20D after cleaning - opinions please

[tim]

I just cleaned my 20D using the copperhill method, and i'd like a 2nd opinion. Here are the before and after pictures @ F32 and about 12 swipes.

Before (http://mrwild.co.nz/temp/20Dbefore.jpg) (1.5MB - looks like a sand box)
After (http://mrwild.co.nz/temp/20Dafter.jpg) (1.5MB - still 3 marks, main ones left of centre, bottom middle)

There are two persistant spots that just won't budge, and this is a brand new camera. Would you just say "oh well" and ignore them, have it professionally cleaned, or return it? At F8 they're just kinda grey blurry spots, not too bad. At F2.8 they're invisible.

I cleaned my 300D, it took 4 passes but the sensor is now completely clean :)

Incidentally I also cleaned my mirror and some kind of glass above the mirror with the system, and then the top bit using a pecpad and my finger, which worked fine too.

[ssim]

I've cleaned my sensor on the 10D and the 1DMKII serveral times. I always purchased the pec pad sensor swipes. I never made more than one pass and they always came out perfect.

If the camera is new and they are persistent I would suggest you stop in at a Canon service center to have it done. I did that the first time that the 10D needed cleaning and had it back in my hands in about 10 minutes.

[tim]

I bought it from a parallel importer in another city, so Canon NZ won't do it under warranty. It'd be away up to a couple of weeks, according to the local camera store.

I think i'll try the "what to do with persistant spots" bit from the copperhill pages, which I just found. I'll do it tomorrow... crossing my fingers.

[Dante King]

Tim,
Your 20D is new right? How did the sensor get dirty so fast?

[tim]

I guess the sensor came dirty. I do suspect had been opened before I got it, and there's a scratch on the bottom, but it works perfectly so I didn't worry about it.

[glangston]

I was told one reason for spots might be that you change lenses with the power switch on. I did this recently and got a noticeable spot. I just used a large bulb blower and blew it out. No obvious spots now. Luckily I didn't rush into the cleaning thing as it was not needed.

[drisley]

Honestly, I think you did a pretty darn good job, especially because those shots are at F32.
Do the spots show at F22 or lower? F32 is pretty extreme.
I'm sure if I did a test at F32, mine would look alot like your before picture. But since I rarely go above F13, I would never see any spots.

[Jesper]

Tim, I wouldn't worry about those two last little spots. When you have it "professionally cleaned", they're probably not doing much more than blow some air onto the sensor or use a Copper Hill-like method themselves. I don't think Canon itself have a "secret", super good method to clean sensors in a much better way than when you do it yourself.

[tim]

Thanks guys. I might have a go at the "scrub" that the copperhill web pages mention, but if it doesn't come off I won't worry.

Driesley - at F8 they're just kinda grey blurry spots, not too bad. At F2.8 they're invisible.

[drisley]

Doh, now I see that in your original post.
Hmm, let us know how the scrubbing goes.

[tim]

Well I had another go at the cleaning today, and it didn't make any difference - those two spots just won't budge. Now my options are down to
a) Get a professional to do it.
b) Return it to the place I got it.

There's a guy who does the cleaning that's only a short train ride away who my photography teacher recommended, so I might try him first. It's some hastle but it's better than returning it and maybe being without it for a couple of weeks. I guess i'll tell him what I tried, let the professional try it, and if he has no luck i'll ask for it to be replaced - it came with a big scratch on the bottom of the camera too.

Most of the spots come off with no problem at all. Damned little spots. I do want them gone, I do a lot of macro photography at small apertures and you just know the best shot I ever take will have spots in the worst possible place. At F16+ they're clearly visible when I shoot the sky, At F8 they're smudges, and at F2.8 they're invisible.

[Adam Hicks]

My damned 20D was dirty after the first week of conservative use. It's like my 100-400 blew stuff on the sensor (I don't like to spread that rumor, but it sure seemed like it!) Ever since then, shooting anything with a lot of sky shows the dust / whatever... even at f8. It's maddening. I've cleaned it a few times now and just keep on keepin' on. I'm at about 7,000 shots on the camera and 95% of it has been outdoors at the racetrack, zoo, park, etc so I guess that's just par for the course.

And Sensor Swab prices are a joke. That's a .25 part. Why hasn't anyone copied these things and started selling them for 1/4 the price yet?!?!?!

