D610 to be announced within 48 hours (as of 10/5)

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
Nikonfan99
Senior MemberPosts: 1,411Gear list
Like?
Re: On Denial.
In reply to MarkJH, 10 months ago

Yeah you are right. You have no way to know if us self proclaimed pros know what we are talking about so maybe you can argue with these pros that do it regularly:

http://neilvn.com/tangents/photo-gear/sensor-cleaning/

http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/2012/06/11/sensor-cleaning-with-copperhill/

http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/whats-in-the-bag/cameras/

 Nikonfan99's gear list:Nikonfan99's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
"Truth is . . . "
In reply to John Motts, 10 months ago

John Motts wrote:

Truth is that you're not actually cleaning the sensor itself so it's not such a delicate operation as you might think. You're only cleaning the filter in front of the sensor.

Thanks, John Motts.  I know you're offering this in a helpful spirit, and that's appreciated.  However--and I ask this in the spirit of intellectual curiosity, not malice--how do you really know "it's not such a delicate operation as you might think?"

You say it's not a "delicate operation" because you're cleaning a filter in front of the sensor and not the sensor itself, which implies that you know the filter is "not so delicate."  How do you know how delicate or not delicate the filter is?

Or:

* What is the filter made of?  Is it coated with anything?  What?   Are the materials and coatings the same in every camera, or are they different?   Would different materials and / or coatings necessitate a different cleaning material or solvent?

* How do swab materials or cleaning chemicals interact with the filter material or its coating?  Do chemicals leave any residue of any kind?  Do dust and this residue interact in any way?

* Nikon tells us the camera's own internal cleaning mechanism piezo-electrically vibrates the sensor filter to loosen and shake-off dust; how does mechanically swabbing that dust and / or doing so with some kind of chemical solvent impact the piezo-electric "shake" effectiveness?  How might chemical residue impact its effectiveness?  Can pressure applied to the sensor filter damage its piezo-electric isolation or freedom of movement?  If so, how much pressure?

* If you were to damage the filter material or, if it has a coating of some kind, that, what impact would the damage have on image quality?

The Nikon engineers who designed the sensor and the filter over it can probably answer all of these questions with specificity, certainty, and data.  They know how "delicate" the sensor assembly is: they made it!  Which is why, when they summarize, "Under no circumstances," I don't disregard them.

But, if you can answer these questions with more specificity (and show us your data / sources), then do share!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leif Goodwin
Senior MemberPosts: 1,390Gear list
Like?
Re: "Truth is . . . "
In reply to MarkJH, 10 months ago

The sensor component consists of the sensor itself, an array of lenses to focus light into each photocell, a 3 colour Bayer matrix, and a filter assembly. The latter consists of one or more layers of glass or glass like material. There may be an Optical Low Pass Filter, a plain glass plate, and UV and IR filters. The latter may be glass or achieved by dielectric coatings. So you are cleaning a glass surface. They might even hard coat it, or make it from a hard glass. You still want to take care when cleaning it as grit could scratch it.

-- hide signature --

______________________________
Warning: this forum may contain nuts.

 Leif Goodwin's gear list:Leif Goodwin's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TOF guy
TOF guy MOD
Forum ProPosts: 10,582Gear list
Like?
Re: "Truth is . . . "
In reply to MarkJH, 10 months ago

IMO the truth is that it's not "dangerous" neither for the camera or anything else to clean up a sensor. Incidents of scratched sensor seem very rare: I can't remember any report of the sort in a dSLR forum.

On the other end the existence of a work around does not give Nikon an excuse for its poor QC. Again IMO.

-- hide signature --

Thierry - posted as regular forum member

 TOF guy's gear list:TOF guy's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS Macro HSM +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Progress.
In reply to Leif Goodwin, 10 months ago

Thanks for this primer, Leif.

It's a good start, but it doesn't really answer any of the questions I posed above.

Consider:

Leif Goodwin wrote:

The sensor component consists of the sensor itself, an array of lenses to focus light into each photocell, a 3 colour Bayer matrix, and a filter assembly. The latter consists of one or more layers of glass or glass like material.

Is it glass or is it "glass-like material"?  Which is it?  Is it the same in every camera?  What is the "glass-like material?"  Is one or the other more difficult to damage?

There may be an Optical Low Pass Filter, a plain glass plate, and UV and IR filters.

"May" be?  Or "is?"

The latter may be glass or achieved by dielectric coatings.

"May" be?  Or "is?"

So you are cleaning a glass surface.

Wait: I thought we were saying I "may" be cleaning a "glass" or some other unidentified "glass-like material."  How are you certain, now, that we're cleaning a glass surface?  And what about the coating?

They might even hard coat it, or make it from a hard glass.

Which?

You still want to take care when cleaning it as grit could scratch it.

Just to reset: I'm not asking all of these questions to impeach your helpful knowledge, Leif.

But, when you're doing something the manufacturer tells you, unequivocally, not to do ("under no circumstances,") then it'd probably be a good idea to be sure of what you know and how you came to know it.

Remember, the Nikon engineers who decided that "Under no circumstances" was their statement can answer every question I've asked, in my last post and this one, with specificity and data.   They know whether it's a "glass" or "glass-like" substance (and they can identify it, exactly).  They know how it's coated, what it's coated with, and how hard the coating is.  They know what it'd take to scratch it--not anecdotally ("be careful of grit") but exactly (material interactions, pressure, etc.)  They know whether swabbing pressure (and how much) might damage piezo-electric isolation and freedom of movement.

