I wonder about dust

[John Camp]

My first heavy experience with digital was shooting DSLRs on an archaeological dig in the Jordan Valley, in really heavy dust -- and the equipmenthad to be cleaned constantly. With a DSLR, the mirror helps keep dust off the sensor, when the lens is changed. On the other hand, mirror flap helps stir dust up inside the lens chamber if there is dust available. I was looking into my M7 yesterday, while changing lenses, and thought, hmmm, that looks a little vulnerable. We may need some new techniques to deal with it, like always changing with the camera body facing down. And other experiences with DSLRs *and* rangefinders?

JC

 

[jaapv]

Dusty DSLR- Yes, Botswana and the Kalahari in the dry season on a Canon 10D. Camera, lens and photographer a uniform red-grey.... I found that good dust hygiene i.e. changing the lens with the lensmount pointing downwards, switching off the camera when changing lenses, don't change too often etc. plus a blow around in the evening in the bathroom, after running the shower (for the photographer, not the camera 😉), using the Rocket Blower kept away 99 % of all dust. I've seldom had to use a sensor-swab. I find dust in a film camera just as bad or worse, as tramlines on film are far more difficult to retouch than a simple clone-job in PS. A RF should be far easier to clean, the sensor is not on the bottom of some pit, like an APS sensored DSLR. I think the mirror is not very effective at keeping off dust, but the shutter should be.

 

[sreidvt]

With all digital cameras, I loosen the lens mounted and then quickly mount the new lens. I don't ever leave the bodies open. The M8's glass sensor cover is fairly easy to reach so the usual cleaning methods should be fine.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[RML]

I do like Sean. I never leave the hole open for longer than a fraction of a second. On my last trip to Mongolia I didn't have any problem with dust, mostly because I stuck to one lens. 🙂

 

[majid]

My MP has a 50mm f/1.4 near permanently mounted, so I am not that afraid of dust due to lens changes. The 'lux is not exactly a huge dust bellows, unlike my Canon 70-300mm DO that sees its volume expand three-fold when fully extended (with significant gaps in the tube where dust could sneak in).
The "clean" in CLA may have acquired a new step.

 

[jaapv]

In my experience the whole sensor-dust "issue" exists on forums rather than in real life though. Two factors: large numbers of new digital photographers have never seen an enlarger in their life, nor a slide projected, so the simply are not aware that dust is the adversary of phtographers throughout the ages, or they have never seen film at all, so they agonize about noise, (=grain) dead pixels and dust (= simple retouching) and misfocus at 100% crops ( = billbordsized enlarging). I think most if not all members of this forum are so far beyond these basics, photographically speaking, that they will take all this in their stride if switching to digital and go straight to other, more interesting issues, like contrast and dynamic range, or the differences in lens character.

 

[IGMeanwell]

Granted dust is a difficult enemy

that being said... nothing a can of condensed air can't take care of

I almost only use primes with my Nikon and I maybe have to dust off the sensor once every month if I do a ton of outdoor shooting... you just have to learn to point the body down when changing lenses

 

[jaapv]

Condensed air!!??😱 😱 You're pretty lucky if you got away with it. Spraycans often blow some sticky gunk onto the sensor, which is nearly impossible to get off. There are cases known where this led to a sensor replacement!:bang:

 

[IGMeanwell]

If you read the directions there are certain ways to make sure this does not happen...

I been using canned air for over a year now

 

[jaapv]

Rocket Blower for me - notwithstanding directions, I firmly believe in Murphy's Law!

 

[RML]

Ball blower for me, and a Q-tip with some alcohol ketonatus. Works perfectly well and is muuuuuuuuuch cheaper than any of the other methods available in the shops/over the internet. 🙂

 

[jaapv]

Ball blower for me, and a Q-tip with some alcohol ketonatus. Works perfectly well and is muuuuuuuuuch cheaper than any of the other methods available in the shops/over the internet. 🙂

I agree, though I find Sensor Swabs a bit more practical in use.

 

[photogdave]

http://www.visibledust.com/
Hands down, the BEST solution for all aspects of sensor cleaning. These guys have covered every angle, even down to developing a solution that cleans up the streaking caused by other brands' sensor swabs!

 

[RML]

http://www.visibledust.com/
Hands down, the BEST solution for all aspects of sensor cleaning. These guys have covered every angle, even down to developing a solution that cleans up the streaking caused by other brands' sensor swabs!

