Sensor Swab: some observations

Hi,

I did some extensive testing with the Sensor Swabs today and thought I'd share some observations for those who plan on using this as a dust cleaning solution:-

1. The swabs are NOT lint free. It WILL leave behind a small residue of lint that was not previously there before using the swabs. I tested this over a number of times and am pretty sure about this. The material that the swabs were made of is the same as that of the Pec Pads (by the same company) and if you look at this carefully, you will see that there is some very fine "hair" or lint.

2. You should use more of the Eclipse solution for better cleaning but not too much. 2 or 3 drops is not enough. 7 drops is more like it since it will be absorbed by the rest of the pad. 10 drops is too much since it will leave water stains (see next point).

3. The Eclipse solution is NOT pure methanol. It contains a small percentage of water and thus when you apply it to the CCD with the swabs, it will leave behind some water which may lead to water marks. You can actually see the methanol evaporate and leaving behind the fine water droplets. In some cases, this will end up as a water mark on the CCD.

4. Successful cleaning usually takes more than one swab.

It appears to me that these Sensor Swabs "sort of" does the job but not perfectly. It leaves behind lint and water marks. Hopefully though, these are far less serious than the dust that you are trying to remove. The lint gets swept to the edge of the CCD where the design of the CCD enclosure prevents you from actually sweeping it off altogether. This will, presumably, over time lead to an accumulation of the lint from the swabs at the left and right edges of the CCD which is much harder to reach.

In other words - you will eventually need a visit to the service centre. Overall, the swabs have their use but I would regard them as the lesser of two evils - at least where my experience is concerned.

Hope this helps someone.

Daniel

Hello Daniel,

I agree with you and that's why I don't use them myself. I use a Qtip with an EXL single ply Kimwipe doubled over and then wrapped around the tip, and wet it with the Eclipse solution.

I also buff the glass covering after the Eclipse wetting by using a dry Qtip and Kimwipe. The glass cover is hard to break or scratch according to the Nikon service manager. I know for sure as I have pressed quite hard in buffing just getting rid of the surface residue from the liquid.

After the buffing removes any Eclipse residue then I blow out the cavity with 40 Lb carefully filtered air pressure using an artists air brush. This solution works really quite well for me.

However like everything in life there are many ways to accomplish it and we each must find what personally works best.

Stephen

Daniel Wee said:

Hi,

I did some extensive testing with the Sensor Swabs today and
thought I'd share some observations for those who plan on using
this as a dust cleaning solution:-

1. The swabs are NOT lint free. It WILL leave behind a small
residue of lint that was not previously there before using the
swabs. I tested this over a number of times and am pretty sure
about this. The material that the swabs were made of is the same as
that of the Pec Pads (by the same company) and if you look at this
carefully, you will see that there is some very fine "hair" or lint.

2. You should use more of the Eclipse solution for better cleaning
but not too much. 2 or 3 drops is not enough. 7 drops is more like
it since it will be absorbed by the rest of the pad. 10 drops is
too much since it will leave water stains (see next point).

3. The Eclipse solution is NOT pure methanol. It contains a small
percentage of water and thus when you apply it to the CCD with the
swabs, it will leave behind some water which may lead to water
marks. You can actually see the methanol evaporate and leaving
behind the fine water droplets. In some cases, this will end up as
a water mark on the CCD.

4. Successful cleaning usually takes more than one swab.

It appears to me that these Sensor Swabs "sort of" does the job but
not perfectly. It leaves behind lint and water marks. Hopefully
though, these are far less serious than the dust that you are
trying to remove. The lint gets swept to the edge of the CCD where
the design of the CCD enclosure prevents you from actually sweeping
it off altogether. This will, presumably, over time lead to an
accumulation of the lint from the swabs at the left and right edges
of the CCD which is much harder to reach.

In other words - you will eventually need a visit to the service
centre. Overall, the swabs have their use but I would regard them
as the lesser of two evils - at least where my experience is
concerned.

Hope this helps someone.

Daniel

Click to expand...