If we're choosing between anecdote that says "it's okay to swab" and exact, specific, data-driven knowledge that says "under no circumstances," then I'm struggling with the reason we should favor anecdote.

But if your knowledge extends beyond anecdote, that'd be excellent!  Tell us more and source what you're talking about.  That'd be awesomely helpful.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: "Truth is . . . "
In reply to TOF guy, 10 months ago

TOF guy wrote:

IMO the truth is that it's not "dangerous" neither for the camera or anything else to clean up a sensor. Incidents of scratched sensor seem very rare: I can't remember any report of the sort in a dSLR forum.

Totally fair, Thierry.

However:

(1) You aren't going to answer any of my questions?   Because, you know, factual, specific answers to those questions would settle a lot on this topic, wouldn't they?

(2) Are "reports of the sort in a dSLR forum" really a more useful indication of what to do than statements from the manufacturer like "under no circumstance?"   Anecdotal reports are more useful than instructions made by people with the specific facts at hand?

If so, that's something worth talking about (maybe in another thread).  It's not that folks who write in fora are "lying" or "wrong," it's just that they're very likely more uncertain than they realize.

Case in point: let's just take one of my questions--just one.  What is the filter over the sensor coated with?  (I'm going to just let us roll with the assumption that it *is* coated, though no one's established that for certain just yet.   I'm also going to just roll with the idea that different cameras' sensors aren't radically different from each other in this regard--another thing no one's established for certain.)

If we knew what the coating was--if we knew how hard it was, if we knew what chemical vulnerabilities it might have--then we could swab it with certainty, couldn't we?

But so far, no one has chimed in with any of the relevant facts.   The best we've gotten, so far, is from NikonFan99, and that amounts to "Moose Peterson does it."

(When I watched Moose Peterson "do it" ( ) in the video NikonFan99 linked, above, I was impressed by how often and how emphatically he insisted one should "get otta there!" when an in-mirror-box phase of the procedure was complete.  The video wasn't a ringing endorsement that Moose thinks it's a risk-free thing to do.)

So: in your opinion, it's not dangerous--but you've formed that opinion without direct knowledge of the relevant facts, ignoring them in favor of a preponderance of anecdote (or, rather, a lack of anecdote).  You can formulate your opinion however you like and you certainly don't need to justify it, but it's worth being specific about where it comes from.  Yours, precisely, comes from people not announcing they've screwed up their own cameras.  OK.

Something tells me that not everyone might be as eager as you to trust a lack of people announcing they've bricked their gear in defiance of instructions made with relevant fact.

But we can agree to disagree.  Difference makes the world go 'round.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Nikonfan99
Senior MemberPosts: 1,411Gear list
Like?
Re: "Truth is . . . "
In reply to MarkJH, 10 months ago

I really like the fact that you said you could not confirm that any of us people on here are “pros” so our advice or the fact that we clean our sensor is not that reliable of a source. I gave you known professional shooters that have been doing the procedure and provide good advice and you shoot that down and focus on his voice or crack jokes. You also question what the AA filter is made of. Well I find it interesting that you don’t own the D600 and got rid of it cause your “business partnership” standards had not been met yet you keep spending all this time disputing what is common practice amongst professionals and want to question technical qualities of the AA filter.

Nikon warranty also does not approve damage caused by a sigma, tokina,  tamron lens, off brand flash, transmitter or any other accessory yet people purchase and use these parts.

I guess we should question what kind of capacitor is inside a phottix flash and without knowing that, we should say everyone that uses the flash is not as smart as us since they can’t list the part. What metal a tamron lens mount is made of vs Nikon? Nikon said not to use a tamron lens.

Camera stores sell products made by photographic solutions and in fact they use such parts to service cameras in the store. They are not Nikon techs but sales people that are trained how to clean a sensor in the store. Like calumet offers sensor cleaning service while you wait and they sell the same product in the store. Nothing magical or special.  It is amazingly right on the shelf along with a photo of a dirty sensor and tells you what products to buy to clean your sensor. They must be going broke from all the scratched AA filter services they do right?

The fact that visible dust, copper hill images and photographic solutions sell these products and people use them everyday with great results (if they follow the directions) means that your line of questioning of the AA filter and what is safe is kind of like trying to say you know something that these companies don’t and know what is safe or not. They tested these products and sell them successfully because they work when used correctly. So you seem to think that a company will warranty replacing people’s sensors at $700 a pop knowing that the product is DANGEROUS?

If you are a walk the straight line kind of guy that is okay. If you want to quote the manual that is okay.  I don’t know it all that is why I did the research and spoke with Nicholas at copper hill images and used the product that he has been selling and people have been using safely since 2002. Before the days of these systems, people successfully used spatulas and pec pads to clean the sensor. It has been going on since the first digital cameras came out. You can question the design of a AA filter and that is fine but thinking that a product that is designed specifically for this task and is guaranteed for this task is not safe is not based on any factual information on your part but rather twisting a warranty statement to be your reason for saying that others don’t know what they are talking about.