The only thing they've really cracked is how to make a lot of money of very simple and cheap items. I too almost fell for all the nice talk and such but I realised a Q-tip and some alcohol ketonatus will do just as well. And it's cheaper and will last me probably a life time. A 100ml bottle will last me longer than I care to think about, I reckon, and cost me a cool 1 euro or so. Q-tips are bit more tricky. People tend to confiscate them for other purposes. I now keep both the alcohol and a box of Q-tips stowed away in a cupboard (don't tell anyone!).

And yes, it's safe. No sensor is reachable without removing (if that is possible) of the protective glass(?) cover in front of it. It's that what you clean, not the actual sensor. Blow away all the dust and dirt and grit before swiping the "sensor" and the Q-tip won't leave any scratches. But hey, that's the same thing one would have to do with any other sensor cleaning method. 🙂

 

[John Camp]

In my experience the whole sensor-dust "issue" exists on forums rather than in real life though. Two factors: large numbers of new digital photographers have never seen an enlarger in their life, nor a slide projected, so the simply are not aware that dust is the adversary of phtographers throughout the ages, or they have never seen film at all, so they agonize about noise, (=grain) dead pixels and dust (= simple retouching) and misfocus at 100% crops ( = billbordsized enlarging). I think most if not all members of this forum are so far beyond these basics, photographically speaking, that they will take all this in their stride if switching to digital and go straight to other, more interesting issues, like contrast and dynamic range, or the differences in lens character.

Not my experience at all. I am now on my fourth digital SLR (D1x, 2 SLRn's, D2x) and have the M8 on order. Dust has been a continuing problem, especially when you can't choose your terrain (you're in the desert) or the weather (it's dry and windy) or the situation (archaeologists throwing dirt around) and you have a variety of shots to take from macro archaeological to magazine publicity, so you're constantly changing lenses. I cleaned my camera nightly, and sometimes, it wasn't enough; I'd have to stop and lock my self in an un-air-conditioned car in 102-degree heat, sweating like crazy, to try to knock some dust off the sensor. And there's no comparison with an enlarger (which I used for 20 years or more) or a projected slide. A routine piece of dust of a sensor may cover several pixels and simply eliminate the light at that point. A routine piece of dust on a projected slide basically isn't visible. You can repair sensor dust in Photoshop, but in some cases, in academic stuff, that's discouraged -- you may be changing "facts" (or may be accused of doing it.) Cloning over a sky is one thing; cloning in a piece of pattern on a 3000-year-old jug is something else; or try cloning in a blurred eyelash. And if you've done 200 or 400 shots in a day, who wants to fix all those dust spots in Photoshop?

So it's not theoretical, or just forum talk. Anybody who has photographed in anything but a studio knows it's a problem. I'm just not sure whether the M8 will be better or worse.

Like another poster here, I've started using Sensor Dust stuff, and it works well, but I'm a little nervous about dragging bristles, no matter how soft, over the surface of a sensor (or the filter.) So far, there's been no problem, I admit, but sticking the brushes in there still gets me tense...

JC

 

[jlw]

I think it's interesting that while sensor dust has always been a digital-photography irritant, it has only become a big, much-discussed, heavily-publicized issue only after some big-name DSLR makers have introduced new models with features designed to combat it.

"Hey, your old DSLR is obsolete -- it doesn't have dust removal, so you gotta buy a new one."

 

[jaapv]

I think that having taken literally thousands of shots film for years in the dry season in central Africa using the D60-10D and Rebel series of Canon for periods up to six weeks has made me thoroughly aquainted with dust -sensor or otherwise. As the fifteen years before that made me unhappy about dust on film. You say eye-lashes - I say tramlines.😉 These are weeks spent in open Landrovers that have cm's of dust on the floor at the end of the day. Of course I had to blow the sensor in the evening - as I said sometimes in the relatively dustfree environment of a used shower stall. Maybe it is because it is totally dry dust that it does not cling to the sensor, but I very seldomly had to revert to swabbing. Don't get me wrong, I clearly see what you mean and I do understand that when one is on a professional assignment that things like these are an added hassle that one can do without.Especially if the assignment makes for frequent lens-changing. But on the whole I think most of the gripes on Internet forums are from posters that leave their camera open with the mount facing upwards, change lenses in the middle of a cloud of dust from a passing vehicle or change lenses every five minutes without any real reason. I'm sure that you, as a pro, like to switch camera's rather than lenses whenever possible. Still, I wil happily join you in a call for a solution, like the Olympus shaking sensor one. And I do think that the relatively easy retouch of photoshop is a blessing compared to ink, pencil and scalpel of earlier years. If there is more dust now, the repair certainly takes less skill. But again, a pro with hundreds of shots that count is a different proposition from an amateur that can discard any ruined shots without feeling it in his wallet, which may well be the difference between your approach and mine.