-- http://www.livick.com

Why do I always read these sorts of comments the day AFTER I bay a product?

Hi,

One problem is that alcohols tend to absorb water readily. It's very difficult to purify alcohol, meaning drive all the water out, so there's really no such thing as pure alcohol. Methanol is, of course, one of the many alcohols in the world. So, this would cover your water spot observation.

As you note, the material used is the same as in the Pec Pad, which isn't truly a clean room wiping material, but pretty close. I also notice that it leaves lint behind sometimes. I've also used the Pec Pad material that I cut myself and use held in a hemostat (aka Kelly Clamp, as used in surgery). I can fold the cut piece such that the cut edge is folded to the inside, so I rarely get lint left behind (which I suspect is from the cutting process).

I usually use electronics clean room wipes, as made by Scott or Kimberly Clark. I also don't use the Eclipse fluid much these days. I opt for using Freon-TF, which is a highly filtered fluoroethane based electronics cleaner. This kind of thing is available from the electronics supply houses (like Jensen and Techni-Tool) and used by electronics engineers and technicians all over the world.

The process of wetting the swab and applying it is pretty much the same regardless of what wipe and cleaning fluid one uses. Use one edge one time, flip it over, and use the other edge in the same direction. Don't reuse it - toss it out. Use a second swab, but run in the opposite direction as the first pass. I can usually get it all out in two passes.

I do carry some Sensor Swabs, Pec Pads and Eclipse Fluid with me in the camera case, though. It's easier to carry than all the stuff I need for making it up as I go. That's one of the problems that I see with digital imaging. The electonics folks are used to dealing with this kind of thing, but it's all new to the rest of the world. The Swabs and fluid are the best attempt I've seen for this in the photographic market.

That filter in fron of the CCD on the Nikon units is made from Lithium Niobate (LiNbO3). It's pretty fragile, being somewhat easier to damage than a piece of glass. It's more susceptable to cracking than scratching, so if you watch the pressure applied, you should be OK.

The hardness rating of LiNbO3 is 5 on the Mohs scale (the one where talc is at 1 and diamond is at 10). That puts it right in the middle, or about as easy to scratch as human tooth enamal.

One thing I notice is that the LiNbO3 filter appears to also have an optical coating applied to it. That isn't really surprising, since Nikon is well known for their optical coatings. However, I think it'd be easier to damage the coating than the filter material itself. Food for thought. I'd suggest not scrubbing the surface.....

I usually clean my cameras in my electronics workshop using a lighted magnifying lamp. This way I can readily see what I'm doing. Plus, I can see those pesky little dust particles, and something large like a piece of lint is easily picked out of there using microelectronics tweezers.

I use the oversized bulb blower rather than any sort of pressurized air source these days. Once the word got out that the filter is not sealed around the edges to the CCD, I figured that one could easily blow dust past the seam and get it stuck under the filter, but on top of the CCD. This is not good, because unlike the Kodak design, the filter does not come out for cleaning the silica surface of the CCD itself.

Anyway, I've self-cleaned all my DSLRs without needing the assistance of a service center. The list is getting pretty long: Nikon E2, Nikon D1, Kodak DCS 460c, Kodak DCS 620x, Nikon D1H.

You don't have to be scared of the process. Just be cautious and don't hurry. Use the AC adpater and lockup mode to prevent an 'oops' where the mirror returning drives the swab into the closing shutter and making for a nasty repair bill. I highly recommend using one of those lighted magnifyers, too. It never hurts to see what one is doing.

As you note, don't be afraid to use a few swabs during a cleaning. I never get by without using at least two, regardless if they're the commercial ones or those I make up as I go.

Hope it helps.

Stan

--Amateur PhotographerProfessional Electronics Development Engineer

I'd pretty much concur - but so far I've been blaming my own technique.

What I've been inclined to do is the sensor swab first and finish off that bit with a Pec-Pad.

Speed seems to be a key factor – but I’ve not seen the need to clean my CCD during all of February and March so far.

It does not matter.

