DavidP wrote:
What's "bad logic" is making conclusions without finding or reading the article to which I was referring.
I did vist their site. No, I mean on DUST-AID's part. And please don't get me started about their testing... Anyway, people are free to ruin their cameras with these sensor cleaning tools.
The AA filter is made of glass...there is nothing on it that would easily come off and if you were careful, it is still intact. I would bet this is somethign ON the filter.
nathanlake wrote:
The AA filter is made of glass...there is nothing on it that would easily come off and if you were careful, it is still intact. I would bet this is somethign ON the filter.
This is not the AA filter. This is the hot mirror, which consists of a piece of glass with a special "silvering" coating applied to it.
On Canon DSLRs other than the 5D, XTi/400D, and 1DmkIII, the hot mirror is supposed to be assembled with the silvered side toward the sensor and the glass side out. But if the factory makes a mistake and puts it in backwards, the silvered side is exposed. The silvering is what has been removed. ("Silvering" is technically the wrong term here, but should evoke the proper image.)
Doug Pardee wrote:
This is not the AA filter. This is the hot mirror, which consists of a piece of glass with a special "silvering" coating applied to it.
On Canon DSLRs other than the 5D, XTi/400D, and 1DmkIII, the hot mirror is supposed to be assembled with the silvered side toward the sensor and the glass side out. But if the factory makes a mistake and puts it in backwards, the silvered side is exposed. The silvering is what has been removed. ("Silvering" is technically the wrong term here, but should evoke the proper image.)
tpsfoto wrote:
Not being there to see.....it sounds like he put the pad on the wrong side.....the low tack side goes to the sensor....the high tack is to the applicator...
I'm inclined to agree with this assesment, considering the first two cameras when just fine. The individual pads are taken from a single sheet...so how can one pad out of a sheet of many have one side that would damage the sensor and the other pads work as designed?
Could it be fairly possible that the OP was distracted in some way and put the pad on upside down? That would be my guess.
This isn't enough for me not to use Dust-Aid to clean my camera....
pziasd wrote:
I'm inclined to agree with this assesment, considering the first two cameras when just fine. The individual pads are taken from a single sheet...so how can one pad out of a sheet of many have one side that would damage the sensor and the other pads work as designed?
Could it be fairly possible that the OP was distracted in some way and put the pad on upside down? That would be my guess.
This isn't enough for me not to use Dust-Aid to clean my camera....
It does no sound like this is the case having seen this product first hand. The side of the foam pad that touches the sensor has very little adhesive. So little so that if you were to touch a fresh one with your finger, it would pretty much be gone if you were to touch it a second time. However, the side that attaches to the wand had a very strong adhesive. If the original poster were to put it on backwards, then use the product, it would become affixed to the sensor, and the wand would come right off since it is not being held by much adhesive. It would be very obvious. Since this was not the case, he used it properly. I would imagine that the theory of the glass filter being in upside down is a very valid theory.
Have you tried taking a picture after the disaster ?
It may really help characterizing the kind of problem you have. In particular, it will be very clear, if the AA filter was ripped off (that does not seem really possible to me, I would expect the active filter part being on the other side of the glass, right next to the sensor).
Ben Horne wrote:
It does no sound like this is the case having seen this product first hand. The side of the foam pad that touches the sensor has very little adhesive. So little so that if you were to touch a fresh one with your finger, it would pretty much be gone if you were to touch it a second time. However, the side that attaches to the wand had a very strong adhesive. If the original poster were to put it on backwards, then use the product, it would become affixed to the sensor, and the wand would come right off since it is not being held by much adhesive. It would be very obvious. Since this was not the case, he used it properly. I would imagine that the theory of the glass filter being in upside down is a very valid theory. ...Show more →
You are correct Ben, I did indeed have the correct side touching the sensor. The side that goes sensor down and the side that goes "wand" down looks much different. I actually placed the wand on the correct side while still having it stuck to the sheet of other pads. It would be very hard to use the wrong side, at least as far as I can tell. They are much different looking.
Here are some photos taken after the incident as many have requested.
If you remove the filter, there are filters that can be used on the lens instead to correct for the IR, as described here: http://ghonis2.ho8.com/rebelmod10.html
jeskata wrote:
If you remove the filter, there are filters that can be used on the lens instead to correct for the IR, as described here: http://ghonis2.ho8.com/rebelmod10.html
It would be nice to try some out and see what it does, but not sure that i will.
Some shots are posted in my post on the page before this.
I am quite puzzled to see that it does show up on some shots and not in others. Of course, it will always be more likely to appear on a plain color wall, but I would still expect to see something on the outside shots... I would really like to understand that.
Anyway, I think you should indeed contact Canon at this point.
On Canon DSLRs other than the 5D, XTi/400D, and 1DmkIII, the hot mirror is supposed to be assembled with the silvered side toward the sensor and the glass side out. But if the factory makes a mistake and puts it in backwards, the silvered side is exposed. The silvering is what has been removed. ("Silvering" is technically the wrong term here, but should evoke the proper image.)
The so-called "silvering" is a dichroic film which is designed to reflect near-IR light and prevent it reaching the sensor. This film is always on the outside of the sensor assembly for Canon, ie., it is what you are cleaning when you perform a "sensor clean". It is possible that the film was poorly applied in this case. I believe it is applied by vacuum coating techology similar to lens coatings.
To be perfectly honest, when I first saw that product, I was expecting this exact thread sooner or later. No surprise here. This just confirms that I want nothing to do with that particular product.
It is interesting that some shots show the damage & others don't.
Dear FMers,
about an hour ago I used dust-aid on my 5D for the first time,
carefully following the instructions (I even watched the video before attempting this!).
I applied it several times on the sensor, and with
horror I discovered that it left sticky residues on the sensor of my 5D.
I have no idea what happened: it looks like one border of the pad had
some extra sticky stuff that transferred to the sensor at each application.
This is a 100% crop taken after the disaster (F32) Crop
Yikes! I only use my trusty Giottos rocket blower (highly recommended) to clean my 5D... I have the copperhill setup in my closet incase anything nasty should land on there though.
Glad to hear you resolved the issue with no permanent damage.
Xavier Rival wrote:
I am quite puzzled to see that it does show up on some shots and not in others. Of course, it will always be more likely to appear on a plain color wall, but I would still expect to see something on the outside shots... I would really like to understand that.
Anyway, I think you should indeed contact Canon at this point.
Yes, the difference between the indoor and outside shots are quite drastic. One reason that I can think of is that incandescent lights pump out a good bit of IR, which the hot mirror coating is designed to block.
Isn't this like the 2nd post of this sort in the last 24 hours? Sounds pretty scary. Never had any such issue with a dust gun and swabs made out of electron microscope paper....