Nikon says don’t clean your sensor because they know that a certain group of people don’t use the proper tools or follow directions and the sensor is one of the most expensive cost to Nikon so it is natural that they want to keep people from doing it. Besides Nikon would rather get paid to clean the sensor don’t you think?

Since I am an average Joe, maybe you can contact nicholas and direct all your questions to him.

 Nikonfan99's gear list:Nikonfan99's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Smiling, Happy People Holding Hands
In reply to Nikonfan99, 10 months ago

Nikonfan99 wrote:

I really like the fact that you said you could not confirm that any of us people on here are “pros” so our advice or the fact that we clean our sensor is not that reliable of a source. I gave you known professional shooters that have been doing the procedure and provide good advice and you shoot that down and focus on his voice or crack jokes.

(a) It was a good joke!

(b) The video you provided was an advertisement. That doesn't rule it out as being useful (we'll say Moose is a great guy and wouldn't shill for something he doesn't personally use) but it's also not a definitive endorsement of the product's long-term safety.

The Copper Hill Imagining folks seem like a nice crew with good intentions, but a read through their instructions is pretty informative. Consider:

"VISIBILITY is the key word in sensor swabbing. The highly reflective "mirrored" surface of the sensor makes it a real challenge to guide your swab into the starting corner. This is just as difficult as trying to poke a fish in a pond with a stick."

Sounds like fun. Or, how about this:

"Looking back on my first swabbing, I now realize I could have established a better orientation of where my head, my hand and the light were, BEFORE I went in to swab for the first time. This is why I strongly recommend doing a dry run with the lens off, just like you were going to swab. Experiment with the amount and position of your light source until you have the best view of the sensor possible."

No possibility to screw anything up there. Or this:

"Take a couple of seconds to look at the CCD or CMOS. If you see any specks on your AA filter, try to blow them off with a blower before you swab (I recommend using canned air if possible). DO NOT swab your sensor if you see a speck on it and you cannot blow it off. If you just can't remove it, please send it into the manufacturer for service. This is the one area where you could cause some damage by forcing the issue."

So, let's respect the Copper Hill folks for pointing out, even while trying to shill a system, that it's hardly risk-free. In fact, what they describe in these fine snippits sounds, to me, a lot like a "dangerous chore."

You also question what the AA filter is made of. Well I find it interesting that you don’t own the D600 and got rid of it cause your “business partnership” standards had not been met yet you keep spending all this time disputing what is common practice amongst professionals and want to question technical qualities of the AA filter.

You misread me, "NikonFan99." I'm not spending all of this time disputing "common practices." I'm spending all this time disputing the idea that you know what common practices are.

Nikon warranty also does not approve damage caused by a sigma, tokina, tamron lens, off brand flash, transmitter or any other accessory yet people purchase and use these parts.

They do. But the fact that people try things does not mean that those tries are successful or useful. That some people insist on using off-brand flashes or off-brand lenses doesn't mean that those products perform well.

I guess we should question what kind of capacitor is inside a phottix flash and without knowing that, we should say everyone that uses the flash is not as smart as us since they can’t list the part.

I know you're being sarcastic, but you picked a bad example for that: it is probably a good idea to wonder whether a flash whose sync voltage you can't identify will fry your camera. Facts like this can help. If that makes me sound like a smarty-pants, so be it: I'll be the one shooting without a fried sync circuit.

What metal a tamron lens mount is made of vs Nikon? Nikon said not to use a tamron lens.

They said "use only genuine Nikon accessories."

Camera stores sell products made by photographic solutions and in fact they use such parts to service cameras in the store. They are not Nikon techs but sales people that are trained how to clean a sensor in the store. Like calumet offers sensor cleaning service while you wait and they sell the same product in the store. Nothing magical or special. It is amazingly right on the shelf along with a photo of a dirty sensor and tells you what products to buy to clean your sensor. They must be going broke from all the scratched AA filter services they do right?

Again, I hear your point of view, but you picked a bad example. Just looking up my local Calumet on Yelp, the profile is full of complaints about lousy sensor cleaning service. In fact, the profile might be 50% sensor-cleaning complaints. They have a serious problem going on, there.

The fact that visible dust, copper hill images and photographic solutions sell these products and people use them everyday with great results (if they follow the directions) means that your line of questioning of the AA filter and what is safe is kind of like trying to say you know something that these companies don’t and know what is safe or not.

No, it's like me wondering how their product can be safe when Nikon says that what they're proposing shouldn't be done under any circumstance. It's not me saying I'm smarter than anyone; it's me seeing a big, obvious, direct contradiction and wondering how to judge who's right.

Ultimately, I'm concluding that the camera manufacturer knows more than the people who make unauthorized accessories, because the camera manufacturer has access to facts that the unauthorized accessory maker does not.

They tested these products and sell them successfully because they work when used correctly. So you seem to think that a company will warranty replacing people’s sensors at $700 a pop knowing that the product is DANGEROUS?

I'm not assuming anything. I have no idea how they run their business.

(In this little conversation of ours, you're the one rolling with an interesting track record of assumptions. My favorite was the one in which I couldn't possibly own Nikon gear because I once described active Nikon forum threads in a m4/3 thread post. That was killer.)