The right tools for the cleaning job are the Swabs, the Pec-Pad and clean photographic air. Solution is Eclipse but a few swear by Alcohol.

All the tools require a skill – I’ve found one day the swabs are unbeatable and the next I just can’t seem to use them and make my own aka Stephen’s method and get great results.

I think anyone cleaning on a monthly basis will clean using the tools they think is right on the day for the particular dust pattern on the CCD.

Jason Pia said:

Why do I always read these sorts of comments the day AFTER I bay a
product?

Click to expand...

I just purchases some of Photographic Solutions swabs and solution (Eclipse) last Wednesday.

Warrenty or no, I think I'll still use it and see how it works for me.

I recall reading about one guy that recently made a post about successfully cleaning the CCD by gently blowing (using a bulb) and a vacuum. His line of reasoning made sense - by using a vacuum, any foreign particles will stand a better chance of being removed rather then just moved around in the same area to possible return later. He claimed that just using the blower in conjunction with the vacuum was enough to remove particles that he could not remove by just using the bulb blower.

Of course, that method would not clean water marks or such, requiring the use of some type of liquid, but this nice thing about it is it uses no liquids and nothing actually touches anything.

What Stan posted above makes sense too. However, I could not find the Freon-TF he mentioned in either of my Techni-Tool (#75) or JensonTools (2001 Spring)cataloges. Wasn't Freon outlawed recently, allegedly causing the o-zone to thin???

Jensen Tools seemed to have much less in the area of clean room supplies. I found the following items in the Techni-Tool catalog (#75) that seemed to offer possibilities.

1. p.238 (under presaturated wipes) Optic Prep, 50 pads for $15.50. "The highest quality premoistened lens-grade tissue for cleaning optical surfaces. Evaporates completely, leaves no residue. Compatible with most plastics, glass and metals. Mild nonabrasive solvent which quickly removes dust, oils & contaminants. 4"x3" wipes.

The following were under "Dry Wipes" and stated "These dryp wipes are designed for controlled environments, sensitive cleaning (i.e. optical surfaces) and for high absorbancy applications."

2. p239 Controlwipes, 150 pads for $24. Packaged in a class 100 cleanroom environment, these wipes are a polyester-cellulose blend that will not tear or shred. Will not abrade surfaces. And they are resistant tomost solvents, alcohols and dilute acids. 9"x9".

3. p239 Opticwipes, 500 wipes for $28. Packaged in a Class 100 cleanroom environment, the 100% cellulose wipes are highly absorbent. They are non-contaminating, lint free and solvent resistant. 9"x9".

4. p241 Kimwipes Disposable Wipes, 280 wiper/pack, 60 pks/carton, one carton for $140. (that'd clean an awful lot of CCD's.....) ...completely lint free...for cleaning in and outside of cleanroom.

I think I'll experiment with my Photographic Solutions swabs and Eclipse solution first and also see if the vacuum/blower-bulb method has any potential.

Stu

Hi folks -

Very helpful thread for a DSLR newbie - thanks to all. The bulb in combination with vacuum device makes a lot of sense. What kind of vacuum devices are small and powerful enough? Brand(s) and model(s)?Where can they be bought?

Thanks for the thread and any info about vacuum devices!

Gordon

Stephen, where do you get your Kimwipes, can they be ordered online?
Dennis D

Stephen Livick said:

I agree with you and that's why I don't use them myself. I use a
Qtip with an EXL single ply Kimwipe doubled over and then wrapped
around the tip, and wet it with the Eclipse solution.

I also buff the glass covering after the Eclipse wetting by using
a dry Qtip and Kimwipe. The glass cover is hard to break or scratch
according to the Nikon service manager. I know for sure as I have
pressed quite hard in buffing just getting rid of the surface
residue from the liquid.

After the buffing removes any Eclipse residue then I blow out the
cavity with 40 Lb carefully filtered air pressure using an artists
air brush. This solution works really quite well for me.

However like everything in life there are many ways to accomplish
it and we each must find what personally works best.