Adam

[tim]

Pec pads with the plastic wiper and eclipse is pretty cheap. We pay about triple in my neck of the woods, so I wouldn't complain too loudly Adam :)

[Jesper]

And Sensor Swab prices are a joke. That's a .25 part. Why hasn't anyone copied these things and started selling them for 1/4 the price yet?!?!?!

Adam
I've seen Sensor Swabs in a local shop here. Now many things are much more expensive here than in the USA, but more than $50 for 12 cotton swabs is an incredible rip-off. Look what the website of the manufacturer (http://www.photosol.com/swabfaq.htm) says in the FAQ:

Why are these swabs so expensive ? What are they made of – Gold?
Sensor swabs are manufactured by hand in a clean room environment. We have not yet found a way to machine make them that will be any less expensive than they are now.

I bought the Sensor Swipe from Copper Hill Images: http://www.pbase.com/copperhill/ccd_cleaning - together with a pack of PecPads and Eclipse cleaning fluid it costs less than one pack of Sensor Swabs and it's enough for cleaning your sensor a hundred times.

[tim]

I just discovered for sure they sent me a 2nd hand camera - the battery's charged. Together with the packages being opened, the large scratch on the bottom of the camera, and the sensor not being able to be cleaned, i'm going to ask them to take it back and send me another one - a new one. Does that sound unreasonable to anyone?

[drisley]

If mine were opened and scratched, I would definately send it back.

[tim]

Thanks drisley. I've had it about 2 weeks, so I hope they don't give me any trouble about that, even though it's quite a reasonable request. Of course if they're trouble I can always go to my credit card company (they didn't supply what they promised), or spread word about them to people I know, which would be bad for their business. I also need it next week for a trip, so if they can't send it immediately (before I even send the one I have back) i'll have to wait a couple of weeks. Let's hope they have a good customer service policy.... i'll report back tomorrow how things go :)

[HKFEVER]

Most of the spots come off with no problem at all. Damned little spots. I do want them gone.
I have this problem in my 1st 1DSMKII and can't stand it. Then I sold it with pretty good price.

[pinball]

ok maybe your looking on the wrong area, in the picture it shows in the lower left of the shot so that would put the dust as you look into the camera in the upper right part of the sensor ** remeber its like a negative evrything is backwards** hope this helps to get it cleaned right

[tim]

I sent it to the place I bought it, a professional can do it, or replace it if they can't do it.

btw according to this page (http://www.pbase.com/copperhill/image/20980695) of the copperhill method it's flipped about the horizontal axis, not about both axis's (axes?). That means bottom left turns into top left. I cleaned the whole middle section very well though, so it doesn't really matter too much to me.

[Chris1le]

Using the Copperhill method I had some trouble with specs in the corners and edges. I wound up wrapping a pec-pad around a q-tip and dropping two drops of Eclipse on the tip then running that around the edges, concentrating on the areas with the known spots. It worked for me.

[tim]

My spec's in the middle of the sensor, so I used the corner of the plastic wiper thing, like the webpage says too. It seems that might work better than a round cue tip, but if I ever have that problem i'll keep it in mind.

The tech's looking at my camera now... hopefully they can clean it or replace it immediately - i've taken time off work especially to do some photography and without a camera that's an expensive waste of time holiday!

[RJSorensen]

I went through three . . . of them before I found one that was 'clean' enough to keep. There seemed to be a batch that had dirty sensors FOB. My local Ritz returned four of an order of five they got in. I think one should check this on new ones to see that you have at least a fair chance of getting a new camera, with a clean lens. I have also come to see that 'some' dust is just a part of owning these. However even after a lot of lens changes and a few thousand shots, my current 20D is cleaner than the first two right out of the box.

[tim]

I just heard back from the place I got it from, they're replacing the 20D with a brand new unit, so that's perfect :) I'll keep what you said in mind RJ, i'll test this one as soon as it arrives to make sure it's ok. I don't mind if I have to clean it, so long as it's able to be cleaned.

[robertwgross]

btw according to this page (http://www.pbase.com/copperhill/image/20980695) of the copperhill method it's flipped about the horizontal axis, not about both axis's (axes?). That means bottom left turns into top left. I cleaned the whole middle section very well though, so it doesn't really matter too much to me.

If the photo spot shows in the top left, then the sensor dust is on the bottom right.

---Bob Gross---

[tim]

If the photo spot shows in the top left, then the sensor dust is on the bottom right.