If you are a walk the straight line kind of guy that is okay. If you want to quote the manual that is okay. I don’t know it all that is why I did the research and spoke with Nicholas at copper hill images and used the product that he has been selling and people have been using safely since 2002.

So did you ask Nicholas any of my questions? And if not, why not? I mean, wouldn't that have been a good way to know what Mr. Nicholas really knows about this stuff? It's simple: "Mr. Nicholas, how do you know Eclipse won't damage my sensor filter coating, especially after the introduction and then discontinuation of E2. Explain that, would you?"

Want to learn something useful? Ask around why Eclipse introduced E2 in the first place. Ask whether Eclipse is capable of dissolving a Tin Oxide coating. Ask whether your sensor's filter employs such a coating, and whether it's on the facing side you'd swab.

(Hint: the answers matter.)

Before the days of these systems, people successfully used spatulas and pec pads to clean the sensor. It has been going on since the first digital cameras came out. You can question the design of a AA filter and that is fine but thinking that a product that is designed specifically for this task and is guaranteed for this task is not safe is not based on any factual information on your part

Sorry, not to interrupt, but I'm the one who's been reading the Photographic Solutions data sheet on the product. I'm the one who's been keeping track of what they guarantee, what they don't. I'm the one who's aware of variation and change in the various metal oxide sensor filter coatings used over the years, aware of Eclipse's issues with tin oxide, aware of E2, aware of how Photographic Solutions warrants its use and how they don't.

That seems like "factual information" to me.  And it bolsters the Nikon "under no circumstance" position.

but rather twisting a warranty statement to be your reason for saying that others don’t know what they are talking about.

Well, you don't know what you're talking about. And "Under no circumstances" isn't a warranty statement. It's what Nikon says in the D60, D700, and D7000 manuals under "Instructions for Cleaning the Sensor." They use the same language for all three. I don't have a D600 manual on hand, but you can confirm for us whether it's the same there, too.

Nikon says don’t clean your sensor because they know that a certain group of people don’t use the proper tools or follow directions and the sensor is one of the most expensive cost to Nikon so it is natural that they want to keep people from doing it. Besides Nikon would rather get paid to clean the sensor don’t you think?

Again, I'm not assuming anything. That appears to be your game.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Nikonfan99
Senior MemberPosts: 1,411Gear list
Like?
Re: Smiling, Happy People Holding Hands
In reply to MarkJH, 10 months ago

Mark, it seems you want to be right. You are right. Cleaning a sensor is a dangerous task that is not authorized by nikon and can void your warranty. You should not do it.

Since I did not manufacture the eclipse solution, manufacture the AA filter and have not used scientific tests to show the result of such product on an AA filter, you should avoid my opinion. In fact I am sure some people at calumet don’t do a good job of cleaning a sensor. I am sure some rush it. Much like how some people send a nikon to nikon for cleaning and it comes back more dirty.

I think the good folks at copper hill images can answer all your concerns. Write him an email because you clearly know what to ask and post back the response.

Here is what I DO KNOW. I do know both my D600's have lubricant splatter. I do have test images that I have kept from day one showing before and after shots. I have cleaned my sensor using products that are designed for the task and have been used since 2002 by people that have been doing it since that time. I do it following the directions and have a clean sensor after doing it. I am happy with the results I get and am thankful for Nicholas and all of his help. I continue to support them because they take pride in what they sell. I am aware of other people that use the same products with care and I am glad to be able to do it without shipping my camera off and paying for it and having down time. Should I damage my sensor, I will let you know.

Based upon my own experience and that of professionals I know (people that do the same thing I do and shoot for money and don’t have time to send off gear for a simple sensor cleaning), I find it is a good skill and rewarding to be able to maintain my own equipment.

If and when you do get a D600 or A D610 again, ship it to Nikon and that way you are safe. Nikon has the top notch service of never sending back dirty sensors or returning cameras back with faulty shutters. I am sure the nikon rep will go out of his way to treat your sensor with as much care as you would and would never rush clean a camera. Nikon japans cleaning kit also is not a stick, kim wipes and eclipse equivalent.

 Nikonfan99's gear list:Nikonfan99's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Motts
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,995
Like?
Re: Smiling, Happy People Holding Hands
In reply to MarkJH, 10 months ago

MarkJH wrote:

Nikonfan99 wrote:

I really like the fact that you said you could not confirm that any of us people on here are “pros” so our advice or the fact that we clean our sensor is not that reliable of a source. I gave you known professional shooters that have been doing the procedure and provide good advice and you shoot that down and focus on his voice or crack jokes.

(a) It was a good joke!

(b) The video you provided was an advertisement. That doesn't rule it out as being useful (we'll say Moose is a great guy and wouldn't shill for something he doesn't personally use) but it's also not a definitive endorsement of the product's long-term safety.

The Copper Hill Imagining folks seem like a nice crew with good intentions, but a read through their instructions is pretty informative. Consider:

"VISIBILITY is the key word in sensor swabbing. The highly reflective "mirrored" surface of the sensor makes it a real challenge to guide your swab into the starting corner. This is just as difficult as trying to poke a fish in a pond with a stick."

Sounds like fun. Or, how about this:

"Looking back on my first swabbing, I now realize I could have established a better orientation of where my head, my hand and the light were, BEFORE I went in to swab for the first time. This is why I strongly recommend doing a dry run with the lens off, just like you were going to swab. Experiment with the amount and position of your light source until you have the best view of the sensor possible."

