dpulez wrote:
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....Show more →
Go to the art store and ask for a sable brush and see how much it is. A fine 25mm brush can cost as much as $100 depending on brand and type.
And if you use it I guaranty it will scratch sensor. Please do the research first
then post.
You may want to read this thread from E.J. Peiker, Senior Technical Editor for NatureScapes.net, about the dangers of these brushes. He is one of only several engineers that I read cautioning about these brushes.
ASTROGUY wrote:
Go to the art store and ask for a sable brush and see how much it is. A fine 25mm brush can cost as much as $100 depending on brand and type.
And if you use it I guaranty it will scratch sensor. Please do the research first
then post.
How do we know it's a sable brush? Was this stated already? Perhaps I missed it. But there are tons of different brush types including a lot of synthetics.
I really wonder how long it will take a major company to follow suit and come out with their own brushes. I'd bet at least one of 'em is working on it right now.....kodak
Jeff Donald wrote:
Here's a [url]http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=24210&highlight=sensor+brush[/url] post by E.J. Peiker, Senior Technical Editor for NatureScapes.net, says very plainly not to use these brushes because of the risk of electrostatic discharge. He's one of the engineers that I recall issuing such a warning.
Let's apply some logic here. There's the AA/IR filter covering the sensor, and then in addition to that there's a clear glass bonded to the sensor surface. You'd have to zap through both of those to electrically damage the sensor chip. So claiming that the static charge on the brush bristles risks damaging the chip is ludicrous. There's 2 layers of glass between brush and chip unless you've removed the AA/IR filter to shoot infrared, in which case there's still one layer. You'd have to be applying quite a bit of voltage, and the arc would discharge to the metal frame around the sensor long before penetrating both layers of glass.
but why would any of us rather use this instead of the Copperhill method, which costs half as much, has proven results, and uses a new "tip" every time (no dust or finger-grime buildup, which must be a prob with the brush...)?
the only advantage i can imagine is that the hairs would bounce on a sharp particle, instead of dragging it, maybe, but....after having all of us Copperhill for so long, I have yet to hear of that happening...
I am extremely hesitant to add this, because I know the flamability of what I'm about to say.
This is probably merely and ONLY coincidence, but based on what I know about CMOS circuitry (which is blessedly little), it bears that a warning might be in order in the case there is any correlation.
I again am stressing that I am not positing any cause-effect chain, and that this is probably only a coincidence BUT:
My 1DMk2 developed a hot pixel the shoot following the use of the sensor brush. This hot pixel was only barely present as a red dot under high ISO conditions with noise reduction turned off in long exposures-- totally unobtrusive. Subsequent to the day I first used the brush, that night, after I was reviewing the day's shoot, I came across a pervasive and visible stuck red pixel visible at ISO 100 on anything slower than 1/30s. At ISO 1600, it was omnipresent.
I'm taking the camera in to get the pixel mapped out, and I can't say whether or not or why the pixel got "bad", and I certainly have no evidence that the sensor brush's electrostatic discharge had anything to do with it-- but it wouldn't be prudent to dismiss it as a possible cause either.
On the bright side, the damn thing picked up all the dust spots.
Jonathon, how much voltage is required to damage a CMOS chip? I'm not trying to be a smart *ss, I'm not an engineer and I don't know. But when someone with 21 years designing CMOS chips issues a warning, I think I'll listen. He points out the effects are cumulative and one pass may not damage the transistors but usage over time could lead to damage. I also know that electricity takes the path of least resistance. The electrostatic discharge would probably go to the frame, but where does it go from there? Canon does not recommend the user clean the sensor, and does not use a brush in their Service Centers. Why? Maybe because they know of potential dangers.
Thanks for correcting me. I misspoke in the context of the issue. Canon does not recommend cleaning the sensor by any method that causes direct contact with the sensor. In other words, the brush or Copperhill method are not recommended by Canon because of the direct contact with the sensor. In fact, if the sensor is damaged by direct contact cleaning, the warranty is void and the owners pays for repair cost to the AA filter etc.
Jeff Donald wrote:
Jonathon, how much voltage is required to damage a CMOS chip? I'm not trying to be a smart *ss, I'm not an engineer and I don't know. .
