for the vexing "dust
    >specks on sensor" with digital SLRs is a brush that is charged up by
    >spraying it with compressed air. Problem is, the company selling these
    >brushes is extorting money from people, IMO, by charging around $100 for
    >an item with a manufacture cost of pennies.
    >

    The only brushes that ever worked in an anti-static capacity
    were for vinyl records and were treated with polonium.
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Feb 10, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. MeMe

    RichA Guest

    On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:25:46 -0800, MeMe <> wrote:

    >I see the most recommended treatment /du jour/ for the vexing "dust
    >specks on sensor" with digital SLRs is a brush that is charged up by
    >spraying it with compressed air. Problem is, the company selling these
    >brushes is extorting money from people, IMO, by charging around $100 for
    >an item with a manufacture cost of pennies.

    The photography market has always been rife with
    fraud. I once saw a darkroom faucet "adapter" that
    cost $50 and split one faucet output into two.
    Turns out, it was a hardware store hose splitter
    worth about $6.00.
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Feb 10, 2005
    #3
  4. MeMe

    Jason P. Guest

    Although you make good points about this product... I would never recommend
    using compressed air in the chamber of a digital camera. If you use an
    aerosol/compressed air it becomes very easy get liquid proplent on the CCD.
    I also usually recommend against using a brush of any kind... as the
    bristles can damage the extremely delicate filters that sit overtop of the
    sensor. Best idea - a blower... which you can get for a few bucks from any
    camera store.

    > I encourage everyone to go to an art supply store and buy a high quality
    > nylon brush for a couple of dollars, and a can of compressed air. Voila!
     
    Jason P., Feb 10, 2005
    #4
  5. MeMe

    George Guest

    "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:25:46 -0800, MeMe <> wrote:
    >
    > >I see the most recommended treatment /du jour/ for the vexing "dust
    > >specks on sensor" with digital SLRs is a brush that is charged up by
    > >spraying it with compressed air. Problem is, the company selling these
    > >brushes is extorting money from people, IMO, by charging around $100 for
    > >an item with a manufacture cost of pennies.
    > >

    > The only brushes that ever worked in an anti-static capacity
    > were for vinyl records and were treated with polonium.
    > -Rich


    And those ionized the air around them (i.e., made the air electrically
    conductive).
    Now, since you have to have your dSLR POWERED to have the mirror up
    while cleaning the sensor, are you sure you want to introduce randomly
    conductive
    electrical paths?

    George
     
    George, Feb 10, 2005
    #5
  6. MeMe

    Alan Adrian Guest

    In the case of a Sensor Brush, the air is to charge and clean the brush ...
    it's used away from the camera.

    I myself view the Sensor Brush as a case of someone trying to capitilize on
    a bit of research into what works best, and some added value of clean room
    (I hope) techniques in packaging... But If I am looking forward to the day
    that the research gets into the public domain (someone else does some
    looking and reports it to the Internet),and a known source for the
    appropriate (clean) brush...

    So that we can pay the $3 worth of materials and shipping, instead of the
    gross amount currently charged.

    Al..

    "Jason P." <> wrote in message
    news:LVGOd.6295$...
    >I would never recommend using compressed air in the chamber of a digital
    >camera. If you use an aerosol/compressed air it becomes very easy get
    >liquid proplent on the CCD.
     
    Alan Adrian, Feb 10, 2005
    #6
  7. MeMe

    MeMe Guest

    Alan Adrian wrote:

    > I am looking forward to the day that the research gets into the
    > public domain (someone else does some looking and reports it to the
    > Internet),and a known source for the appropriate (clean) brush...


    A simple experiment you could do at home is take a dusty surface and
    lightly brush it once with a grounded nylon brush (ground it by touching
    it to a bare metal source) from an art store, then visually ascertain
    the amount of dust remaining after the stroke.

    Then repeat the experiment with the same brush in another area, but this
    time "charge" the brush electrostatically with a long blast of air from
    a can of compressed air.

    Theoretically, the "charged" brush should do a better job of lifting
    dust by attracting dust particles.