No possibility to screw anything up there. Or this:

"Take a couple of seconds to look at the CCD or CMOS. If you see any specks on your AA filter, try to blow them off with a blower before you swab (I recommend using canned air if possible). DO NOT swab your sensor if you see a speck on it and you cannot blow it off. If you just can't remove it, please send it into the manufacturer for service. This is the one area where you could cause some damage by forcing the issue."

So, let's respect the Copper Hill folks for pointing out, even while trying to shill a system, that it's hardly risk-free. In fact, what they describe in these fine snippits sounds, to me, a lot like a "dangerous chore."

You also question what the AA filter is made of. Well I find it interesting that you don’t own the D600 and got rid of it cause your “business partnership” standards had not been met yet you keep spending all this time disputing what is common practice amongst professionals and want to question technical qualities of the AA filter.

You misread me, "NikonFan99." I'm not spending all of this time disputing "common practices." I'm spending all this time disputing the idea that you know what common practices are.

Nikon warranty also does not approve damage caused by a sigma, tokina, tamron lens, off brand flash, transmitter or any other accessory yet people purchase and use these parts.

They do. But the fact that people try things does not mean that those tries are successful or useful. That some people insist on using off-brand flashes or off-brand lenses doesn't mean that those products perform well.

I guess we should question what kind of capacitor is inside a phottix flash and without knowing that, we should say everyone that uses the flash is not as smart as us since they can’t list the part.

I know you're being sarcastic, but you picked a bad example for that: it is probably a good idea to wonder whether a flash whose sync voltage you can't identify will fry your camera. Facts like this can help. If that makes me sound like a smarty-pants, so be it: I'll be the one shooting without a fried sync circuit.

What metal a tamron lens mount is made of vs Nikon? Nikon said not to use a tamron lens.

They said "use only genuine Nikon accessories."

Camera stores sell products made by photographic solutions and in fact they use such parts to service cameras in the store. They are not Nikon techs but sales people that are trained how to clean a sensor in the store. Like calumet offers sensor cleaning service while you wait and they sell the same product in the store. Nothing magical or special. It is amazingly right on the shelf along with a photo of a dirty sensor and tells you what products to buy to clean your sensor. They must be going broke from all the scratched AA filter services they do right?

Again, I hear your point of view, but you picked a bad example. Just looking up my local Calumet on Yelp, the profile is full of complaints about lousy sensor cleaning service. In fact, the profile might be 50% sensor-cleaning complaints. They have a serious problem going on, there.

The fact that visible dust, copper hill images and photographic solutions sell these products and people use them everyday with great results (if they follow the directions) means that your line of questioning of the AA filter and what is safe is kind of like trying to say you know something that these companies don’t and know what is safe or not.

No, it's like me wondering how their product can be safe when Nikon says that what they're proposing shouldn't be done under any circumstance. It's not me saying I'm smarter than anyone; it's me seeing a big, obvious, direct contradiction and wondering how to judge who's right.

Ultimately, I'm concluding that the camera manufacturer knows more than the people who make unauthorized accessories, because the camera manufacturer has access to facts that the unauthorized accessory maker does not.

They tested these products and sell them successfully because they work when used correctly. So you seem to think that a company will warranty replacing people’s sensors at $700 a pop knowing that the product is DANGEROUS?

I'm not assuming anything. I have no idea how they run their business.

(In this little conversation of ours, you're the one rolling with an interesting track record of assumptions. My favorite was the one in which I couldn't possibly own Nikon gear because I once described active Nikon forum threads in a m4/3 thread post. That was killer.)

If you are a walk the straight line kind of guy that is okay. If you want to quote the manual that is okay. I don’t know it all that is why I did the research and spoke with Nicholas at copper hill images and used the product that he has been selling and people have been using safely since 2002.

So did you ask Nicholas any of my questions? And if not, why not? I mean, wouldn't that have been a good way to know what Mr. Nicholas really knows about this stuff? It's simple: "Mr. Nicholas, how do you know Eclipse won't damage my sensor filter coating, especially after the introduction and then discontinuation of E2. Explain that, would you?"

Want to learn something useful? Ask around why Eclipse introduced E2 in the first place. Ask whether Eclipse is capable of dissolving a Tin Oxide coating. Ask whether your sensor's filter employs such a coating, and whether it's on the facing side you'd swab.

(Hint: the answers matter.)

Before the days of these systems, people successfully used spatulas and pec pads to clean the sensor. It has been going on since the first digital cameras came out. You can question the design of a AA filter and that is fine but thinking that a product that is designed specifically for this task and is guaranteed for this task is not safe is not based on any factual information on your part

Sorry, not to interrupt, but I'm the one who's been reading the Photographic Solutions data sheet on the product. I'm the one who's been keeping track of what they guarantee, what they don't. I'm the one who's aware of variation and change in the various metal oxide sensor filter coatings used over the years, aware of Eclipse's issues with tin oxide, aware of E2, aware of how Photographic Solutions warrants its use and how they don't.

That seems like "factual information" to me. And it bolsters the Nikon "under no circumstance" position.

but rather twisting a warranty statement to be your reason for saying that others don’t know what they are talking about.