Stephen

Daniel Wee said:

Hi,

I did some extensive testing with the Sensor Swabs today and
thought I'd share some observations for those who plan on using
this as a dust cleaning solution:-

1. The swabs are NOT lint free. It WILL leave behind a small
residue of lint that was not previously there before using the
swabs. I tested this over a number of times and am pretty sure
about this. The material that the swabs were made of is the same as
that of the Pec Pads (by the same company) and if you look at this
carefully, you will see that there is some very fine "hair" or lint.

2. You should use more of the Eclipse solution for better cleaning
but not too much. 2 or 3 drops is not enough. 7 drops is more like
it since it will be absorbed by the rest of the pad. 10 drops is
too much since it will leave water stains (see next point).

3. The Eclipse solution is NOT pure methanol. It contains a small
percentage of water and thus when you apply it to the CCD with the
swabs, it will leave behind some water which may lead to water
marks. You can actually see the methanol evaporate and leaving
behind the fine water droplets. In some cases, this will end up as
a water mark on the CCD.

4. Successful cleaning usually takes more than one swab.

It appears to me that these Sensor Swabs "sort of" does the job but
not perfectly. It leaves behind lint and water marks. Hopefully
though, these are far less serious than the dust that you are
trying to remove. The lint gets swept to the edge of the CCD where
the design of the CCD enclosure prevents you from actually sweeping
it off altogether. This will, presumably, over time lead to an
accumulation of the lint from the swabs at the left and right edges
of the CCD which is much harder to reach.

In other words - you will eventually need a visit to the service
centre. Overall, the swabs have their use but I would regard them
as the lesser of two evils - at least where my experience is
concerned.

Hope this helps someone.

Daniel

Click to expand...

--
http://www.livick.com

Click to expand...

--Dennis D

Hello Dennis

I get my EX-L single ply Kim Wipes from a factory supply place here in my local home town. It's called Windsor Factory Supply I do not know if they are online or not as I simply go there in person. They are cheap by the 280 sheet box.

Sorry but I do not know where you can get them on line, perhaps sombody else might assist you in this quest.

They are made by Kimberly-Clark and are called "Delicate Task Wipers" and have "lint guard" or so it says on the box on the green and white box.

Commercial cleaning suppliers carry them and factory supply firms also do as well.

Good Luck!

Stephen

Dennis D said:

Stephen Livick said:

I agree with you and that's why I don't use them myself. I use a
Qtip with an EXL single ply Kimwipe doubled over and then wrapped
around the tip, and wet it with the Eclipse solution.

I also buff the glass covering after the Eclipse wetting by using
a dry Qtip and Kimwipe. The glass cover is hard to break or scratch
according to the Nikon service manager. I know for sure as I have
pressed quite hard in buffing just getting rid of the surface
residue from the liquid.

After the buffing removes any Eclipse residue then I blow out the
cavity with 40 Lb carefully filtered air pressure using an artists
air brush. This solution works really quite well for me.

However like everything in life there are many ways to accomplish
it and we each must find what personally works best.

Stephen

Daniel Wee said:

Hi,

I did some extensive testing with the Sensor Swabs today and
thought I'd share some observations for those who plan on using
this as a dust cleaning solution:-

1. The swabs are NOT lint free. It WILL leave behind a small
residue of lint that was not previously there before using the
swabs. I tested this over a number of times and am pretty sure
about this. The material that the swabs were made of is the same as
that of the Pec Pads (by the same company) and if you look at this
carefully, you will see that there is some very fine "hair" or lint.

2. You should use more of the Eclipse solution for better cleaning
but not too much. 2 or 3 drops is not enough. 7 drops is more like
it since it will be absorbed by the rest of the pad. 10 drops is
too much since it will leave water stains (see next point).

3. The Eclipse solution is NOT pure methanol. It contains a small
percentage of water and thus when you apply it to the CCD with the
swabs, it will leave behind some water which may lead to water
marks. You can actually see the methanol evaporate and leaving
behind the fine water droplets. In some cases, this will end up as
a water mark on the CCD.

