cleaned sensor, and I SCRATCHED SENSOR!!!

Here's what the president of Photographic Solutions (mfr of the Eclipse) had to say on this topic:

http://forums.dpreview​.com …32&thread=22929​248&page=1

Ah thats crappy. I purchased the copperhill mega kit for my 1D and found out my little piece of dust is actually between the sensor and the sensor filter but the cleaning process went well and got the other dust bunnies off. So the kit works great.

So my only option now I will have to send it in to have the filter removed and fixed.

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

EORI wrote in post #3942475
Here's what the president of Photographic Solutions (mfr of the Eclipse) had to say on this topic:

http://forums.dpreview​.com …32&thread=22929​248&page=1

His honesty and guarantee are impressive, but hardly the assurance that would encourage one to cast caution to the wind as Nicholas has been recommending

However later in that same post he (David Stone) states (if I have understood correctly) that either Eclipse or E2 should be safe, but "Both chemicals will clean equally well, and evaporate in the same amount of time. The difference from a working POV is that the E2 is unlikely to damage a coating that the Eclipse may well dissolve. If the coating is on the underside of the filter (i.e., the upper side is just optical glass), there is no difference b/t the two." - so perhaps the question now is more of which cleans better rather than which is least likely to do damage?

He also apperas to go on to say that PC Pads are not to be used for sensor cleaning and would negate the warrenty , yet in copperhills basic sensor kit the pec pads are listed as an item - can someone explain why this is?

dou_b_14 wrote in post #3908780
yup....i will let everyone know what happened

Have you found out from Canon how much your repair is going to set you back?

let us know,

joel

jorl wrote in post #3978730
Have you found out from Canon how much your repair is going to set you back?

let us know,

joel

yup....it cost $500 and some change... got it back a few days ago....works beautifully now....not sure if im seeing things, but picture quality seems a little better than before.

sadatk wrote in post #3904109
This stuff is scaring me. I'd rather learn to live with the clone tool after hearing all these horror stories.

yeah but when you take 8000 pictures over a weekend at f/10 & above, you can't possibly photoshop all of the good ones.

dou_b_14 wrote in post #3984358
yup....it cost $500 and some change... got it back a few days ago....works beautifully now....not sure if im seeing things, but picture quality seems a little better than before.

well it will now as its not scrached --------------- Yet
pleased you have it sorted but sorry it cost as much as that to get fixed Canon sure know how to charge for repairs.
Rob.

GyRob wrote in post #3984463
well it will now as its not scrached --------------- Yet
pleased you have it sorted but sorry it cost as much as that to get fixed Canon sure know how to charge for repairs.
Rob.

So if it wasn't the PecPads or the senor swabs how did you scratch it?

I Simonius wrote in post #3984979
So if it wasn't the PecPads or the senor swabs how did you scratch it?

I never said it wasnt those items.....canon just could not prove that it was caused by those products because of legal reasons. And i fully understand where they are coming from...Im not mad at them either.

Oh and I want to say thank you to Nicholas for all his help in sorting this problem out with me.

I've used the Copperhill kit successfully on my 300D and will continue to use it. But when I get the 40D, with the oxide-coated sensor, I'll have to decide which system to use - Copperhill, with the pec pads, or Photographic Solutions with the Sensor Swabs.

It comes down to the respective guarantees - can I meet the conditions in case of a scratch?

Don't know how I could prove that a scratch was caused by a pec pad or sensor swab...

-js

dou_b_14 wrote in post #3985170
I never said it wasnt those items.....canon just could not prove that it was caused by those products because of legal reasons. And i fully understand where they are coming from...Im not mad at them either.

Oh and I want to say thank you to Nicholas for all his help in sorting this problem out with me.

number six wrote in post #3985207
Don't know how I could prove that a scratch was caused by a pec pad or sensor swab...

-js

that kind of sums it up then? Impossible to prove????

I Simonius wrote in post #3985365
that kind of sums it up then? Impossible to prove????

Yep. So it all depends on the goodwill of these two vendors.

Nicholas from Copperhill is a regular reader of POTN, perhaps he'll offer some thoughts...

-js

number six wrote in post #3985398
Yep. So it all depends on the goodwill of these two vendors.

Nicholas from Copperhill is a regular reader of POTN, perhaps he'll offer some thoughts...

-js

goodwill is good - in fact its great!

However is the inference here appears to be then that in reality the various guarantees are dependent on goodwill

As I said - great to have goodwill - but let's be clear, thats not the same as a guarantee (without 'strings')

It seems absurd to me that these mfgs. can't put an optically clear piece of glass in place so that cleaning becomes a no-brainer.

dou_b_14 wrote in post #3984358
yup....it cost $500 and some change... got it back a few days ago....works beautifully now....not sure if im seeing things, but picture quality seems a little better than before.

Did they give you back the scratched bit to play with?