    Let us know the outcome ...
     
    MeMe, Feb 10, 2005
    #7
  8. "MeMe" <> wrote in message
    news:mfCOd.57797$mt.13237@fed1read03...
    SNIP
    > I think this is absolute hogwash!


    Nobody is forcing you to buy their brushes. They work as promised on
    my sensors.
    SNIP

    > I encourage everyone to go to an art supply store and buy a high
    > quality nylon brush for a couple of dollars, and a can of compressed
    > air. Voila!


    Why don't you take your own advice?

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Feb 10, 2005
    #8
  9. MeMe

    Jason P. Guest

    What I was referring to was not the Sensor Brush, but the alternative he
    posted. Low pass filters are extremely fragile brush bristles of any kind
    can damage the surface.

    "Alan Adrian" <> wrote in message
    news:420b5fb0$0$57523$...
    > In the case of a Sensor Brush, the air is to charge and clean the brush
    > ... it's used away from the camera.
    >
    > I myself view the Sensor Brush as a case of someone trying to capitilize
    > on a bit of research into what works best, and some added value of clean
    > room (I hope) techniques in packaging... But If I am looking forward to
    > the day that the research gets into the public domain (someone else does
    > some looking and reports it to the Internet),and a known source for the
    > appropriate (clean) brush...
    >
    > So that we can pay the $3 worth of materials and shipping, instead of the
    > gross amount currently charged.
    >
    > Al..
    >
    > "Jason P." <> wrote in message
    > news:LVGOd.6295$...
    >>I would never recommend using compressed air in the chamber of a digital
    >>camera. If you use an aerosol/compressed air it becomes very easy get
    >>liquid proplent on the CCD.

    >
    >
     
    Jason P., Feb 10, 2005
    #9
  10. MeMe

    MeMe Guest

    Jason P. wrote:
    > What I was referring to was not the Sensor Brush, but the alternative
    > he posted. Low pass filters are extremely fragile brush bristles of
    > any kind can damage the surface.


    I see you are posting from Canada, which just coincidentally is the home
    of visibledust.com. I'm not implying that you are a sock puppet for that
    company, but it /is/ an interesting coincidence.

    You say that "bristle brushes" can damage low pass sensors. You are
    spreading FUD, aren't you? A hog's hair bristle brush used for oil
    painting is indeed a harsh item, but we are not discussing that sort of
    "bristle" brush here. We are taking about soft nylon hairs, such as may
    be found in synthetic brushes.

    So, now, on what basis do you state that soft nylon hairs can "damage" a
    plastic filter? I'm just tickled pink that you are here, saying these
    things. Please continue ...
     
    MeMe, Feb 10, 2005
    #10
  11. MeMe

    Guest

    Jason P. wrote:

    > Although you make good points about this product...


    What points? It was just a rant; there was no substantiation of his
    claims. If I "encouraged" you to stick your foot into a wood chipper,
    would you do it?

    > I would never recommend using compressed air in the chamber of a

    digital
    > camera.


    Oh no!

    > If you use an aerosol/compressed air it becomes very easy get liquid
    > proplent on the CCD.


    The people who make these cans of air usually take the time to print a
    set of instructions on their sides. Have you read them? In addition
    to being told not to stick the nozzle into your ear, or allow young,
    impressionable children or otherwise clueless professional
    photographers unsupervised use, there is the important one: "Do not
    shake the can."

    To this I add, if it is not obvious: do not aim-and-blow. Instead,
    blow and bring the object into the flow. This serves the "do not
    shake" rule, as well as cleaning out the nozzle of whatever condensates
    that may have gathered there.

    > I also usually recommend against using a brush of any kind... as the
    > bristles can damage the extremely delicate filters that sit overtop

    of the
    > sensor.


    http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/mw1_ge/kap_8/advanced/t8_4_2.html

    Compare hardness of typical plastics and glass. Short of using the
    brush as a chisel, or brushing really hard knowing there is further
    (harder) crap on the surface, there is basically nothing to worry
    about.