The question isn't of how much voltage is required. Rather, it's the fact the the sensor has an insulator in front of it. You'll never have a static discharge between the brush and the sensor itself - the AA filter and another glass layer are in the way. I don't know what your source means about cumulative effects, unless he means that you'd only damage some of the sensor each time you clean it.
Jeff Donald wrote:
Jonathon, how much voltage is required to damage a CMOS chip? I'm not trying to be a smart *ss, I'm not an engineer and I don't know.
CMOS is fairly static sensitive; a few volts in the wrong place can cause damage. But the sensor is very well protected, covered with two layers of glass and surrounded by a grounded metal frame. You'd have to use something like a piezoelectric grill lighter (which can make a spark 1/4" long) to get the voltage down to the silicon where it could cause damage. If you were brushing the terminals of the sensor chip I would agree that there would be a risk, but that's not what's happening. The brush is never getting within 1mm of the silicon and there's 2 layers of glass and an air gap and a metal frame. The mild charge on the surface ofd the bristles doesn't have an ice cream cone's chance in hell of damaging the sensor unless you remove the frame and brush the conductors on the printed circuit board it lives on.
I think it's amazing how fast some people shout "scam" with nothing more than an empty opinion upon which to base their "judgments." I have been shooting with a 10D for a year, working out in the field under diffficult conditions, changing lenses constantly. After reading about the "SensorSwipe" system of wrapping PecPads on what is essentially a specially designed rubber spatula, I ordered one and found it to work quite well, particularly on particles that had some moisture in them when they landed on the AA filter glass. However, using the SensorSwipe is a bit of a production, and I have wished at times for something simpler to dislodge the odd dry particle. After reading Rob Galbraith's review
(another pro, mind you, who uses his gear a lot), I purchased three sizes of Sensor Brushes.
My conclusion is that the Sensor Brushes are terrific. I follow the directions exactly, and keep them scrupulously clean, blowing them out with a Beseler Duster before and after each pass. Handled correctly, the brushes have a quite remarkable ability to pull dirt off the sensor cover, something I verified at the beginning by photographing and rephotographing the evenly lit plexi surface of my Macbeth Prooflite (lens at f/22, focus at infinity), after each pass of the brush, and using the Auto Levels command in Photoshop to reveal every last bit of grunge.
Shooting several thousand frames last month with a 20D on windy mountainsides and dusty vineyards in the Spanish Pyrenees, my gear got so dirty that I had to spend time every evening wiping down my whole Lowe pack and all my cameras and lenses (the hotel cleaning staff must have wondered how I could possibly dirty so many washclothes and hand towels every night!). Needless to say, I accumulated some sensor dust too, and I found that virtually all of it could be removed with these brushes. I'm still very glad to have the SensorSwipe and Eclipse fluid for the occasional particle that is truly recalcitrant, but in my admittedly limited experience with the Sensor Brushes, they work exceedingly well.
As for the objection that one might damage the CMOS sensor by static discharge, the brush is so short, and the total amount of fibers so small, that I find it totally counter-intuitive that the brush could ever generate a discharge of any significant magnitude.
As soon as talk started about these marvelous sensor-cleaning brushes, I made the assumption that these were just marked-up artist brushes, too. I asked my Mom, who is an artist, what soft-bristled brush she would recommend for the same purpose. (It seemed silly to me that a product for digital photography cleaning could out "soften" what artists have had literally hundreds of years to test and perfect.) I was surprised when my Mom suggested a natural hair brush rather than a synthetic brush. Sable brushes, I believe, are synthetic brushes - NOT THE SOFTEST/SAFEST!
I ended up getting a camel hair brush (under $15) and have been absolutely happy with the results (w/ limited trials). I first give the sensor chamber a good blow of air with a bulb blower and then give the bristles of the brush a good blow with compressed air. It takes such a light stroke to COMPLETELY clean the sensor of my 1Ds that I can't imagine anything else being safer.
I was also interested in this "plasma charge" thing. Here's a cheaper way to plasma charge your brushes, if you're into that kind of thing (which I'm not)... Buy a balloon. Rub the balloon on your head for 15 seconds. Rub the bristles of the brush across the balloon. Instant plasma charge!