---Bob Gross---

I have differing information from two reliable sources.... how do I decide which is correct? I'm not going to put a spot on my sensor to find out!

[robertwgross]

I have differing information from two reliable sources.... how do I decide which is correct? I'm not going to put a spot on my sensor to find out!

Well, let's put it this way. If the image spot is in the upper left, and if the sensor dust is not in the lower right, then somebody has just repealed some laws of optics.

Is there anybody else (besides me) who has studied optics?

---Bob Gross---

[tim]

Optics theory isn't really the issue, it's the path the photos take through the mirrors and prisims.

3rd opinions would be welcome.

[robertwgross]

Optics theory isn't really the issue, it's the path the photos take through the mirrors and prisims.

There you go again.

It is most certainly NOT the path through the mirrors and prisms.

The light comes through the lens, the mirror flips up out of the way, and the light hits the sensor. Light is only affected by the mirror and the prism on its way to the viewfinder, which has no relevance to the captured image.

---Bob Gross---

[tim]

Ah yes, good point. I just tried it with a lens, and it does flip it horizontally and vertically. The question then is which way the sensor interprets things.

There I go again?

[Wazza]

Where did you get the camera from? Parallel Imported Ltd in Albany?

They still do the 1 year warranty, as required by law.
And aren't the batteries supposed to come with some charge, as I've read in the manual, just so you can make sure it's working, before you give the first good charge.

I've had my 20D for just over two weeks, but only had lens for them for 11 days, and today, the counter just clicked over 6,000 shots. Managed 429 shots on one 1Gb card, all on Large JPG Fine. :D (The most I've ever done). Helps when you're shooting lots of blue sky.

[tim]

Yep, Parallel Imported, and that consumer guarantees thing comes in handy eh? :) Thanks for the info on the battery. I think they put their own serial number on it, they may have scratched it with a knife doing that... that's just a guess though. I still recommend them based on my own experiences... and i'm typically a difficult customer ;)

I get around 100 RAW images on a 1GB card, give or take. I'm starting to use JPG more, as i'm getting better at taking shots that are fine in the camera, rather than needing editing later.

[Wazza]

Yeah. I've used them twice now. I bought my first digital camera from them, the Sony V1, which cost me $1249 from them in September 03, when retail was $1499. If only back then, the 300D was available and for the same price. I feel I could have been giant steps ahead in where I'm currently at.

[robertwgross]

There I go again?

Based on a quote by a former American president when asked a question that had already been answered.

---Bob Gross---

[robertwgross]

Ah yes, good point. I just tried it with a lens, and it does flip it horizontally and vertically. The question then is which way the sensor interprets things.

A digital sensor like in the Canon EOS cameras gets its light through the lens, just like film in a film camera. Basically, that is upside down, and that is not the same as vertically flipped or horizontally flipped. The scene's upper left gets onto the sensor in the lower right, and then the resulting image shows it on the upper left. Any other way, and a subject person would have their hair part showing up on the wrong side and 90% of the golfers would appear to be left-handed.

---Bob Gross---

[robertwgross]

Based on those comments by Nicolas, I think I will continue to avoid their products.

---Bob Gross---

[Nicholas R.]

Bob,
I stand by my position which has been determined by many pinpoint swabbings.

Before you pistol whip me and banish me to Elba, why don't you do the test yourself. Pick out ONE spot in your images. Put one drop of Eclipse on the PecPad-wrapped swab and do only one corner of your sensor, using either allignment. Close 'er up and do the test. As a matter of fact, why doesn't everyone reading this do the same thing.

We could go on arguing this point ad infinitum, so do we have any volunteers out there? C'mon, let's put an end to all of the guessing games once and for all.

Nicholas

[tim]

My sincere apologies to Nicholas, I posted a message which was meant to remain confidential.

I'll try it the next time I have a spot on my sensor and post here.

[robertwgross]

Bob,
I stand by my position which has been determined by many pinpoint swabbings.

Before you pistol whip me and banish me to Elba, why don't you do the test yourself. Pick out ONE spot in your images. Put one drop of Eclipse on the PecPad-wrapped swab and do only one corner of your sensor, using either allignment. Close 'er up and do the test. As a matter of fact, why doesn't everyone reading this do the same thing.

We could go on arguing this point ad infinitum, so do we have any volunteers out there? C'mon, let's put an end to all of the guessing games once and for all.

