Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Rob,
The idea here is doing the maintenance prevents needing any future wet cleaning after a camera's initial break in where oils and grease can migrate. Really a monthly routine to prevent bonding of dust to the sensor. Also working indoors in a controlled environment and doing lens changing to a minimum.
Really prevention is the best measure. I found that a blower ball with a check valve, and inverting the camera with the lens down like Raid does was all that was needed for 99% of any dust. Pretty much "flushing" in this manner whenever I remove a lens is all that is needed.
The few times I used the Arctic Butterfly was only because I had been lax and not blown out the dust or done lens changing in the street and not done a "flushing" when I got home. Pretty much dust does not bond to the sensor unless it has time.
I spent $350.00 for the Visible dust kit that included everything I would ever need: wet cleaning supplies, Arctic Butterfly, blower ball, and this wonderful magnifier with a ring of LEDS.
I had to do those two wet cleanings until I learned about how "flushing" really was preventative maintenance. The Arctic Butterfly really was only needed because I was lazy. Pretty much if you don't need the entire kit you in the least need a blower ball and to me the Magnifier with LED's makes sure you see any tiny speck of dust. The Arctic Butterfly is nice to have, but I have had to seldom use it.
Realize that NYC is a dirty filthy city. Dirt is everywhere. YMMV. If you do your research it seems that the best system to use is the one made for Visible Dust. Remember it was reported that Leica uses V.D. too.
All the best.
Cal
robert blu
quiet photographer
Thanks Cal for these info, do you have any suggestion about the LED Magnifier?
I see different types on the market where I live and not sure how to select one. Is a 6x magnifier (with LED lights) enough?
robert
airfrogusmc
Veteran
As far as sensor cleaning goes when a rocket blower won't do the trickk eyelead gel (orange for sony Leica) does it for me.
Huss the M 10 is far from behind. I use it in low light all the time (20,000 ISO is real usable) and it is as good if not better than much of what is out there and it's a true rangefinder. No video, easy to navigate menus and great manual controls. Exceeds my needs to make photograph.
I still love my original MM.
Huss the M 10 is far from behind. I use it in low light all the time (20,000 ISO is real usable) and it is as good if not better than much of what is out there and it's a true rangefinder. No video, easy to navigate menus and great manual controls. Exceeds my needs to make photograph.
I still love my original MM.
Huss
Veteran
I use those gel sticks too. Highly recommended. I have one for my Nikon DSLR, and the Sony/Leica one for my M240. Takes seconds to use and works.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
My M9 has the original sensor, at least the first version as it was advertised as having a sensor replaced for another reason before the corrosion issue was known. I've yet to see corrosion but dust was quite the problem until I just gave up and left my 28mm on it full time. I also put a rubber band around the lens at the base to try to mitigate any dust or moisture intrusion. So far so good. Maybe the M11 or M12 might have sensor cleaning, y'think?
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Robert,
I only know the one I have from Visible Dust. The ring of LED's makes sensor inspection easy.
I have a Schneider Loupe for my light table to inspect negatives, and I suspect the Visible Dust is likely 6X or 8X. The lighting seem supplied seems ideal. I feel certain that my sensor is clean when I use the magnifier.
BTW my Leica SL in over two years of ownership has never had a wet cleaning. This camera is mirrorless and the sensor is exposed any time a lens is changed.
Cal
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I just received a used Arctic Butterfly. I was going to send it back when I realized I got a model that doesn't have the lights. But I only paid about $36 for it, and I see that even the non-lighted ones are going for over $60, even used ones. I wonder if I should just keep it? Or is the lighted one that much better?
I use the Rocket blowers, which do have a check valve. I think I'm good there.
I use the Rocket blowers, which do have a check valve. I think I'm good there.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Rob,
I have seldom required using my Arctic Butterfly. Mine has the light, I believe, but I'm not sure now. Really I seldom have used it.
My Fashion Blogger gal returned from a studio shoot, and somehow I ended up with a Rocket blower ball with check valve that somehow was packed with here clothes. So now I have two blower balls.
Of course using the blower ball extends to lens caps and lenses.
I'm glad I have the Arctic Butterfly for when I need it. You do what is good for you. Avoiding touching the sensor or wet cleaning really reduces any risk of damage. That is how I handle maintaining my sensor.
Cal
robert blu
quiet photographer
Sorry Cal, what is a check valve ?
thanks, robert
PS: I rarely change lens on the M10 so I assume dust should not be a big problem, but just in case I desire to be ready!
thanks, robert
PS: I rarely change lens on the M10 so I assume dust should not be a big problem, but just in case I desire to be ready!
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Robert,
A check valve only allows flow in one direction. Some blower balls don't have check valves so in use they can both direct a stream of air and also pull a vacuum from the same nozzle.
For our use, a check valve prevents the sucking action which could suck in debris into the blower ball and allow dirt to accumulate and collect that can later be expelled back into the camera. There is generally a separate "relief" valve that allows air to be replaced into the blower ball.
