Hate to say but Johnny Bravo is incorrect regarding his assessment of the Dust air product.
I have a Nikon and I know lots oe Canon shooters who use this product and have never had a problem with it. As stated in another forum Naturescapes.net the AA filter was installed upside down. There are known instances of this occuring....
Pondria wrote:
Well, we need John P's help here. John, are you there ?
Is the MIL standard spec relevant to this case ? The spec seems to be developed for the eye glasses or car windows, which get frequent physical contacts. Inside coating which is NOT supposed to touched needs to comply ?!?!
The real question is:
Canon offers cleaning ( FREE for the 1st time and charge after ). Would Afred's camera have been cleaned w/o damage by Canon ?
I'm here but my job is to keep criminals on the street. Besides, it was just a 20D
What's frustrating to me is people thinking that anecdotal reports of something being used a few times without problems is significant evidence of its safety over a universe of many users and many uses. Maybe the product is great, I have no idea, but for me, something as counterintuitive as applying something sticky to the sensor of my $4000 camera requires more assurance than "hey, I know a couple of guys who tried it on their cameras and it didn't hurt a thing." If it works for you, fine, and good luck.
We appreciate the opportunity to address the forum with our findings and hope this serves to answer questions about the sensor filter coatings and standards of such - Not just in regard to Dust-Aid but for all cleaning products used in the industry:
Regarding the comment about MIL-C specs not being current, please also see the current ISO guidelines listed below.
We have researched ISO guidelines for testing optical coatings and discovered an international standard regarding their durability in regards to adhesive application.
According to ISO 9211-4:2006, section 6, an optical coating needs to withstand the application and removal of adhesive tape that is 25MM square (one inch) and has an adhesion level of 9.8 newtons (35 oz.). Dust-Aid measures 18.7mm x 12.7mm and has an adhesion level of 1 oz., which measures much smaller and its adhesive strength is 34 oz. lower than the test requirements.
For the coating to pass the international standards test for optical coatings the adhesive needs to be removed without damaging the coating.
It appears that some of Canon's low pass filter dichroic coatings do not meet the guidelines set in ISO 9211-4:2006, section 6.
The dichroic coating on a low pass filter can be defined as an optical coating. For more information regarding optical coatings and dichroic coatings, please read here: Optical Coatings
Thank you for taking the time to read our feedback.
Dust Aid came through for me on my early run Eos 5D. I had a similar result as AFred after cleaning my 5D with Dust Aid. I immediately contacted them at their web site. They arranged to have the AA filter repaced at LifePixel, a company that does IR modifications on sensors and also replaces AA filters that have been damaged. Dust Aid and Life Pixel were prompt, very professional in arranging for the service, and I received my camera back in superb condition. The new filter was perfectly clean and had no dust on it. I think Dust Aid has done their homework and is willing to stand behind their product. They are so responsible as to make up for poorly manufactured, early run AA filters used by Canon. I continue to use Dust Aid with no effect on the new AA filter except to remove unwanted dust. Even Canon in Japan, themselves endorse a similar product used in Japan. If anyone has a problem with Dust Aid removing the AA filter coating, contact Dust Aid immediately. By the way, I have no connection with the company, only bad luck as to getting a bad AA filter. There is more to the story about hassels with Canon on this problem, but I have no time to go into that. Contact Dust Aid with filter problems.
DA_Service wrote:
We appreciate the opportunity to address the forum with our findings and hope this serves to answer questions about the sensor filter coatings and standards of such - Not just in regard to Dust-Aid but for all cleaning products used in the industry:
Regarding the comment about MIL-C specs not being current, please also see the current ISO guidelines listed below.
We have researched ISO guidelines for testing optical coatings and discovered an international standard regarding their durability in regards to adhesive application.
According to ISO 9211-4:2006, section 6, an optical coating needs to withstand the application and removal of adhesive tape that is 25MM square (one inch) and has an adhesion level of 9.8 newtons (35 oz.). Dust-Aid measures 18.7mm x 12.7mm and has an adhesion level of 1 oz., which measures much smaller and its adhesive strength is 34 oz. lower than the test requirements.
For the coating to pass the international standards test for optical coatings the adhesive needs to be removed without damaging the coating.
It appears that some of Canon's low pass filter dichroic coatings do not meet the guidelines set in ISO 9211-4:2006, section 6.
The dichroic coating on a low pass filter can be defined as an optical coating. For more information regarding optical coatings and dichroic coatings, please read here: Optical Coatings
Thank you for taking the time to read our feedback.
Why would you even assume that Canon has any obligation to comply with any standards, be it mil-spec, ISO, etc. set forth by some third-party It's enough that Canon recommends how to clean their sensors, and using adhesive to clean a sensor isn't recommended. What's the argument here? Your product has shown itself to be unsafe, yes or no?