Well, you don't know what you're talking about. And "Under no circumstances" isn't a warranty statement. It's what Nikon says in the D60, D700, and D7000 manuals under "Instructions for Cleaning the Sensor." They use the same language for all three. I don't have a D600 manual on hand, but you can confirm for us whether it's the same there, too.

Nikon says don’t clean your sensor because they know that a certain group of people don’t use the proper tools or follow directions and the sensor is one of the most expensive cost to Nikon so it is natural that they want to keep people from doing it. Besides Nikon would rather get paid to clean the sensor don’t you think?

Again, I'm not assuming anything. That appears to be your game.

Is this some sort of police interrogation?

People have been cleaning their sensors for years. Yes, many of them pros, myself included.

The surface in question is perfectly tough enough. Why wouldn't it be? Why would manufacturers cover up and seal their AA filters with something so delicate that it gets damaged by routine cleaning?

Chill out!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leif Goodwin
Senior MemberPosts: 1,390Gear list
Like?
Re: Progress.
In reply to MarkJH, 10 months ago

MarkJH wrote:

Thanks for this primer, Leif.

It's a good start, but it doesn't really answer any of the questions I posed above.

Consider:

Leif Goodwin wrote:

The sensor component consists of the sensor itself, an array of lenses to focus light into each photocell, a 3 colour Bayer matrix, and a filter assembly. The latter consists of one or more layers of glass or glass like material.

Is it glass or is it "glass-like material"?  Which is it?  Is it the same in every camera?  What is the "glass-like material?"  Is one or the other more difficult to damage?

In most cases if not all the exposed surface is glass.

There may be an Optical Low Pass Filter, a plain glass plate, and UV and IR filters.

"May" be?  Or "is?"

Depends on the camera. The D600 has an OLPF.

The latter may be glass or achieved by dielectric coatings.

"May" be?  Or "is?"

In the D600 is glass or a glass like material. N

So you are cleaning a glass surface.

Wait: I thought we were saying I "may" be cleaning a "glass" or some other unidentified "glass-like material."  How are you certain, now, that we're cleaning a glass surface?  And what about the coating?

No the exposed surface is glass.

They might even hard coat it, or make it from a hard glass.

Which?

I don't know, I no of no information from Nikon.

You still want to take care when cleaning it as grit could scratch it.

Just to reset: I'm not asking all of these questions to impeach your helpful knowledge, Leif.

But, when you're doing something the manufacturer tells you, unequivocally, not to do ("under no circumstances,") then it'd probably be a good idea to be sure of what you know and how you came to know it.

They say that to avoid law suits. And to make more money for shops and service centres.

Remember, the Nikon engineers who decided that "Under no circumstances" was their statement can answer every question I've asked, in my last post and this one, with specificity and data.   They know whether it's a "glass" or "glass-like" substance (and they can identify it, exactly).  They know how it's coated, what it's coated with, and how hard the coating is.  They know what it'd take to scratch it--not anecdotally ("be careful of grit") but exactly (material interactions, pressure, etc.)  They know whether swabbing pressure (and how much) might damage piezo-electric isolation and freedom of movement.

If we're choosing between anecdote that says "it's okay to swab" and exact, specific, data-driven knowledge that says "under no circumstances," then I'm struggling with the reason we should favor anecdote.

But if your knowledge extends beyond anecdote, that'd be excellent!  Tell us more and source what you're talking about.  That'd be awesomely helpful.

I have been cleaning my sensors for years as have pros, probably all well known pros, or their assistants. And as have goodness knows how many people here.

-- hide signature --

______________________________
Warning: this forum may contain nuts.
www.leifgoodwin.co.uk

 Leif Goodwin's gear list:Leif Goodwin's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Dissolving doubt (and other things)
In reply to John Motts, 10 months ago

John Motts wrote:

Is this some sort of police interrogation?

No, of course not!

Nikon says, "Under no circumstances," but you say, "chill out, it's fine!" So, given that direct contradiction, it seems fair that I should be able to ask how you it's fine, right?

People have been cleaning their sensors for years. Yes, many of them pros, myself included.

Cool. But this is anecdote, right? This is people saying, "look, I did it, and right now my camera is good." There's no data there, though.  Nothing to track beyond a bunch of people I'll never meet and you'll never meet saying, "yeah, sure, why not?"

When I search the net for anecdotes of people bricking their cameras with failed cleaning attempts, I find many of them--a disconcerting number of real horror stories.  But like you, I don't put much stock in them: they're just anecdote.

Do we work with stories and hunches, or do we work with facts?

Wouldn't you rather just have someone who can cite some facts just prove it's OK? It seems like that shouldn't be so hard--to tell you that "This technique won't mechanically or chemically damage your camera's sensor" without some kind of glaring disclaimer?

The surface in question is perfectly tough enough. Why wouldn't it be?

Err . . . because they tell you never to touch it?   If I tell you "never touch X," then I don't have to design X to withstand touching, do I?

Hey, I don't mean to be a hard as$.  It's a great question.  I don't know why it wouldn't be, but I don't design optical sensor systems for a living. Do you? So far, the people who do design optical sensors for a living say you shouldn't ever touch it with anything.

Why would manufacturers cover up and seal their AA filters with something so delicate that it gets damaged by routine cleaning?