Know that I check my sensor monthly in a clean area. Dust seems to bond to the sensor over time and becomes more stubborn to remove. You might have to use an Arctic Butterfly that uses static to lift off the dust because the blower ball is not enough. If the dust truely bonded then a wet cleaning is required.
Really every three to 4 weeks I inspect and flush out my digital cameras. My hygene is so good that I almost always see a clean sensor, and if I see a spec it is removed with a blower before bonding takes place.
BTW my SL is weather sealed.
Cal
robert blu
quiet photographer
Godfrey
somewhat colored
You are considering the verb form of the word "obsolete", David. See the attachment for the full dictionary entry. It's not a "US version of the word" ... using obsolete as a verb is simply a word usage that happens to be part of the US dialect of English.
You're also choosing to interpret the word "cause" as a verb only with a connotation of something being forced by (malicious) intent. Sorry, but "to cause something to happen" and "the cause of something" is much more general and neutral than that.
Things become obsolete whenever a new thing that serves the same function and does it as well or better comes along. "An M2 is obsolete" does not include meaning that an M2 is not functional or unusable. To use the US verb form of the word in the sense that you decide to ignore and with the connotation you overlay on the verb form of "cause", here's an example: "Leica obsoleted the M9 when they introduced the M typ 240 camera." That doesn't mean that all M9s were immediately worn out or put out of service, or that Leica intentionally wanted to cause you grief: It simply means that Leica introduced the M typ 240 with better features, more reliability, et cetera, having seen the good and bad points of the M9 product in service. The intent was to have the M typ 240 as their market offering as an advance on the M9's reliability, features, and capabilities.
G
Attachments
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I agree, I just don't buy any camera with the notion that it is going to last for decades without service of some sort.
On a similar basis, my 2003 Olympus E-1 is now a free camera. It's been obsolete since 2007, and service/parts inventory for it was discontinued by Olympus in 2014, but it's still working just fine and still makes beautiful photographs. It was a $2000+ camera when it was new; I bought it for $200 or so in 2008. It's made a couple ten thousand excellent photographs. I'll use it (occasionally) until it no longer works because it now has very limited resale value, and then it will become a shelf decoration.
G
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I agree, I just don't buy any camera with the notion that it is going to last for decades without service of some sort.
On a similar basis, my 2003 Olympus E-1 is now a free camera. It's been obsolete since 2007, and service/parts inventory for it was discontinued by Olympus in 2014, but it's still working just fine and still makes beautiful photographs. It was a $2000+ camera when it was new; I bought it for $200 or so in 2008. It's made a couple ten thousand excellent photographs. I'll use it (occasionally) until it no longer works because it now has very limited resale value, and then it will become a shelf decoration.
G
Godfrey,
It is interesting how a camera can become an extension of a person's identity. In my case a camera can be an extension of my body to the extent where it has become part of me.
I think the limitation might be my three batteries. I researched how long the batteries last in a hybrid car. Pretty much the batteries can last the life of the vehicle and in some cases it gets close to 200K miles. New batteries for a decade old hybrid can cost a bit over $4K.
So my gal deep cycles her computers and Iphone and basically kills them in about 1 1/2 years maybe 2 years max.
What I gleened about cars is that they try to regulate the charging to be between 40% and 80% ideally for long battery life. Interesting to note that Leica power supplies have a charging light that comes on at 80%.
So since I have three batteries I'll be trying to maintain them at 40%-80% to extend their life. I'll avoid fully charging to 100% and also deep cycling.
Cal
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I don't think a magnifier is very practical, as it get in the way of cleaning. If you really want to do enlarged cleaning, a surgical microscope
lol: ) or, more realistically, telescope glasses with a light are more useful.https://www.aliexpress.com/item/3-5...tist-magnifier-surgery-loupe/32820026954.html
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I don't think a magnifier is very practical, as it get in the way of cleaning. If you really want to do enlarged cleaning, a surgical microscope
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/3-5...tist-magnifier-surgery-loupe/32820026954.html
J,
In use the magnifier with LED's I mention is more for inspecting to make sure the sensor really is clean. This magnifier allows me to really see the sensor well enough to feel that it really is clean and free of dirt.
You are right in that the magnifier cannot really be used for helping during the physical cleaning. Pretty much for inspection only.
Cal
cz23
-
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
John,
I am 5'9" (age 60 shrunk an inch and used to be 5'10) and I only weigh 151 pounds, but my neck is thick and ugly like a football player from lugging cameras.
My tailor says my right arm is an inch longer than my left arm, which he says is a lot.
So I'm a skinny guy with an ultra fat neck and an extra long arm who needs custom clothing because somehow I have turned into a deformed monster. LOL.
I hope I don't look too scary. LOL.
Now that I intend on carrying around baby Linhofs to shoot NYC this summer I expect further deformity.
Cal
robert blu
quiet photographer
I don't think a magnifier is very practical, as it get in the way of cleaning. If you really want to do enlarged cleaning, a surgical microscope
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/3-5...tist-magnifier-surgery-loupe/32820026954.html
Thanks Jaap, that is beautiful ! but I guess a little bit too much
robert
willie_901
Veteran
Me too. But I always do a start with a couple of puffs away from the camera - just in case.