Nicholas

I've cleaned my camera's sensor quite a number of times, and I've always gotten it clean correctly the first time. No guesswork involved. The scene's upper left becomes the sensor's lower right, which becomes the photo's upper left. I don't use any Eclipse or Copper stuff for that matter. This will be interesting once the company management figures out what kind of misinformation goes onto the web.

---Bob Gross---

[tim]

Now now, no need for petty bickering. Someone else needs to try it, which i'll do at some point, then we'll have more evidence one way or the other.

[robertwgross]

Now now, no need for petty bickering. Someone else needs to try it, which i'll do at some point, then we'll have more evidence one way or the other.

As I stated previously, I have been cleaning my camera's sensor for over two years now. The very first time, I had to stop and think about where the image was going to be, but since then I haven't had to stop for evidence.

I know that if I published improper application information for my employer's products, and I did that on the web, then I would probably get warned one time and then fired the next time. On the other hand, if Nicolas were simply confused about what the question was, then that would be a little different.

---Bob Gross---

[Nicholas R.]

Bob,

Why the hostility? What's the point of it? We're talking about dust, not religion or politics.

All I'm trying to say is that when I have a speck of dust in the upper left of my image, I do a swab in the lower left only and the dust is gone. I have repeated this process many times and IF I can get just ONE SINGLE SOLITARY OTHER PERSON TO DO THIS EXPERIMENT, I would be very willing to stand corrected if my position is wrong. Are you willing to stand corrected if others weigh in and you are wrong? Well, I am.

Nicholas

[robertwgross]

I just ran a test with my D60.

I put a "blob" (consisting of a cotton fiber wetted with lens cleaner) in the lower left of my sensor. Oddly enough, the image came out with a spot on the upper right.

That works for me.

---Bob Gross---

[Nicholas R.]

Wolf,

This is EXACTLY the correct alignment.

Let's say your target is the moon in the upper right of the photograph. The light rays wil travel through the lens and be recorded by the sensor at the bottom left of the sensor as you hold the camera in the shooting position. OK, so let's take the lens off and turn the camera around 180° and look at the sensor from the front of the camera. What was the lower left area of the sensor as you held the camera in the shooting position, now becomes the lower right AS YOU LOOK AT THE SENSOR from the front. Your hypothesis is right on the money and is proven by numerous swabbings in one corner at a time. Most people miss the turning around of 180° to complete this configuration.

Nicholas

[robertwgross]

Nicholas, I don't see any posting from Wolf. Who are you replying to?

I think we both see the issue, here. I am talking about only one left side of a sensor, the camera's left, which is the shooter's left. You are talking about the left side at one point and then you change your perspective around to face the other direction, thereby making the left the right side to the cleaner. This is a case where a diagram makes it 100% foolproof.

---Bob Gross---

[tim]

Wolf made a post that agreed with Nicholas, then apparently deleted it.

A diagram is a great idea.

[robertwgross]

I think we all know that when the scene's light comes though the lens and falls upon the film or the sensor, the image is upside down. That's OK with film, since the film is fed that way, and the image fits the frame anyway. That's OK with digital, since the sensor's output is oriented correctly in the file when it gets stored on the CF card. So, if we look at the sensor from the front of the camera, the image is upside down. Whatever was on the scene's right is on the captured image right, but that is upside down.

---Bob Gross---

[HKFEVER]

Please advise which diagram is correct or else :oops: :oops: :oops: I really can't figure it out.

[griff2]

No 1 is correct. When passing through a lense, the image is rotated through 180 degrees.:)

[griff2]

Ah, but that's what the sensor "sees". In order to look at the sensor you flip it through 180 degrees, so image 2 is correct.

The confusion here lays in the fact that image orienation is a function of two variables.

To illustrate; looking at the object through the viewfinder:

UL UR

LL LR

Rotated through 180 degrees, gives what the sensor "sees"

LR LL

UR UL

A flip through 180 degrees gives what you see when you look at the sensor:

LL LR

UL UR

[HKFEVER]

Ah, but that's what the sensor "sees". In order to look at the sensor you flip it through 180 degrees, so image 2 is correct.

You confuse me, if I found a dust at the both PRINT OUT's UR. Then this dust should be laying on sensor's where?:oops:

[griff2]

Sorry HK I've ammended my reply. I was initially half right.:o So image 2 is correct.

[HKFEVER]

I understand why sensor sees light through lens is flip 180 v and 180 h.

But why we see the sensor is only flip 180 v?

[griff2]

HKFEVER wrote

But why we see the sensor is only flip 180 v?