Richard Henry wrote:
Dust Aid came through for me on my early run Eos 5D. I had a similar result as AFred after cleaning my 5D with Dust Aid. I immediately contacted them at their web site. They arranged to have the AA filter repaced at LifePixel, a company that does IR modifications on sensors and also replaces AA filters that have been damaged. Dust Aid and Life Pixel were prompt, very professional in arranging for the service, and I received my camera back in superb condition. The new filter was perfectly clean and had no dust on it. I think Dust Aid has done their homework and is willing to stand behind their product. They are so responsible as to make up for poorly manufactured, early run AA filters used by Canon. I continue to use Dust Aid with no effect on the new AA filter except to remove unwanted dust. Even Canon in Japan, themselves endorse a similar product used in Japan. If anyone has a problem with Dust Aid removing the AA filter coating, contact Dust Aid immediately. By the way, I have no connection with the company, only bad luck as to getting a bad AA filter. There is more to the story about hassels with Canon on this problem, but I have no time to go into that. Contact Dust Aid with filter problems.
Making a statement that DA has taken responsibility for "poorly manufactured" AA filters is quite a leap of perverse logic, don't you think? Does Canon approve the use of the Dust Aid product on their sensors? If so, where's the reference? Does lifepixel have a clean room for changing the AA filters, because Canon won't do it here in the US, not having one of their own?
Every film and digital camera follows strict ISO standards. Think what would happen if Nikon's ISO 200 film speed setting was like Canon's ISO 50 film setting? Would that not cause confusion regarding film speeds? ISO standards puts everything on an even playing field, globally. To ignore standards would be turning your back on the industry. So, it is safe to assume that Canon does follow strict ISO standards.
At this time Canon does not recommend any cleaning product, beside the hand air blower, for their low pass filters.
Our product is safe to use on industry* standard low pass filters. We have shown that online with our Canon 5D video testing of the dichroic coating. See video here >> * Correction, we ment to say Canon's standard low pass filters, sorry for the mistake. Yes, there is no industry standard sensor filter.
Regarding Life Pixel, yes they do have a clean room. They are a professional team that does a great job, highly recommended. Please feel free to contact them for their clean room classification.
Thank you for your questions,
The Dust-Aid Team
Edited by DA_Service on May 30, 2007 at 07:17 AM GMT
Richard Henry wrote:
Dust Aid came through for me on my early run Eos 5D. I had a similar result as AFred after cleaning my 5D with Dust Aid. I immediately contacted them at their web site. They arranged to have the AA filter repaced at LifePixel, a company that does IR modifications on sensors and also replaces AA filters that have been damaged.
Kudos to DustAid for standing by their product.
Question: Is it cheaper to having something like this done at LifePixel than at Canon?
dcains wrote:
It's enough that Canon recommends how to clean their sensors, and using adhesive to clean a sensor isn't recommended.
Actually, as somebody else pointed out above, Canon (Japan) has a similar product to DustAid that they sell there. I've seen the link to buy it on the internet somewhere (though I don't have it handy at the moment).
Every film and digital camera follows strict ISO standards. Think what would happen if Nikon's ISO 200 film speed setting was like Canon's ISO 50 film setting? Would that not cause confusion regarding film speeds? ISO standards puts everything on an even playing field, globally. To ignore standards would be turning your back on the industry. So, it is safe to assume that Canon does follow strict ISO standards.
At this time Canon does not recommend any cleaning product, beside the hand air blower, for their low pass filters.
Our product is safe to use on industry standard low pass filters. We have shown that online with our Canon 5D video testing of the dichroic coating. See video here >>
Regarding Life Pixel, yes they do have a clean room. They are a professional team that does a great job, highly recommended. Please feel free to contact them for their clean room classification.
Sorry, but that's a load of crap. There is no "industry standard" for low-pass filters (ask Leica, if you've any doubts), and if there was, Canon is under no obligation to abide by it. Further, ISO 200, for example, is different on a Nikon versus Canon body, although perhaps it shouldn't be, because in that case a specific standard is being referenced. And please, no more quoting the wikipedia as a reference source.
dcains wrote:
Sorry, but that's a load of crap. There is no "industry standard" for low-pass filters (ask Leica, if you've any doubts),
So, you're saying the Leica ignores ISO standards for any coatings it may apply to its low-pass filter? (I'm assuming it even has one, which may not be the case, IIRC).
If so, on what basis do you make this claim? (And remember, no Wikipedia to document it )
I know the first time I used the Visible Dust Sensor Brush, and some of the hairs touched the edge of the sensor and spred some lubricant onto the sensors cover glass. I had to use the VD smear away and VDust solution to remove the oily lubricant and clean the brush with the brush cleaner.
Everything did eventually get cleaned but it was annoying and I now know to be very careful about having the brush touch anywhere aside from the glass on the sensor. On a bright now, wit the VDust solution, I find that it does a very good job at keeping dust off the sensor. After the first clean, there was noticably less dust that gets collected on the sensor over time and most of it that does collect on the sensor can much be removed much more easily with a blower. For the slightly more stubborn dust bunnies, I use the sensor brush (very carefully).
It's enough that Canon recommends how to clean their sensors, and using adhesive to clean a sensor isn't recommended. What's the argument here? Your product has shown itself to be unsafe, yes or no?