Protective covering over the lense mount

[fd9]

I'm talking about a clear protective covering over the lens mount of the DSLR body which would mainly serve to protect the sensor from dust/dirt particles at all times, even when there is no lens attached. Think of something similar to a UV filter, except covering the entire lens mount on the body and allowing all light to pass through. No such thing exists as far as I'm aware, and probably for good reason, but why?

[number six]

Sounds like you're describing a body cap. Not transparent, of course, but I don't see why you want light to pass through when there's no lens...

-js

[fd9]

Sounds like you're describing a body cap. Not transparent, of course, but I don't see why you want light to pass through when there's no lens...

-js

Because it would protect the internal components regardless if there's a lens or not, and it would never need to come off (for all intents in purposes).

Think of a body cap, except a 1mm thin transparent sheet that is permanently attached to the opening in the camera...constructed in a way so light would pass through exactly the same way.

[440roadrunner]

Well for one thing there's hardly room "in there." Googroid up some of the stuff about adapting manual wide angles, people trying to modify EF-S lenses on EF cameras, and you'll quickly find that "there ain't much room" between the mirror and the lens.

So if you put it BEHIND the mirror, that still leaves a large amount of the mirror box unprotected, including the mirror and the focus screen. I'd say you'd have to make it REMOVABLE to clean it

Last, it WILL affect optics, which means whatever it is will have to be of excellent optical quality, and just removing it cleaning, and possibly damaging the coating or scratching it will then require a replacement.

I just ain't sure this'd all be worth the trouble. MY camera doesn't get that dirty

[The Moose]

I'd prefer to just use a body cap. Imagine if you had your 'clear protector' and something broke the glass. What would you do then? You're down a body. Just use a body cap and take the extra few seconds to take it off.

[Snydremark]

They make these; I'll see if I can dig up a link for you. But, yeah, they're pretty much what you describe (according to the ads)...I just can't see how they WOULDN'T effect your IQ though.

[fd9]

They make these; I'll see if I can dig up a link for you. But, yeah, they're pretty much what you describe (according to the ads)...I just can't see how they WOULDN'T effect your IQ though.

Really? I'd appreciate it if you could find a link, just out of curiosity.

[number six]

Well for one thing there's hardly room "in there." Googroid up some of the stuff about adapting manual wide angles, people trying to modify EF-S lenses on EF cameras, and you'll quickly find that "there ain't much room" between the mirror and the lens.

Yeah, and some EF-S lenses stick into the body cavity, nearly touching the mirror.

So if you put it BEHIND the mirror, that still leaves a large amount of the mirror box unprotected, including the mirror and the focus screen.

Well, behind the mirror you'll find a protective covering already. It's called the shutter. :p

[Jon]

He's talking about some marketing genius' idea to seal a piece of clear, cheap plastic across the opening for your body so it will collect the dust that would otherwise drift around in the air. Of course, it'll also trap any dust that's already behind the plastic so it will, sooner or later, end up where you least want it, and it'll abrade as you change lenses, and it's somewhat less optically pure than your lens is, but at least you won't get new dust in there (until you have to remove it to get rid of the existing dust bunnies). If you've got a later model the dust mapping works very well.

[JWright]

Here you go...

http://www.dust-aid.com/08dustshield.html

[fd9]

He's talking about some marketing genius' idea to seal a piece of clear, cheap plastic across the opening for your body so it will collect the dust that would otherwise drift around in the air. Of course, it'll also trap any dust that's already behind the plastic so it will, sooner or later, end up where you least want it, and it'll abrade as you change lenses, and it's somewhat less optically pure than your lens is, but at least you won't get new dust in there (until you have to remove it to get rid of the existing dust bunnies). If you've got a later model the dust mapping works very well.

Just for the sake of conversation (and to satisfy my own relentless curiosity), what if Canon installed this in all of their new DSLR's, and used quality materials instead of "cheap plastic"? Let's assume for a moment that the IQ would not be degraded, and the material would be strong enough to avoid accidental breakage. The inside of the camera would never be exposed throughout it's lifetime, and the dust problem would become virtually non-existent. Any dust/dirt on the protective covering itself would be easily cleaned without having to use expensive materials and delicate procedures. Why wouldn't Cannon experiment with something like this, which seems like a rather simple solution to a common problem?

JWright, thanks for that link! I wonder if anyone has tried it out before?

[Snydremark]

Here you go...

http://www.dust-aid.com/08dustshield.html

Those are the ones, thanks!

[Jon]

Just for the sake of conversation (and to satisfy my own relentless curiosity), what if Canon installed this in all of their new DSLR's, and used quality materials instead of "cheap plastic"? Let's assume for a moment that the IQ would not be degraded, and the material would be strong enough to avoid accidental breakage. The inside of the camera would never be exposed throughout it's lifetime, and the dust problem would become virtually non-existent. Any dust/dirt on the protective covering itself would be easily cleaned without having to use expensive materials and delicate procedures. Why wouldn't Cannon experiment with something like this, which seems like a rather simple solution to a common problem?

JWright, thanks for that link! I wonder if anyone has tried it out before?
Well, no. Because the camera isn't air-tight (and shouldn't be, for obvious reasons), So there's always a way for dust to work in, not to mention the possibility of lubricant coming off the inner workings, as has happened in a few cases. And assuming you did go with an air-tight sealed mirror box, any time any part of the workings needed maintenance, or even adjustment, they'd have to unseal and service your camera in a "clean room" which just maybe, perhaps, possibly would add a bit to the cost. And kiss replaceable focusing screens good bye. If you want a sealed camera, buy a fixed-lens model. If you want clean photos, learn to use a Rocket Blower and the dust-mapping functions of your camera. It doesn't cost anything to update the dust profile on a regular basis.