Because the 180 degree rotation is equivalent of a horizontal and a vertival flip, so when you turn the camera round to look at the sensor, you cancel out one of the rotations. ;)

[HKFEVER]

HKFEVER wrote


Because the 180 degree rotation is equivalent of a horizontal and a vertival flip, so when you turn the camera round to look at the sensor, you cancel out one of the rotations. If you were to turn the camera upside down, and view the sensor you'd cancell the 180 degree rotation out completely and you'd be seeing what you'd get through the viewfinder;)

My brain won't turn, and very confusing....:cry:

[griff2]

Ok. Try this. On a piece of paper write down

UL UR
LL LR

Then turn the paper round 'till it's upside down. This is what your sensor sees. Now flip the paper round, and holding it to the light so you can see what you wrote, you now see what you would see if you were looking at the sensor. If you flip the paper over, you're back where you start.

[HKFEVER]

Ok. Try this. On a piece of paper write down

UL UR
LL LR

Then turn the paper round 'till it's upside down. This is what your sensor sees. Now flip the paper round, and holding it to the light so you can see what you wrote, you now see what you would see if you were looking at the sensor. If you flip the paper over, you're back where you start.

I don't have paper, so I show it on the JPG.

I guess you are mentioning Flip V as #2.

[griff2]

HKFEVER wrote
I guess you are mentioning Flip V as #2.
Noope. The sequence is:

Rotate through 180 - what sensor sees
Flip 180 vertically - your view of the sensor
Flip 180 horizontally - back to the origional

You only do the rotation once, at the begining, to simulate inverting image.

By the way when I say flip vertically here, I mean a flip on a vertical axis; in photoshop flip vertically means a flip on a horizontal axis. If you want to try this using Photoshop, then the procedure is:

Rotate -> canvas 180 degrees - would give you what the sensor sees
Rotate -> flip canvas horizontal - would be what you would see if you could see the image on the sensor
Rotate -> flip canvas vertical - the origional again

[HKFEVER]

HKFEVER wrote

Noope. The sequence is:

Rotate through 180 - what sensor sees
Flip 180 vertically - your view of the sensor
Flip 180 horizontally - back to the origional

You only do the rotation once, at the begining, to simulate inverting image.

So this is what you mentioned as the attached JPG.

And this mean if a dust shows up on the UR of the print than the dust is on the LR of the sensor when we look direct from the mounr to the sensor?

[griff2]

HKFEVER wrote:

And this mean if a dust shows up on the UR of the print than the dust is on the LR of the sensor when we look direct from the mounr to the sensor?

Yes:D

So if you want a quick way of knowing where to find the dust on the sensor, just rotate and flip an image showing dust particles;)

[robertwgross]

The summary of all this is that half of the problem is the way you describe it to somebody else. The camera's left can become the right when you move your perspective around to look into the camera instead of looking in the camera's direction.

It is a lot easier if you forget about directions except up and down. The scene's UP goes onto the sensor as DOWN. Then that gets stored and comes out on the print as UP.

Next, somebody will come around and say that they always hold their camera inverted during cleaning, so ...

No, I won't go there.

---Bob Gross---

[griff2]

Bob Gross wrote:

It is a lot easier if you forget about directions except up and down. The scene's UP goes onto the sensor as DOWN. Then that gets stored and comes out on the print as UP.

So I have a spot on top right and that will be on the bottom (?) of my sensor?

I think the best thing to do is to rotate and flip an image which show dust spots and then you'll have a pretty good idea where to look on the sensor.

[Nic]

Hi Tim,

On my monitor which displays at 1280x1024 there's a bright pixel appros 5.6cm x-axiz and 2.7cm y-axis on the photos you are refering to.

Do you also see it??

[robertwgross]

So I have a spot on top right and that will be on the bottom (?) of my sensor?

Ambiguous.

If you have a spot on the top of your printed image, then the dust is on the bottom of the sensor, as viewed from the front of the camera.

---Bob Gross---

[griff2]

Bob Gross wrote
Ambiguous.
That's the point I'm trying to make. The sensor is a 2-d plane not a 1-d vertical line. Anyway, as has come out in the wash, having a spot on the top right will indicate that the particle can be found on the bottom right of the sensor.

[Nicholas R.]

Bob,

I think everyone is agreed that up is down.

But is it left is right as you insist, or is it left is left as I maintain?

