Here's the latest scam, the "Sensor Brush". This is a $5 item available at art stores, and yes, with all of the amazing properties they claim on the visible dust website. Or you could buy one of their latest kits for around $100. I think their product is great, but it should be $10, not $100. Just warning folks before they waste their money. Yes, I've seen the great reviews. The problem is they are "a bit" more money than they should be. Talk about profit margin... Notice also how they have no phone number, which is enraging. I guess they don't want to hear people yelling at them for their money back.
I've long suspected this from the beginning (not that I now take it as fact). Think about it, how in the world would some small-time company come up with a revolutionary 'new' brush technology, have the money to create, produce, and sell it, and then only market it to this miniscule digital photo market? It borders on ludicrous, and their 1990's-vintage website is further suspect. I have no idea what is the truth, but I'd be willing to bet a dime to a donut that it's some sort of re-packaged (labelled), readily available high-quality art brush. I'd wanted to go peruse an art store to see what was out there, but haven't yet had the chance.
I can't comment if it's a scam - yes I agree it is expensive but it works for me so I'm happy with that method of sensor cleaning.
I tried an art brush and air to charge it but it made the dirt on the sensor worse, maybe I should have cleaned the brush with 100% alcohol or something and persevered. Obviously nothing stopping you trying an art store brush and giving it a go yourself.
If the company chooses not to have a voice phone number that's their decision they do however have several e-mail addresses and a fax number on their site so are not exactly uncontactable.
Might be a scam, might not. I haven't seen anything but speculaton on the web along side several glowing reviews.
If anyone ordered one of the kits and would like to sell me their full frame brush please drop me an e-mail or pm. I haven't had any luck with the B&S board.
If some of you are sure that regular art brushes are the same as the Sensor Brush, why try them on your own sensors for a few weeks and report back to us?
If you do not dare try out the art brushes yourselves, then maybe you should also consider being more careful about making unsubtanciated accusations towards a comany and their products. You know, put your money where your mouth is, and all that sort of thing...
The only known fact about the Sensor Brush is that there are a number of glowing reports on the Web about them.
I'm 100% happy with my purchase of the Sensor Brush, and I use them with complete confidence.
all new, techy, expensive brooms sweep clean. i have ordered a set to test myself. at the moment i can afford to. i will then head off to pearl paints (best arts supply store in the east) on canal st in NYC and see if i can match them up. i'll let you all know. it will take some time.
Why don't you try actually supporting your accusations? You run the risk of making yourself look quite foolish by getting so upset by something that currently appears to be nothing more than a gut reaction.
I've read reports from several well known CMOS chip engineers, one that works for Intel, that cautions against the brush because of the potential for static-electric discharges. Evidently CMOS chips are far more sensitive to static electricity than CCD's etc. It was also noted that the "charging" of the brush is exactly the type of charge that could do damage to chips. The damage is a cumulative type also. Meaning the first few times of use, the chip might be OK, but continued use causes the damage from each cleaning to build up. I've decided to wait until more long term usage reports are available.
Edited by Jeff Donald on Nov 18, 2004 at 10:47 AM GMT
I wouldn't call it "scam". Some of the reviews, however, are plain funny. RG states that sensor brush uses unpainted wooden handle so that paint chips do not contaminate the sensor area . I suspect that it's unpainted because it's the cheapest. What is next? The wood handle is treated with micro-polishing abrasive material to avoid specs of wood contaminating the sensor area?
FWIW, the company does not claim to produce the brush. They say they inspect brushes under the microscope and reject the bad ones. Then there's a hint that a "Plasma Charger" is used. I don't know what a "Plasma Charger" is. Not sure why it is needed as they stull tell you to use air to charge the brush before each sweep.
Those of you asking for "proof" - what kind of proof do you expect? Someone sneaking into the company's "Lab" and disassembling the "Plasma Charger"?
Now here's my take. I have a number 10 Winsor &Newton Regency Gold 510 brush. I can "charge" it by blowing canned air on it and it will pick up dust on a single sweep. Second sweep will not be as effective since the contact with surface discharges the brush.
I am by no means an expert on this, and for all I know this could be some great process that treats a brush to increase the positive charge. But for my presently ignorant self, this does not make much sense.
