The Great 'Indium Tin Oxide Sensor' hoax

msowsun wrote in post #4024674
Here is the OP with some paragraphs:
[/COLOR]

tanks for that I didnt even read the OPs first post it was too daunting -- just read the responses!

Ukuleleman wrote in post #4030543
I apologise again for the state of the original text, but three efforts to alter it proved useless and I'm not doing it again.

I'm quite curious as to why you could not edit the original post. What method are you using to post to the forum?

I use the forum's native tools to write text for posts (and replies) directly. I often paste in blocks of text from files that I keep in Microsoft Word form. Any editing that I do to a post is done directly in the forum's tools, and I never have any problems with that.

Is there another method for posting that I am not familiar with? I know that some forums allow use of email clients for reading and posting to the forum, but I have not seen that capability here.

Sasquatch41 wrote in post #4025266
Damn I must be wierd I can read it with no problem. Must be a bunch of editors or school teachers reading it, not replying to the question but jumping on the script format. Owell I thought it was interesting enough to read without belittling the origional poster.

It's a reasonable effort but needs more practice. If you come to the staff common room after lunch I'll give you some extra homework; you lucky fellow
:p:p:p:p:

Here is
Canon fits its cameras with a three-layer, low-pass filter (aka AA filter)that combats moiré and false colour noise patterns by ordering the incoming light to suit exactly its sampling abilities. The first part of this new filter is an infrared cut-off filter that stops the sensor recording wavelengths beyond the normal visible spectrum. This controls the sensor’s response to reds in general, ensuring they don't 'overexpose' and burn out.

The next layers are a sandwich of a polarizer and single crystal substrates that combine to provide an accurate vertical and horizontal light wave layout to fit the characteristics of the sensor's resolution. This filter organises the light that passes through the lens into a form the high-resolution sensor can take most advantage from, creating the potential for sharper, more detailed images, while at the same time providing clear and defined subject edges that are not influenced by surrounding colours.

So Ukuleleman, calling him out on this was an error on your part. Canons sensors do have "glass" covering the actual sensor but it is not your everyday ordinary glass it is a combo of three layers of filters and crystals that have very specific jobs to perform, but this glass is super thin and very fragile so it can be scratched very easily.

In short you are wrong and Michael is right!

Warehouse Express seem to think that the Vdust Plus formula is suitable for the 1DMk3 sensor which has the same reqiurements as the 5D.

Its anti-friction ability provides a safer and smoother cleaning process reducing potential risk to the sensor

From the Canon 5D white paper :

The anti-aliasing filter, which also functions as the
CMOS sensor package’s cover glass, consists of an
infrared-blocking filter, a primary low-pass filter, a
phase plate and a secondary low-pass filter. While
other cameras, such as the EOS 20D camera, have
three crystal plates, the EOS 5D model’s filter has one
independent crystal plate doing double duty as the
cover glass. This reduces cost without affecting the
filter’s performance.

The 5D has a single piece of multilayer glass over the sensor. The dichroic coating is on the outside of the glass, and is susceptible to damage during cleaning.
I managed to ruin the AA filter on my 5D whilst wet cleaning with Photographic Solutions original Eclipse fluid ( which Photosol recommend for use with the 5D ) and swabs. Canon replaced the filter and charged me £180.

Did Photosol reimburse you?

racketman wrote in post #4030992
Did Photosol reimburse you?

Its still ongoing . . .

stevieboy378 wrote in post #4031025
Its still ongoing . . .

I'll be very interested to see how this pans out..

Skip,
No special method of posting, just 'New Topic', save. and the end result was the mess at the start of this thread, hopefully this reply will be better 'spaced'.

Goforphoto, Thanks for your reply, it ranks to my mind as a pretty good explanation of the subject, although I will repeat what I wrote earlier, to be 'wrong' you have to have first expressed an opinion about the subject, which, from my state of utter confusion
it would be foolish to do, I merely asked Michael if, in the light of the new Tin Oxide coatings he would consider modifying his statement on the net, whilst at the same time making my amateur status abundantly clear and actually stating that my question was not contentious, which can hardly be considered as 'Calling him out'.

(why is it that so many people who start threads on this forum end up defending themselves as if they had done something wrong?)

Ukuleleman wrote in post #4031344
(why is it that so many people who start threads on this forum end up defending themselves as if they had done something wrong?)

that's why we ned abundant uses of emoticons:o - try at least to minimise this risk

Ukuleleman wrote in post #4030543
I apologise again for the state of the original text, but three efforts to alter it proved useless and I'm not doing it again.

To 'mcmadcat' I would point out that you can't be 'wrong' unless you express an opinion.
To Genn NK I would point out that the thread title finishes with the word 'hoax?' plus a question mark, which presupposes that a question has been raised and not a point of fact, I would only add that you can debate my 'approach to Michael' until youare blue in the face, short of actually bowing down and touching my forelock I could not have been more respectful or self effacing.

Ukuleleman:

I later realized that I inadvertently put a slur on your comments - such was not the intention.

Rather, I was anticipating that there would be responses to your post which would question your e-mails to Michael Reichman, and it was an attempt to head off the ascerbic debate that often occurs.

Your own later comment, (why is it that so many people who start threads on this forum end up defending themselves . . . ) attests to this.

I personally thought your comments were forthright and reasonable, but sadly I did not state that clearly. For this I apologize.

Glenn

for the record, a 20D filter looks like this: http://joebloggs.serve​beer.com/potn/sensor/i​mg_0019.jpg

when the top surface gets scratched, it looks like this: http://joebloggs.serve​beer.com/potn/sensor/b​roken.jpg

Not sure which Canon DSLR's have sensors which can be cleaned with impunity, but certainly I'd use caution with cleaning anything (voice of experience here, trust me!)

Ouch...