4. Successful cleaning usually takes more than one swab.

It appears to me that these Sensor Swabs "sort of" does the job but
not perfectly. It leaves behind lint and water marks. Hopefully
though, these are far less serious than the dust that you are
trying to remove. The lint gets swept to the edge of the CCD where
the design of the CCD enclosure prevents you from actually sweeping
it off altogether. This will, presumably, over time lead to an
accumulation of the lint from the swabs at the left and right edges
of the CCD which is much harder to reach.

In other words - you will eventually need a visit to the service
centre. Overall, the swabs have their use but I would regard them
as the lesser of two evils - at least where my experience is
concerned.

Hope this helps someone.

Daniel

Click to expand...

--
http://www.livick.com

Click to expand...

--
Dennis D

Click to expand...

-- http://www.livick.com

I see posts concerning the use of Eclipse fluid and methanol. Has anyone given thought to using Grain Alcohol? It is as pure as alcohol can get. Alcohol is an azeotrope-which means that there will always be water with it....grain alcohol is available in liquor store in large bottles and is as pure as drinking alcohol can be. Methanol can't be any purer---

jsut wondering if this has been considered.

Louis

A few comments I would like to say about the Swabs & Eclipse product. I am posting to correct factual errors only ...

1) The swabs are lint free and certified in a clean room. Any lint they get once they are opened are from the environment in which they were opened. They are NOT made from the same material as the PEC*PAD.
Cutting these swabs WILL release fibers/lint.

2) Eclipse is 100% pure methanol. Each batch is tested and pre-certified.

Louis referenced grain alcohol and its purity...When he noted that it is 100% methanol, or we state Eclipse is 100% methanol, we are both essentially correct. With a big difference. The purity of Eclipse and grain alcohol is 100% ... but the contaminationlevel - or non-methanol stuff in the bottle will always be present, and is measured in parts per million (ppm) . Medical grade methanol is 100% methanol, but has, on average, over 300 ppm contaminant level. That makes it actually only "99.9997% pure". Eclipse is also 100% methanol but it's contaminant count is certified at less than 5 (thats FIVE) ppm or 99.999995%. For purposes of a readable label, they are both round up to 100%. But there is a difference. Not noticeable when drinking it, or putting it on a wound, but very evident when used in optic cleaning applications.

Any residue left from Eclipse is from moisture it absorbed - either in the bottle when cap is left off, or from the air surrounding the CCD when it was cleaned; or from residue - possibly to minute to notice with the naked eye -
dissolved the sensor being cleaned.

David.

Thanks for your reply David....

Methanol is not used medically-isoproply alcohol is "rubbing alcohol". Grain alcohol is ethanol. Eclipse is 100% methanol..and grain alcohol is

100% Ethanol. The part of the mixture that is water is miniscule in both...my question was based on the availability of ethanol that is 100% alcohol -available in litre bottles and from your nearest liquor stores-and the Eclipse solution that is available as only a small bottle and needs to be ordered from a photo supply store. Grain alcohol is much easier to obtain and in much larger quantities. Will the ethanol cause any other potential damage to the CCD vs the other alcohol - methanol? Is the methanol in the Eclipse solution more "pure" than the ethanol that is available as grain alcohol? I am not considering water as an impurity since there should be the same amount of water in each.... the impurities to which I am referring are the result of the processing of the solutions...

david stone said:

2) Eclipse is 100% pure methanol. Each batch is tested and
pre-certified.
Louis referenced grain alcohol and its purity...When he noted that
it is 100% methanol, or we state Eclipse is 100% methanol, we are
both essentially correct. With a big difference. The purity of
Eclipse and grain alcohol is 100% ... but the contaminationlevel -
or non-methanol stuff in the bottle will always be present, and is
measured in parts per million (ppm) . Medical grade methanol is
100% methanol, but has, on average, over 300 ppm contaminant level.
That makes it actually only "99.9997% pure". Eclipse is also 100%
methanol but it's contaminant count is certified at less than 5
(thats FIVE) ppm or 99.999995%. For purposes of a readable label,
they are both round up to 100%. But there is a difference. Not
noticeable when drinking it, or putting it on a wound, but very
evident when used in optic cleaning applications.