Jeff Donald wrote:
I've read reports from several well known CMOS chip engineers, one that works for Intel, that cautions against the brush because of the potential for static-electric discharges. Evidently CMOS chips are far more sensitive to static electricity than CCD's etc.
The problem with this theory is that you're not cleaning the chip, you're cleaning the glass in front of the chip. If we were cleaning the bare sensor itself, I don't think it would hold up very well with any cleaning method! I'm a "CMOS chip engineer" myself. I didn't realize any of us were known.
bouch wrote:
The problem with this theory is that you're not cleaning the chip, you're cleaning the glass in front of the chip. If we were cleaning the bare sensor itself, I don't think it would hold up very well with any cleaning method! I'm a "CMOS chip engineer" myself. I didn't realize any of us were known.
So, Tony, are you saying that there is no danger of damage? I hope not, because the d@mn thing works great!
They have the money to invest in a plasma charger, but not to have a professionally designed website to sell their product?
No phone number only a fax and emails?
Their address says 'home office' ?
Their diagrams (the green and purple ones) are about the cheapest ones I've seen for a professional company. Looks like they were done in Microsoft Paint.
Anyone out there have access to a good microscope that could do a little test for us?
I've been holding off ordering these waiting to see if a similiar product comes out from a company for a lot cheaper. Dont know if I really trust these guys to my Canon 1-Series cameras.
Flip side is, that I really dont like any of the other ideas out there either.
wish i had some piece of junk sensor test things on.
nm
Edited by Nowhere Man on Nov 18, 2004 at 08:36 PM GMT
Jeff Donald wrote:
So, Tony, are you saying that there is no danger of damage? I hope not, because the d@mn thing works great!
I think the danger of damaging your sensor via electrostatic discharge is small. But please don't sue me if you ruin yours If the brush was abrasive at all, I'd worry more about scratching the AA filter.
As to whether this is a scam or not, I think if they were just buying and repackaging art brushes they probably wouldn't be having a product shortage right now. I haven't used them myself, but from what I've read online they appear to work.
I dont think it's a question of whether they work or not. They probably do. I think it is more of a question of whether all this 'plasma' hype is true and whether or not they are just ordering some 20mm flat art brushes putting their stamp on it and upping the price about about 500%.
As far as being backed up on orders that doesnt surprise me with the good reviews their brushes have gotten. Again I am more concerned with weather or not I can just go order a $15 paintbrush and get the exact same tool for cleaning my sensor.
Arent they the only ones in the industry to have tried this method so far? No competition I can see why they are backed up with orders.
They are overpriced (recently raised their prices!)
I find their marketing strategy very interesting. They do not offer any single brush by itself, thus forcing the end user to buy possibly more than they need. With Rob Galbraith's review, business exploded for them as numerous photographer's now know about their product. They have rewarded the photographer's and increase of business by actually raising their prices on their latest sets!
I see this situation somewhat similar to the Expodisc. A great product for a select group of people (dSLR users) that is extremely overpriced; however, to date they are the only companies to offer such a product so they can ask these high prices. Once more companies jump onto the band wagon and start making similar products the prices will drop... drastically. Look at flash card memory, how many of you paid over $500 for a 2GB CF card at the beginning of the year only to find they are well below $200 today.
We would all love it if we could purchase a Canon 1Ds MarkII body and a whole set of "L" glass lenses and accessories for 1/2 the cost, but it's not going to happen because we buy them at full cost. As time goes by and demand increases a large corporation will usually drop prices as they recover R&D and other expenses. I'm sure it's much harder for a smaller company to recover those costs...
I ordered the whole bit because having puttered around with the rest of what I've seen on the market I haven't seen anything that isn't jury rigged in one way or the other. I think what they are selling is exactly what they say which is rather succinct. Engineers and techies aren't known for their graphic and marketing skills, but I think their site says it all without any frills. At least it is clear to me. I don't mind paying for something if it is pretty guaranteed to give me what I need.
Rob Galbraith and Michael Reichmann recommend them without reserve which says a lot right there. At least enough for me.
. I suspect that it's unpainted because it's the cheapest. What is next? The wood handle is treated with micro-polishing abrasive material to avoid specs of wood contaminating the sensor area?