Happy cleaning!
Kory
PS--One thing you DON'T hear too often are the confirmed stories of people actually ruining their sensors during cleaning... Are people just too embarrassed to admit their errors or are people being just a *tad bit* overboard about how delicate these sensors really are? It isn't *quite* the analogy to brain surgery...or is it?
If you're going to be using another brush, the best bet (your mother's fine advice aside) is probably going to be a high quality synthetic watercolor brush.
These can run about $15-20, but after a lot of examination, they seem to have the finest hairs and the densest packing, while still remaining quite flexible and soft.
I have a set of the sensor brushes, and as far as being the closest equivalent available at a quality art store, this seems to be it. The sensorbrush is also made of a synthetic material.
I am also unconvinced that a "plasma-charger" is capable of imbueing the brushes with some sort of magical charge that wouldn't dissipate naturally over (a short period of) time anyway.
>>my Mom suggested a natural hair brush rather than a synthetic brush
Well, FWIW, they claim on their web site that natural hair is worse than synthetic, and that regular artists brushes can have glue on the bristles that can scratch the glass over time. Is any of that true? I don't know. But unless someone knows for a fact that the information on their site is bogus, and that an inexpensive artist's brush would absolutely without a doubt work just as well, it's pretty irresponsible to label their products a scam.
Not trying to argue a point, but "high quality" for painting does not, in my mind, necessarily equate to softest/safest. Although out of my realm of expertise, I *think* artists sometimes like the synthetic brushes because they can be made STIFFER, STRONGER, and POINTIER (but not much softer) than natural hair brushes. Plus, it's with the tips that most concerns me with synthetic (i.e. cut plastic!). Press down on the tips of the bristles with your finger of a "soft" synthetic brush and you'll probably say, "That *might* scratch a sensor in a worst case senerio." Do the same with a soft natural hair brush and I think you'll probably say, "I don't see how in the world I could scratch a sensor with this if I'm relatively careful." Again, not trying to argue a point...just pointing out that what is "high-end" for painting probably doesn't mean "high-end" for sensor cleaning.
And to the post about the glue... I'm not sure I buy that argument. Not only have they out-done the artists on softness, but they've out-done the artists on attaching bristles to handle? I've just re-examined the brush I use... It looks to me like the bristles have been crimped in a metal holder...no evidence of glue. Also, I'm not sure if you are taking direct quotes, but how do you scratch glass "over time". You either scratch it or you don't. (Now, it might accumulate more and more scratches over time...)
More food for thought...If they were to use natural hair brushes instead of synthetic, then everyone would instantly KNOW it was a scam! (And I'm not yet saying that it is or isn't a scam...just that I'm happy with my $15 investment.)
About ESD and CMOS, you know how if in a low-humidity environment, you can rub your feet on a wool floor, then give yourself a shock touching a large metal object? So you can easily make a spark that goes through air. That spark is easily enough to blow out CMOS logic. That is why whenever you physically touch CMOS chip contacts (or a circuit board with such) you are always supposed to use a wrist strap or some other grounding device.
Now pure glass is a nearly perfect insulator... it's not going to go through the glass. It may be possible for a spark to go around the glass, though, just depends on the actual setup of the sensor, glass, etc. I'd say, be real careful in a low-humidity (20% or less) environment, especially if there's an obvious path a spark could take through open air (even one that involves arcing around the glass or going in something other than a straight line). If you don't believe me, look at lightning as an example -- there's no requirement that sparks / electricity travel in a straight line.
You could heat the base of a bundle of synthetic bristols and fuse them without affecting the bristles to the used part. No idea what they do in this sense. The glue referred to is a glue coating on bristles sometimes used in the manufacture of artist's brushes to stiffen the brush
Seems the main point is to have super fine bristles uncontaminated by anything. I read somewhere, I think on their site, that one reason for the stop on sales was to further refine the brushes in this regard.
Actually, if one takes the trouble to read thoroughly what is written on the site, all these points are covered, including warnings about what is good and what is not good.
One can take it at face value or be suspicious and distrustful, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Little else needs to be said, if you are worryed about damaging your sensor then take you camera to an authorised repairer, not an option in New Zealand.