Any residue left from Eclipse is from moisture it absorbed - either
in the bottle when cap is left off, or from the air surrounding the
CCD when it was cleaned; or from residue - possibly to minute to
notice with the naked eye -
dissolved the sensor being cleaned.

David.

Click to expand...

I just received my order (Photographic Solutions Eclipse, swabs, D1x, etc...) so I'll be testing it soon.

My observation of the Photographic Solutions Eclipse solution, or rather the bottle it came in, is not very high - actually it's very low.

I purchased it from RobertsImaging. At

It's hard to tell if it's a design flaw or a defect. I'd tend to believe a poor design for sealing the bottle since the way the cap is made there is no interference fit when secured to the bottle. I'll have to figure a way to seal it. This is especially important for me since as of next month I'll be spending 99% of my life at overseas locations so getting another could be difficult.

Regarding the posts about getting material to make swabs such as Pec-Pad. The Eclipse solution I got from Photographic solutions containted 10 4"x4" Pec-Pads which should last a looong time if you cut it up and attach to something to create your own swab. This should certainly cost a lot less than the $5 Photographic Solutions is charging for their swabs. Of course that's presuming that they are using Pec-Pads for those swabs and not something "better". Thom Hogan has a good article at his web site he wrote about what he uses (Pec-Pads or similar) which makes for some good reading.

I also made a post (a few above this one) listing a source of some material that I think would be comparable to Pec-Pads, several listed as packaged in a Class 100 cleanroom ("Controlwipes" and "Opticwipes").

I think I'll continue to use the Eclipse solution (and fix the poor design to seal the bottle) and use the Pec-Pad's as described by Thom. I may experiment with one or more of the pads I mentioned (from http://www.techni-tool.com ).

Stu

Member said:

david stone wrote:
They (the swabs) are NOT made from the same material as the
PEC*PAD.

Click to expand...

David, would the PEC*PADs wraped around a Q-Tip work just as well as the swabs?
Dennis D--Dennis D

LET'S SEE IF CAN REMEMBER ALL OF THE POINTS AND QUESTIONS AND ANSWER THEM ALL. (Sorry, Caps Lock was on.)

Methanol vs. Ethanol. If 100 pure, and refined either should work well.

The real problem with ethanol is that it is difficult to obtain, since this is the drinking kind and a tax is levied on it. I think it sells for around $20. or less per gallon. But the alcohol tax is $150. per gallon ! Since methanol worked as well, and avoided the tax issue, AND is more readily available we went with it. We also avoid liability issues that bar-owners face when someone drinks the stuff and gets behind the wheel.

As for the question about the purity comparison b/t our stuff and Ethanol ...

depends on the ethanol ..... It need to be pure to less than 5ppm and I personally doubt it is even close. Will you notice the difference? Only one way to find out ....

PEC-PAD can be cut up and used over a tip with two huge caveats.

Cutting the PAD's releases the bound edges and will result in lots of tiny fibers getting loose and all over. Cutting and subsequent wrapping will

result in getting the material covered in body oils and perspiration, which will then be seen as residue on the CCD. Yes, you can do this with rubber gloves and not cut the PAD's. But at what cost? Which is cheaper in reality?
(Who knows? I did not do the math.)

Stuart commented on the leaky bottle. It happens. Unless we go and specially design bottle and matching cap and dropper applicator, it's a problem we have to live with. He mailed me he had lost some portion of the contents and we are mailing him (today actually, Stuart!) a new bottle. This special bottle would not be cost effective and would add another 75 cents to the product cost. It's cheaper for to replace a bottle now and then.

If I missed anyone's question, please report or e-mail me directly. I am always happy to reply as best I can.

DMS
Photographic Solutions, Inc.

Thanks for the info!

Louis

david stone said:

LET'S SEE IF CAN REMEMBER ALL OF THE POINTS AND QUESTIONS AND
ANSWER THEM ALL. (Sorry, Caps Lock was on.)