Nicholas

P.S. - Because we couldn't find any volunteers, this morning I stirred things up in my chamber a little bit. What I was left with was a big speck and a small cluster of dust particles, ALL in the *lower right* quadrant of my sky shot, as viewed on my computer monitor. The rest of the shot (the other 3 quadrants) was dust-free. I removed the lens, then, using a reading magnifying glass and a good light, I clearly saw the big speck and the dust cluster sitting oh so innocently in the *upper right* quadrant of the sensor as I looked into the chamber. They were most definitely NOT sitting in the *upper LEFT* quadrant of the sensor, which was dust-free.

What I saw was ONE VERTICAL FLIP. What I did not see was one vertical flip AND one horizontal flip.

Just to reassure myself, I did a brooming ONLY in the *upper right* corner of my sensor. I took another sky shot and saw that the cluster of dust that was in the *lower right* corner of my image was now completely gone.
In my camera and viewed on my computer, a dust cluster in the *lower right* of the image is actually a dust cluster sitting in the *upper right* of the sensor as I look at it. This is such an easy thing to prove or disprove with your camera, I really wish ONE other person would do what I did. The worst thing that could happen is that you'll wind up with a very clean sensor.


Bob - one of us is dyslexic.

[robertwgross]

Bob - one of us is dyslexic.

No, it depends on which way you describe your view.

Speaking of "as you look into the chamber" is good. However, that is the opposite of the camera's directions. When the user shifts from being behind the camera into looking into the chamber, obviously directions change.

The worst thing that could happen is that you'll wind up with a very clean sensor.

And people have to keep running out to buy more of those expensive Copperhill products, which is the primary purpose behind you posting in this forum.

---Bob Gross---

[Nicholas R.]

Bob,

Why do you get ugly instead of talking about the facts? Why can't you admit you were wrong? Huh? Too hard for you? Now, you blame it on semantics. You're a real stand up guy.

I'M NOT HERE TO SELL ANYTHING - IF I WAS, I WOULD BE PUTTING THE LINK TO MY WEBSITE UNDER EVERY POST I MAKE. I came here because Tim put up an e-mail which was very personal in nature. THAT IS THE ONLY REASON I JOINED THIS THREAD - NO MATTER WHAT YOU WANT EVERYONE ELSE TO BELIEVE ABOUT ME.

And what was that part about being fired or reprimanded for putting out erroneous facts?

QUOTE: "I know that if I published improper application information for my employer's products, and I did that on the web, then I would probably get warned one time and then fired the next time." . . . . .Bob Gross

Are you now going to tell us how you manage to keep your present job with such an "ambiguous" understanding of the facts?

Why can't you admit before thousands of people here that you were dead wrong instead of attacking me?

[Jon]

No, it depends on which way you describe your view.

Speaking of "as you look into the chamber" is good. However, that is the opposite of the camera's directions. When the user shifts from being behind the camera into looking into the chamber, obviously directions change.


Speaking for myself, if I'm cleaning my sensor I'll be looking into the chamber from the front (as it was described in the original link posted oh, so many pages ago), not standing behind the camera swabbing blindly away.

[robertwgross]

Nicholas, you don't get the point that I've been trying to make. I've been right and consistent ... with my perspective view. I believe that you've been right and consistent... with your perspective view. It is just that you shifted your perspective around from behind the camera to looking into the chamber.

Whichever way you describe the process, you have to describe the way you are looking at it. If I am talking about the left side of the sensor, which is on the left side of the camera, and if you are talking about the left side of the sensor, which is as you look into the chamber, then we are talking about two different things entirely.

The other point that I tried to make, and which apparently you didn't catch, is that to keep throwing around ambiguous directions does not accomplish much to the end user. Instead of "a picture is worth a thousand words" I would modify that to say "a diagram is worth a thousand words."

---Bob Gross---

[Nicholas R.]

Bob,

Again, I did not join this thread to promote what I sell. When you let loose with a statement like that, it really offends me.

If you want to talk about the facts about sensor cleaning, I'd be very happy to and I WILL stand corrected if I'm wrong. Everyone makes mistakes and I make my share of them, too. But when I perform the test that I described, and not one person volunteers to do it and see for themselves, I find myself all alone here with you throwing out "mistaken" or "mis-spoken" information. I can live with that, but you don't have to get personal in your responses. That does't help anyone to understand the original question, which is a very confusing concept to visualize. That's why swabbing in only one corner of your sensor will categorically show you that it's just ONE vertical flip.