[JWright]

Well, no. Because the camera isn't air-tight (and shouldn't be, for obvious reasons), So there's always a way for dust to work in, not to mention the possibility of lubricant coming off the inner workings, as has happened in a few cases. And assuming you did go with an air-tight sealed mirror box, any time any part of the workings needed maintenance, or even adjustment, they'd have to unseal and service your camera in a "clean room" which just maybe, perhaps, possibly would add a bit to the cost. And kiss replaceable focusing screens good bye. If you want a sealed camera, buy a fixed-lens model. If you want clean photos, learn to use a Rocket Blower and the dust-mapping functions of your camera. It doesn't cost anything to update the dust profile on a regular basis.

To expand on what Jon said... Yes, dust is always going to find a way in. Two weeks ago I shot an air show in El Centro, Ca. For those of you who don't know where El Centro, it's smack in the middle of the Imperial Valley, a massive agricultural area. This means lots of dust...

At the air show, the wind was blowing a consistent 18-20 mph with gusts to 35+ mph. I started the day with perfectly clean sensors on both cameras and never changed lenses the entire day. When I downloaded my images, the pictures from the afternoon were just full of dust spots. The dust is going to get in no matter what you do...

[neilwood32]

Even if you had a sesaled unit, there is everychance that you would get dust from wear and tear within the camera as well as the aforementioned lubricants and other detritus.

[number six]

Hmmm. Here's a thought: do P&S sensors need cleaning? I'll bet they do - in my experience the biggest sensor problem with new DSLRs is the little globs of oil from the moving parts. But I guess there aren't any moving parts in a P&S.

Maybe I'll have a look at my wife's A620...

-js

[FlyingPhotog]

Hmmm. Here's a thought: do P&S sensors need cleaning? I'll bet they do - in my experience the biggest sensor problem with new DSLRs is the little globs of oil from the moving parts. But I guess there aren't any moving parts in a P&S.

Maybe I'll have a look at my wife's A620...

-js

Over time they probably do but a P&S lacks the mechanicals which is what really sucks the dust in.

Consider that the mirror actually creates a slight low pressure area behind it when it travels...

[number six]

Over time they probably do but a P&S lacks the mechanicals which is what really sucks the dust in.

Consider that the mirror actually creates a slight low pressure area behind it when it travels...

....when it lifts. But what about when it falls? :p

[Jon]

Over time they probably do but a P&S lacks the mechanicals which is what really sucks the dust in.

Consider that the mirror actually creates a slight low pressure area behind it when it travels...

....when it lifts. But what about when it falls? :pWell, the shutter's closed both when the mirror lifts and when it falls, but unless you're in burst mode, only dust stirred up by the lifting mirror will have a chance to reach the sensor when the shutter opens.

[birdfromboat]

In reality, there is a cover over the sensor, and canon puts one in all the DSLR's, and I am not talking about the shutter. What most people call sensor cleaning is in reality "glass plate in front of the sensor" cleaning. I see no reason to put a glass plate that will need cleaning in my camera to protect the glass plate that needs cleaning. Where do you stop?

[Tom Reichner]

I'd prefer to just use a body cap. Imagine if you had your 'clear protector' and something broke the glass. What would you do then? You're down a body. Just use a body cap and take the extra few seconds to take it off.

What the OP has in mind is not something that could you could simply use a body cap for. I believe the OP wants something that would be on there all the time - even when changing lenses. With such a thing in place, no dust or foreign particles could ever get on the sensor - even when you are changing lenses. You could change lenses 1,000 times in the middle of a viscous sandstorm, and no particles would get into the sensor area whatsoever!

Unfortunately, as good as this sounds, it wouldn't work very well, as it would force light to pass thru yet another optical element, and as we all know, every time light passes thru glass (no matter how well it is ground or coated) some degree of image quality is lost (this is why people who really care about optimum IQ don't use filters on their lenses).

[FlyingPhotog]

What the OP has in mind is not something that could you could simply use a body cap for. I believe the OP wants something that would be on there all the time - even when changing lenses. With such a thing in place, no dust or foreign particles could ever get on the sensor - even when you are changing lenses. You could change lenses 1,000 times in the middle of a viscous sandstorm, and no particles would get into the sensor area whatsoever!

Unfortunately, as good as this sounds, it wouldn't work very well, as it would force light to pass thru yet another optical element, and as we all know, every time light passes thru glass (no matter how well it is ground or coated) some degree of image quality is lost (this is why people who really care about optimum IQ don't use filters on their lenses).

This is actually what John Wright linked to in post #10...

A film that sits over the lens mount that stays in place with the lens on or off.

I agree though that IQ has got to take a hit regardless of how transparent the maker claims it is.

[Moppie]

Hmmm. Here's a thought: do P&S sensors need cleaning? I'll bet they do - in my experience the biggest sensor problem with new DSLRs is the little globs of oil from the moving parts. But I guess there aren't any moving parts in a P&S.

Maybe I'll have a look at my wife's A620...

-js


My A80 has its own special bit of sensor snot and unlike either of my SLR's, there is absolutely no way to clean it off.
I believe it adds character to an already pretty cool camera. :cool:

[neilwood32]

My A80 has its own special bit of sensor snot and unlike either of my SLR's, there is absolutely no way to clean it off.
I believe it adds character to an already pretty cool camera. :cool:

Kind of like Lomo cameras - the defects enhance the effects!:D