Methanol vs. Ethanol. If 100 pure, and refined either should work
well.
The real problem with ethanol is that it is difficult to obtain,
since this is the drinking kind and a tax is levied on it. I think
it sells for around $20. or less per gallon. But the alcohol tax is
$150. per gallon ! Since methanol worked as well, and avoided the
tax issue, AND is more readily available we went with it. We also
avoid liability issues that bar-owners face when someone drinks the
stuff and gets behind the wheel.

As for the question about the purity comparison b/t our stuff and
Ethanol ...
depends on the ethanol ..... It need to be pure to less than 5ppm
and I personally doubt it is even close. Will you notice the
difference? Only one way to find out ....

PEC-PAD can be cut up and used over a tip with two huge caveats.
Cutting the PAD's releases the bound edges and will result in lots
of tiny fibers getting loose and all over. Cutting and subsequent
wrapping will
result in getting the material covered in body oils and
perspiration, which will then be seen as residue on the CCD. Yes,
you can do this with rubber gloves and not cut the PAD's. But at
what cost? Which is cheaper in reality?
(Who knows? I did not do the math.)

Stuart commented on the leaky bottle. It happens. Unless we go and
specially design bottle and matching cap and dropper applicator,
it's a problem we have to live with. He mailed me he had lost some
portion of the contents and we are mailing him (today actually,
Stuart!) a new bottle. This special bottle would not be cost
effective and would add another 75 cents to the product cost. It's
cheaper for to replace a bottle now and then.

If I missed anyone's question, please report or e-mail me directly.
I am always happy to reply as best I can.

DMS
Photographic Solutions, Inc.

Click to expand...

Dittos.

All said, I think that little 2 oz. bottle of Eclipse solution will last a long time when using just 3-8 drops per swab. I would imagine that would be years for a typical user. So at only $8/bottle, I personally will stick with Eclipse as it is intended specifically for cleaning the CCD filter.

Regarding the swab and Pec-Pad wipes. I guess I never considered all the impurities that would probably go airborne when it's cut, much less all the other impurities that could be attached to the wipe if cuy myself. So maybe it's better to stick with the speciality swabs (made of ?? material).

I'm hoping that I can eliminate the majority of dust and impurities on the CCD filter with just a bulb blower. Actually, I just got an ear syringe today to do just that after reading a post about someone else using one. I still plan on experimenting using the bulb-blower in conjunction with a vacuum to see if that will be more effective than just the bulb-blower.

I hope that wet cleaning the CCD filter will not be a frequent requirement. But even if it is, it'll sure be a lot cheaper (and FASTER !) than sending it to Nikon.

Stu

Hi Stan,

Can you specify where (on the techni-tool.com site) to find the cleaning fluid and wipes? They have a lot of products and it's hard to find which you mean.

Thanks

Perry,

I (Stuart) was the one that posted the link to http://www.techni-tool.com .

First, I couldn't find ANY fluid that I felt was even comparable to the Eclipse fluid that Photographic Solutions sells. But who cares since it's only $8 for 2 ounces and that should last a long time since you'll only use 3-8 drops per cleaning. Besides, I feel confident that the purity (

As far as the wipes, they have a lot. Kimwipes ($140 for 280 wiper/pack and 60 pks/carton = 16,000 wipes) but if I were to experiment, I'd test the three products I listed. Go to the TechniTool website and go to the PRODUCTS. Then go to TECHNI-TOOL WEBSTORE. Then search the part numbers I list below. Unfortunately, there is no image to see what it looks like, just a text description.

1. Controlwipes, p/n 237UN010 (class 100 cleanroom), page 239 of the paper catalog.

2. Opticwipes p/n 237UN014 (class 100 cleanroom), page 239 of the paper catalog.

3. Corwipe 450 Wipes p/n 275RP094, page 241 of the paper catalog.

Since their catalog is free, I'd recommend getting that and you'll get a better idea of the product because they have pictures of the product. It's also an EXCELLENT source of professional quality tools.

Stu