    > Best idea - a blower... which you can get for a few bucks from any
    > camera store.


    It is essential to remove dangerous stuff from the surface -- things
    that can scratch it if dragged across pressure of a cleaning. But as a
    full sensor clean, it simply doesn't work. Next suggestion?
     
    , Feb 10, 2005
    #11
  12. MeMe

    MeMe Guest

    Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    >
    > "MeMe" <> wrote in message
    >
    >> I think this is absolute hogwash!

    >
    >
    > Nobody is forcing you to buy their brushes. They work as promised on
    > my sensors. SNIP


    Guess which asshole spent $100 on a $2 brush? LOL!
     
    MeMe, Feb 11, 2005
    #12
  13. MeMe

    Ken Davey Guest

    MeMe wrote:
    > Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    >>
    >> "MeMe" <> wrote in message
    >>
    >>> I think this is absolute hogwash!

    >>
    >>
    >> Nobody is forcing you to buy their brushes. They work as promised on
    >> my sensors. SNIP

    >
    > Guess which asshole spent $100 on a $2 brush? LOL!


    And that would make someone who stuck a two dollar brush into a two thousand
    dollar camera a......?
    --
    http://www.rupert.net/~solar
    Return address supplied by 'spammotel'
    http://www.spammotel.com
     
    Ken Davey, Feb 11, 2005
    #13
  14. MeMe

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    In article <>,
    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:25:46 -0800, MeMe <> wrote:
    >
    >>I see the most recommended treatment /du jour/ for the vexing "dust
    >>specks on sensor" with digital SLRs is a brush that is charged up by
    >>spraying it with compressed air. Problem is, the company selling these
    >>brushes is extorting money from people, IMO, by charging around $100 for
    >>an item with a manufacture cost of pennies.


    > The photography market has always been rife with
    >fraud. I once saw a darkroom faucet "adapter" that
    >cost $50 and split one faucet output into two.
    >Turns out, it was a hardware store hose splitter
    >worth about $6.00.


    Even more rife with fraud is the high-end audiophile
    marketplace. There are companies charging several hundred US dollars
    *each* for wooden knobs for your preamp and amplifier, with the claim
    that the wood makes them *sound* better. :)

    And the amazingly expensive power outlet strips, wall sockets,
    and plugs, which claim to affect the sound output (without bothering to
    replace all the wiring from the outlet back to the power transformer on
    the street with silver wire of heavier gauge, which might have a *tiny*
    effect on the sound, if only by providing more stable voltage, isolating
    it from the varying loads in the house (but still no protection from
    *external* variations. :)

    And the magic crystals which simply have to be put somewhere
    between the amplifier and the speakers (not really *connected* to
    anything).

    When you pay enough (e.g. too much) for something, you are more
    willing to believe that it did something beneficial than to believe
    that you are a fool. :)

    Enjoy,
    DoN.
    --
    Email: <> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
    (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
    --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
     
    DoN. Nichols, Feb 11, 2005
    #14
  15. MeMe

    m II Guest

    wrote:

    > The people who make these cans of air usually take the time to print a
    > set of instructions on their sides. Have you read them? In addition
    > to being told not to stick the nozzle into your ear...



    Oh...*NOW* you tell me!

    What's that? Speak up lad...






    mike
     
    m II, Feb 11, 2005
    #15
  16. MeMe

    MeMe Guest

    Ken Davey wrote:
    > MeMe wrote:
    >
    >> Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    >>
    >>> "MeMe" <> wrote in message
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> I think this is absolute hogwash!
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Nobody is forcing you to buy their brushes. They work as promised
    >>> on my sensors. SNIP

    >>
    >> Guess which asshole spent $100 on a $2 brush? LOL!

    >
    >
    > And that would make someone who stuck a two dollar brush into a two
    > thousand dollar camera a......?


    .... a smart guy, if he knows what he's doing.
     
    MeMe, Feb 11, 2005
    #16
  17. MeMe

    jean Guest

    "MeMe" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:knVOd.63072$mt.54939@fed1read03...
    > Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    > >
    > > "MeMe" <> wrote in message
    > >
    > >> I think this is absolute hogwash!