Not my experience at all. I am now on my fourth digital SLR (D1x, 2 SLRn's, D2x) and have the M8 on order. Dust has been a continuing problem, especially when you can't choose your terrain (you're in the desert) or the weather (it's dry and windy) or the situation (archaeologists throwing dirt around) and you have a variety of shots to take from macro archaeological to magazine publicity, so you're constantly changing lenses. I cleaned my camera nightly, and sometimes, it wasn't enough; I'd have to stop and lock my self in an un-air-conditioned car in 102-degree heat, sweating like crazy, to try to knock some dust off the sensor. And there's no comparison with an enlarger (which I used for 20 years or more) or a projected slide. A routine piece of dust of a sensor may cover several pixels and simply eliminate the light at that point. A routine piece of dust on a projected slide basically isn't visible. You can repair sensor dust in Photoshop, but in some cases, in academic stuff, that's discouraged -- you may be changing "facts" (or may be accused of doing it.) Cloning over a sky is one thing; cloning in a piece of pattern on a 3000-year-old jug is something else; or try cloning in a blurred eyelash. And if you've done 200 or 400 shots in a day, who wants to fix all those dust spots in Photoshop?

So it's not theoretical, or just forum talk. Anybody who has photographed in anything but a studio knows it's a problem. I'm just not sure whether the M8 will be better or worse.

JC

 

[photogdave]

If it's such a big scam why do so many working pros recommend it?
A Q-Tip and alcohol can leave streaks and smears on the low-pass filter in front of the sensor. If you damage this filter it's probably expensive to replace or repair. A typical dust blower sure helps but it just moves the dust around and it can fall back on the senor. The Visible Dust brush attracts the dust to the bristles and lifts it right out of the camera.
Dust, dirt, streaks etc. aren't as apparent on smaller sensors like in the RD-1 but if you move up to larger sensors like Canon 1D MkII and Leica M8 or the full-frame sensors, dust becomes MUCH more noticeable.
I'd rather spend $100 on a highly-recommended cleaning system then risk the sensor in my $5000 camera on alcohil and Q-Tips!

 

[RML]

If it's such a big scam why do so many working pros recommend it?

Do I notice a bit of tension here? 🙂

Relax, Dave. I'm not a pro and I don't have $100 to spend on a cleaning kit that is nothing more than brush, the same brush as the one I can buy in Boots or Walmart for a buck 50. All you have to do is make sure your brush has one of those plastic handles and isn't "glued", that is the bristles not stuck together for transport and display. You can test that buy bringing a clean lens filter and swipe the brush a few hundred times. If it leaves any traces, try another one.

A Q-Tip and alcohol can leave streaks and smears on the low-pass filter in front of the sensor.

Any cleaning system can do that, even dry but dirty (hand grease?) brush.

If you damage this filter it's probably expensive to replace or repair. A typical dust blower sure helps but it just moves the dust around and it can fall back on the senor. The Visible Dust brush attracts the dust to the bristles and lifts it right out of the camera.

Replacing a filter will indeed be very expensive. A new camera might be cheaper. And that's exactly the fear these companies are invoking in their customers. It sells their wares. And while the fear isn't entirely unwarranted, the fear is increased by repeated mentioning of how "dangerous" cleaning a "sensor" is if you don't use Company X's product. It's called marketing, and it obviously works well. That, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's the entire and utter truth.

Dust, dirt, streaks etc. aren't as apparent on smaller sensors like in the RD-1 but if you move up to larger sensors like Canon 1D MkII and Leica M8 or the full-frame sensors, dust becomes MUCH more noticeable.

Such a crok, excusez le mot. A pixel is a pixel and if a piece of dust is covering 2-3 pixels, it's as visible on the full size image of my R-D1 as it is on the full size image of a full frame dSLR.

I'd rather spend $100 on a highly-recommended cleaning system then risk the sensor in my $5000 camera on alcohil and Q-Tips!

It's your money, of course. I spend my money differently.