Again, I don't know--I don't design them. Do you? (Seriously, I'm not asking that to be flip. Maybe you have some inside knowledge, here, that would be awesomely informative.)

I hate to speculate, but what if the truth were something like this:

(1) many filters over camera sensors are coated with a metallic compound (often, tin oxide) to reject unwanted light frequencies.

(2) These metallic coatings work wonderfully in their filtration, but they are unfortunately chemically vulnerable--relatively easy to damage with common alcohol-based solvents. (Hardier coatings are available, but they don't perform as well, optically.) The manufacturers figure that since the sensor is located "inside" the camera and not generally exposed the the environment, it'd be OK to use a somewhat vulnerable but higher-performaning coating and simply advise customers not to touch it themselves.

(3) There's radical variation from camera-to-camera, brand-to-brand in the coating thickness and its deployment--so solvent exposure that would noticeably damage one camera wouldn't noticeably damage another, and vice-versa. Specific cleaning technique you'd use for one camera wouldn't necessarily apply to another.

Aren't those facts you'd want to know? Wouldn't you rather be operating with that awareness than with "it's perfectly tough enough because I can't envision why it wouldn't be?"

Again, I hate to speculate, but from the data I've been able to find, I have a strong suspicion that Nikon says "Under no circumstances" not just for basic liability reasons (they can't control how you swab your sensor or what you swab it with) but moreso because they're trying to limit your sensor coating's lifetime exposure to solvents. They know that sometimes only a wet clean will remove the junk, but they also know that, given the sensor filter coating's chemical vulnerability, even a properly-executed wet clean might take some filter coating off, too. Insisting that you send your camera in for that kind of service keeps you from doing it so often that you'd accumulate noticeable damage (in addition to eliminating the basic liability problems).

I suppose NikonFan99's frequent cleaning gives us an investigative laboratory, of sorts, to explore!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Nikonfan99
Senior MemberPosts: 1,411Gear list
Like?
Re: Dissolving doubt (and other things)
In reply to MarkJH, 10 months ago

This explains in further detail the sensors and material used.

http://www.bythom.com/cleaning.htm

This video for nikon japan shows you the HIGHLY technical equipment used to clean the sensor. LOL.

One thing to note. They are actually using the surface of the wipe in a circular motion which in a way is far more DANGEROUS because it can pick up a particle and have a nice circular scratching impact. The copper hill method or most swabs make one single pass. In fact the copper hill quickstrips are sold at such a reasonable price that I make one single pass at the top and discard it. This is ti avoid ever picking up anything from the sensor sides and getting it back onto the sensor.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fPcvaJl-eS4&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DfPcvaJl-eS4

And these folks explain in further detail

http://www.cleaningdigitalcameras.com

Read the following part:

"Most of the manufacturers recognize this and are also looking for ways to have you accomplish this successfully on your own. They know it isn't economical or feasible for you to be shipping your camera to them every time you get dust. You can expect changes in the future from some of these manufacturers. In Japan, Nikon, has already started selling a swab and methanol, sensor cleaning kit to consumers, but they have yet to make them available in the USA. The independent repair shops would love to have this extra business, they understand the need for regular sensor cleanings. Some, who do not feel comfortable, should have a repair shop accomplish this for you, but there are many of you out there who can accomplish this on your own with just a little bit of guidance."

"The method the majority of the camera repair industry use is the "swab and methanol" method. As a professional camera repairman and the owner of multiple Digital SLR Cameras, I too feel that this is the best and most consistent method."

Do as you wish but I understand that unless a nikon tech comes on this thread, uploads his nikon ID card and says it is okay, you will continue to dispute it.

Here is the nikon kit sold in japan. High tech stuff right? You even get a nice painters brush

http://shop.nikon-image.com/front/ProductPSP00052.do

 Nikonfan99's gear list:Nikonfan99's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Ding ding ding! A winner!
In reply to Nikonfan99, 10 months ago

Nikonfan99 wrote:

Do as you wish but I understand that unless a nikon tech comes on this thread, uploads his nikon ID card and says it is okay, you will continue to dispute it.

Exactly!  Yes!!  Phew: well summarized, Nikonfan99.

Where it's reasonably possible, I want fact, not anecdote, advertisement, or speculation.   Facts are powerful!

If I decide to act on speculation in fact's absence (which I realize we all must at some point), I want to be honest about it--with myself and with others.  People ought to--have a right to--know what kinds of risks and unknowns they're engaging.

See?  None of that's so terrible.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Nikonfan99
Senior MemberPosts: 1,411Gear list
Like?
Re: Ding ding ding! A winner!
In reply to MarkJH, 10 months ago

You are right. Let us know when you have all the facts that satisfy your standards. I am all out of data for you. Best of luck on your quest

 Nikonfan99's gear list:Nikonfan99's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Motts
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,995
Like?
Re: Ding ding ding! A winner!
In reply to MarkJH, 10 months ago

MarkJH wrote:

Where it's reasonably possible, I want fact, not anecdote, advertisement, or speculation. Facts are powerful!

If I decide to act on speculation in fact's absence (which I realize we all must at some point), I want to be honest about it--with myself and with others. People ought to--have a right to--know what kinds of risks and unknowns they're engaging.

See? None of that's so terrible.