    > >
    > >
    > > Nobody is forcing you to buy their brushes. They work as promised on
    > > my sensors. SNIP

    >
    > Guess which asshole spent $100 on a $2 brush? LOL!


    Well, count me in the asshole group, for some weird reason, I did not want
    to dunk a swab in liquid and streak it across MY camera's sensor nor did I
    want to use a $2 brush to remove the dust particles the bulb did not remove.
    What you do with your camera and your money is your business, what I do with
    mine is my business. If it didn't work, I would have felt like I was
    screwed, since it works, then I am happy.

    Jean

    PS Yes, I am from Canada, but my camera is from Japan, probably just like
    yours, does that mean only Japanese can say their cameras work?
     
    jean, Feb 11, 2005
    #17
  18. MeMe

    Jason P. Guest

    Hahaha... Canada is the second largest country on the face of the planet!
    That's like saying "You're from the USA... you must be working for NASA".

    You want to look at Nikon's own article on cleaning a low pass filter?

    http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bi...std_adp.php?p_faqid=7348&p_created=1053089297

    See the part there that says "The use of a blower-brush is not recommended
    as the bristles may damage the filter ... Under no circumstances should the
    filter be touched or wiped."

    How does that tickle you?

    "MeMe" <> wrote in message
    news:43POd.61487$mt.19613@fed1read03...
    > Jason P. wrote:
    >> What I was referring to was not the Sensor Brush, but the alternative
    >> he posted. Low pass filters are extremely fragile brush bristles of
    >> any kind can damage the surface.

    >
    > I see you are posting from Canada, which just coincidentally is the home
    > of visibledust.com. I'm not implying that you are a sock puppet for that
    > company, but it /is/ an interesting coincidence.
    >
    > You say that "bristle brushes" can damage low pass sensors. You are
    > spreading FUD, aren't you? A hog's hair bristle brush used for oil
    > painting is indeed a harsh item, but we are not discussing that sort of
    > "bristle" brush here. We are taking about soft nylon hairs, such as may
    > be found in synthetic brushes.
    >
    > So, now, on what basis do you state that soft nylon hairs can "damage" a
    > plastic filter? I'm just tickled pink that you are here, saying these
    > things. Please continue ...
     
    Jason P., Feb 11, 2005
    #18
  19. MeMe

    Jason P. Guest

    > To this I add, if it is not obvious: do not aim-and-blow. Instead,
    > blow and bring the object into the flow. This serves the "do not
    > shake" rule, as well as cleaning out the nozzle of whatever condensates
    > that may have gathered there.


    Do you realize how many cameras come back to camera shops with crap all over
    the CCD because some idiot was told to point a can of compressed air onto
    the sensor? You give people too much credit for use of common sense. Telling
    someone blindly to clean the inside of their camera with an aerosol is
    irresponsible.
     
    Jason P., Feb 11, 2005
    #19
  20. MeMe

    Guest

    In rec.photo.digital Jason P. <> wrote:
    > What I was referring to was not the Sensor Brush, but the alternative he
    > posted. Low pass filters are extremely fragile


    Lithium Niobate has a hardness of about 5 Mohs, which is a little bit
    less than optical glass or a knife blade at about 5.5. No, I'm not
    recommending anyone attempt sensor cleaning for themselves, but
    "extremely fragile" is going too far.

    Andrew.
     
    , Feb 11, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. joevan

    Germs on your toilet brush

    joevan, Sep 12, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    1,777
  2. the Legend of LAX

    Another brush with the "law"

    the Legend of LAX, Oct 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    418
    DigitalCameraBasics
    Oct 17, 2003
  3. Sam
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,680
    Mr Muckle
    Nov 20, 2003
  4. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    522
    DVD Verdict
    Feb 26, 2004
  5. Bernard Rother

    Sensor Klear Brush - Comments ?

    Bernard Rother, Nov 29, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    577
Loading...

Share This Page