I don't know how many meanings the term "as you are looking at the sensor" has. In my tutorial, I capitalize that term, and there should be no confusion. When I refer to the *left side of the sensor as you are looking at it*, I do not understand how anyone can interperet that to mean "the left side of the sensor as you hold the camera in the shooting position". If that was what I meant, that is what I would have said.

Nicholas

[CyberDyneSystems]

Hi Nicholas,

And welcome to the forum :)

We appreciate you taking the time to help explain the nuances of sensor cleaning :)


Thanks,
CDS

[mbze430]

I don't know...I just cleaned my sensor with the Copperhill stuff. Worked great. After 2-3 whips, good as new.

[tim]

I asked Nicholas to stop in and lend his opinion, so many thanks to hm for taking the time to do that. It think you're both correct, and the difference is in the way it's being described. Incidentally I think the copperhill stuff is reasonably priced.

Hi Tim,

On my monitor which displays at 1280x1024 there's a bright pixel appros 5.6cm x-axiz and 2.7cm y-axis on the photos you are refering to.

Do you also see it??

No, I don't sorry. Are you using an LCD? It could be a single faulty pixel. My LCD has a faulty pixel in the top right of the screen.

[Marvinspu36]

Don't know if this actually helps much in keeping dust off, but I alway change lenses with the camera off and the opening to the sensor area facing down. I also try to have my second lense ready to attach, before I remove the one on the camera, to keep the time to a minimum that the sensor is exposed to open air.

Even if it doesn't help with dust, it protects the sensor from damage due to falling objects, like the pen in your pocket, or your own hair. :)

[NYC2BGI]

So far I have not had to clean my 20D. I only have 1 lens for it so far so I don't have to change lenses and get dirt on the sensor.

[tim]

I just got my replacement 20D, and from the quick tests i've done in the office it looks like the sensor's clean and focusing works properly. Yay!

[mbze430]

Can I use this stuff to clean the mirror???

[tim]

What do you mean "this stuff"? Eclipse? It's not recommended, but I used the eclipse + pec pads to give my mirror a *very* gentle wipe to remove a dust spot, and it didn't seem to hurt it.

[dzilk]

At the risk of continuing to beat a dead horse. Try this thought experiment. Imagine a view camera with a ground glass focusing screen. Look at an image on the ground glass and compare it with a photograph of the same scend. The image you see when looking at the ground glass from behind the camera is upside down AND reversed left to right compared to the photograph, as expected.

Now, imagine looking at the other side of the ground glass. The image will still be inverted (top to bottom), but now the left and right will be reversed from the first viewing. Comparing it to the photograph, the left and right will now match.

Looking at the 'back side' of the ground glass is the same as looking at the 'front' of the sensor.

When it was first mentioned that a spot on the sensor would be inverted but not reversed left to right, I thought it was wrong also. It took thinking about it a while for it to come clear.

[tim]

Argh! I just can't get the damn sensor clean. Well, I can get it pretty clean, but there are two spots that just won't come off. They're tiny and only visible at F32 - at F18 they're gone, so I think I just need to be less damn fussy. In the future i'm going to consider my cleaning to get it "good enough", and if there are spots that won't budge i'll leave it for a professional to do.

Here's a picture of the floor behind me after I decided enough was enough.

[mbze430]

damn. And I still see that gray spot there in the corner! LOL .. j/k.

[tim]

Nah, there are no spots at F6 or whatever I took that at... that'll be dirt on my carpet ;)

[xdjoynerx]

i cleaned my sensor my self on my d30. i use q-tips and isopropal 70%... lol.

worked damn good though. only 1 dust bunny at f/22, and not visible below that.

[robertwgross]

Yup. Q-tips and lens cleaner. Works every time.

---Bob Gross---

[Wazza]

Got mine also at Parallel Imported Ltd at Albany for $2499 body only.
:)

Photo.co.nz have it for only $2600, but when I put my name on the waiting list, there were 93 people before me. Could have taken weeks.

[joeseph]

<note to self: read entire post before asking silly questions that have already been answered!>

actually $2600 isn't a bad price really considering 17photo has them for US$1350 which at .7 exchange rate is about NZ$2000 - add in shipping then you get grab-snatch&take at 12.5% and it looks pretty similar and you've got the advantage of purchasing locally...

[tim]

Buying locally has it's advantages, NZ has very good consumer protection laws.