My sincere apologies that my answer fell so short of your requirements.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Ding ding ding! A winner!
In reply to John Motts, 10 months ago

John Motts wrote:

MarkJH wrote:

Where it's reasonably possible, I want fact, not anecdote, advertisement, or speculation. Facts are powerful!

If I decide to act on speculation in fact's absence (which I realize we all must at some point), I want to be honest about it--with myself and with others. People ought to--have a right to--know what kinds of risks and unknowns they're engaging.

See? None of that's so terrible.

My sincere apologies that my answer fell so short of your requirements.

No worries, John. I realize the distinction between facts and guesses sometimes sets a higher bar than might be convenient.

Still, since guesses are often offered as though they were something more, and since crap that just tells us what we want to hear is often hard to identify as crap, it's probably important now and then to ferret out who's actually got the facts and who doesn't.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Nikonfan99
Senior MemberPosts: 1,411Gear list
Like?
Re: Ding ding ding! A winner!
In reply to MarkJH, 10 months ago

Yes and sometimes we get people that want to argue and dont use common sense and feel that they somehow are of a higher education and know better and question others on common sense and like to argue. Life must be exhausting when you need to be right all the time and want to bleed a topic to death and can’t take things for what they are.

It is actually very simple but you don’t get it because you want to argue with others. You know that Nikon is not even going to give you what you are asking for and will only give you the corporate line and quote you the warranty data.

You want warranty data? Stick to what you have quoted like a robot and move on. You want real world help? which actually I don’t think you even are asking for help. You don’t even have a D600 and are wasting people’s time. Some people want to clean a sensor and use products made by companies that know a lot more on the topic and that is what it comes to. Just like what we have given you is nothing, you have given nothing back. You quote the manual and we will take the common sense route.  The professionals that you feel high and mighty over, have used these methods since the first DSLR cameras came out. Copper Hill Images has been doing this since 2002. They are a lot more qualified on the topic compared to you.

You are an exhausting person.

I am sure having a common sense discussion with you in real life must be a joy.

Me: Nice sky right?

You: What do you mean nice sky? How do you know it is nice? Do you have scientific data sheets to show me that this sky is clean and thus considered nice? It could be polluted!!!!

 Nikonfan99's gear list:Nikonfan99's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alan Brown
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,646Gear list
Like?
and no one ever really walked on the moon..
In reply to Nikonfan99, 10 months ago

Nikonfan99 wrote:

Yes and sometimes we get people that want to argue and dont use common sense and feel that they somehow are of a higher education and know better and question others on common sense and like to argue. Life must be exhausting when you need to be right all the time and want to bleed a topic to death and can’t take things for what they are.

It is actually very simple but you don’t get it because you want to argue with others. You know that Nikon is not even going to give you what you are asking for and will only give you the corporate line and quote you the warranty data.

You want warranty data? Stick to what you have quoted like a robot and move on. You want real world help? which actually I don’t think you even are asking for help. You don’t even have a D600 and are wasting people’s time. Some people want to clean a sensor and use products made by companies that know a lot more on the topic and that is what it comes to. Just like what we have given you is nothing, you have given nothing back. You quote the manual and we will take the common sense route. The professionals that you feel high and mighty over, have used these methods since the first DSLR cameras came out. Copper Hill Images has been doing this since 2002. They are a lot more qualified on the topic compared to you.

You are an exhausting person.

I am sure having a common sense discussion with you in real life must be a joy.

Me: Nice sky right?

You: What do you mean nice sky? How do you know it is nice? Do you have scientific data sheets to show me that this sky is clean and thus considered nice? It could be polluted!!!!

it's all done in a studio... We're all suckers.

Of course I don't know that this is true either cos I wasn't there to see it with my eyes. An impossible argument; relying on what you are told in places like universities..

You have to weigh the probabilities.

Even a Nikon cleaning kit sold by Nikon and telling the user what chemical to get to use the kit (stupid because they can't possibly know what long term damage it will do to the insides of the camera, can they)

What irked me so much with this circular argument was calling everyone's integrity into question. Those on this forum, who 'say' they clean their sensor... well you just can't believe them.

That's a general slur on all visitors and also regulars who have posted of DPR for, literally, years.

-- hide signature --

There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness.' :'!':

 Alan Brown's gear list:Alan Brown's gear list
Nikon 1 J2 Nikon D600 Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Nikon 1 Nikkor VR 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John Motts
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,995
Like?
Re: Ding ding ding! A winner!
In reply to MarkJH, 10 months ago

MarkJH wrote:

John Motts wrote:

MarkJH wrote:

Where it's reasonably possible, I want fact, not anecdote, advertisement, or speculation. Facts are powerful!

If I decide to act on speculation in fact's absence (which I realize we all must at some point), I want to be honest about it--with myself and with others. People ought to--have a right to--know what kinds of risks and unknowns they're engaging.

See? None of that's so terrible.

My sincere apologies that my answer fell so short of your requirements.

No worries, John. I realize the distinction between facts and guesses sometimes sets a higher bar than might be convenient.

Still, since guesses are often offered as though they were something more, and since crap that just tells us what we want to hear is often hard to identify as crap, it's probably important now and then to ferret out who's actually got the facts and who doesn't.

I'm lost for words!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads