It's easy to blame the camera instead of Dust Aid and even if the AA filter was miscoated, there's no evidence to say that it affected image quality. So even if it was miscoated, should Dust Aid get a pass for damaging a miscoated filter?
It is nice to see Dust Aid step up and repair the camera's they have damaged. It would be nice to see them stop dancing around the fact that this is a risky, industry cautioned method that has caused more than one problem.
If you like this method and haven't had any nightmares, I hope your luck continues. Just recognize that not everyone shares your view.
Now, I have no personal experience with this kit, and can't say anything about how the Canon adhesives compare with Dust-Aid. But, if Canon's own kit uses adhesives.......
Edited by Steph550 on May 29, 2007 at 09:04 PM GMT
I don't see a Canon logo on it, but the picture is small.
I wonder if Canon would stand behind using THEIR kit the way DustAid is standing behind their product?
PS: I don't own DustAid . . but I might strongly consider it in the future based solely on the user experience so far. Have the makers of Eclipse fluid stood up behind their product in similar cases? (Assuming they've had any, that is).
Just on the point of ISO standards. Yes there are ISO standards for a lot of things, but nobody is under any obligation to follow them, unless they want to claim a certain certification (for example ISO 9001). Furthermore, just because a manufacturer may decide to adhere to an ISO standard for one component of their product does not mean they would follow a standard for every component. This would only be necessary if they wished to claim that their product is ISO certified for some particular standard. As far as I'm aware, Canon has never made any claims of ISO certification for its filter glass or anything related to the sensor.
DavidP wrote:
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 )
Again, there are NO ISO standards for low-pass filters. My reference to Leica concerned their M8 model, which to put it mildly, had some issues with the low-pass filter. Nothing really related to the Dust-Aid fiasco, or their claims of adherence to non-existent standards, though. Or Canon's lack of adherence to non-applicable standards.
Kamil Kisiel wrote:
Just on the point of ISO standards. Yes there are ISO standards for a lot of things, but nobody is under any obligation to follow them, unless they want to claim a certain certification (for example ISO 9001). Furthermore, just because a manufacturer may decide to adhere to an ISO standard for one component of their product does not mean they would follow a standard for every component. This would only be necessary if they wished to claim that their product is ISO certified for some particular standard. As far as I'm aware, Canon has never made any claims of ISO certification for its filter glass or anything related to the sensor....Show more →
DavidP wrote:
I wonder if Canon would stand behind using THEIR kit the way DustAid is standing behind their product?
PS: I don't own DustAid . . but I might strongly consider it in the future based solely on the user experience so far. Have the makers of Eclipse fluid stood up behind their product in similar cases? (Assuming they've had any, that is).
Thanks for posting the link that works. Sorry about that! There was a thread on the Canon kit awhile back when it was first released in Japan...but not sure if it was here or DPR. It is definitely a Canon product. For more, check out this link...you have to scroll down to get to it:
As for Eclipse, YES, Photo Solutions has stood behind their product, and they say right on their site that they will cover the cost of any repairs for damage caused by use of their products according to their instructions. However, use of Pec-Pads on sensors is NOT according to their instructions.
Kamil Kisiel wrote:
Just on the point of ISO standards. Yes there are ISO standards for a lot of things, but nobody is under any obligation to follow them, unless they want to claim a certain certification (for example ISO 9001). Furthermore, just because a manufacturer may decide to adhere to an ISO standard for one component of their product does not mean they would follow a standard for every component. This would only be necessary if they wished to claim that their product is ISO certified for some particular standard. As far as I'm aware, Canon has never made any claims of ISO certification for its filter glass or anything related to the sensor....Show more →
Funny, sounds like ISO standards are like EDI standards, they are there if you want to use them, and even if you do want to follow those "standards", you can still manipulate them to your benefit. EDI is great: "here is a standard message and its content", but then each and every customer that uses the same message and version manipulates it to the point that they are all different when produced. Yeech...
Should be called ISO guidelines and EDI guidelines....
Have used most every method of sensor cleaning and have found DustAid to be the easiest and most effective with no sensor damage so far. Considering DustAid's response in this thread, I will continue to use thier product.
PrecisionPhoto wrote:
Makes me not want a 20D for sure
Seems like backward logic to me. My 20D is perfectly fine; however, this confirms my reluctance to use the Dust-aid product. Good for them for how they are handling this, but I certainly won't be a customer. The wet-swab method works just fine and doesn't peel off coatings.
Seems like backward logic to me. My 20D is perfectly fine; however, this confirms my reluctance to use the Dust-aid product. Good for them for how they are handling this, but I certainly won't be a customer. The wet-swab method works just fine and doesn't peel off coatings.
No, forward logic is to have the 1Ds and 1D II before the 20D anyday and my 1Ds and 1D II are perfecly fine using Dust Aid.
PrecisionPhoto wrote:
Correct I have stock in 2 professional cameras at around 12K and the cleaning kit at 40. and they all work fine for me.
That's great! I hope your invest continues to yeild a profit and your cleaning kit stays true. Just don't knock those (or their gear) who have chosen a lessor investment, have chosen an alternative cleaning kit, or who don't share your excitement about Dust Aid.
Q: Can Dust-Aid affect exposed dichroic coatings?
A: Dust-Aid is compatible with single or multi-layer coated sensor filters that meet the minimum durability standards outlined in MIL-C-48497A. Since 1980, this mil-spec has become the accepted standard for testing coating quality in the interference coating industry.
The Canon Dichroic mirror coatings on their low pass filters meet MIL-C-48497A coating standards which are not compromised when a sensor cleaning method is used. However, the sensor cleaning industry is seeing a small number of Dichroic coatings that do not meet this standard and therefore fail, causing damage to the sensor coating.
So far Dust-Aid has seen a few of these below standard coated filters. If you discover that you have a below standard coated filter from Canon, which Dust-Aid has damaged, we will replace the damaged filter for you.
)
Seems like backward logic to me. My 20D is perfectly fine; however, this confirms my reluctance to use the Dust-aid product. Good for them for how they are handling this, but I certainly won't be a customer. The wet-swab method works just fine and doesn't peel off coatings.