Brushing the sensor

[digidude]

The effect of inducing charges to either the brush or the camera has been grossly overstated. Consider the Van de Graaff generator from your High School days. That demonstrated the triboelectric transfer of charges between the rubber belt and the two wheels that it runs around. There we have 2 large surface areas (the belt and the wheels) rolling in constant contact at several hundreds of feet per minute. Cleaning your sensor with a 14mm brush swishing back and forth a few times is so miniscule. In fact, only the tips of the brush are even contacting the glass. The point is that the transfer of electrons beween the brush and the camera is so small that it shouldn't even be considered. And consider that the dust around us is generally charged either positively or negatively and not neutral in nature. This is why dust clings to the walls and sides of things rather than just on top of things as we would expect. Firing an ionizer (i.e. a piezo electric generator) into your camera will not decrease the likelyhood of new dust particles attaching to your sensor, and is at best a foolish practice and at worst a potentially dangerous act. Read the warnings on those things...... about the risk of shock and use in explosive atmospheres!

The use of a clean unsized nylon brush, is, as Petteri says a safe alternative for cleaning your sensor.

... (the part about the necessity to discharge the cavity when
finished brushing the sensor, or risk damaging the sensor with
static charge), then why aren't all the users of the Visible Brush
system damaging their sensors? From what I've read, you don't have
to worry about a charge damaging the sensor with the VB system
(which is using a nylon brush "charged" by blowing air on it) and I
don't see any posts mentioning damaged sensors.
Cheers,
AnnT

--
Jim G.

 

[AnnT]

... I have not heard or read of ONE person (out of ???) that purchased the VD brush system having problems since using it. You KNOW that there would be a whole lotta people complaining if they paid $100 for the VD system and it did more harm than good! Just my two cents.
Cheers,
AnnT

The use of a clean unsized nylon brush, is, as Petteri says a safe
alternative for cleaning your sensor.

... (the part about the necessity to discharge the cavity when
finished brushing the sensor, or risk damaging the sensor with
static charge), then why aren't all the users of the Visible Brush
system damaging their sensors? From what I've read, you don't have
to worry about a charge damaging the sensor with the VB system
(which is using a nylon brush "charged" by blowing air on it) and I
don't see any posts mentioning damaged sensors.
Cheers,
AnnT

--
Jim G.

 

[-jeffB]

The effect of inducing charges to either the brush or the camera
has been grossly overstated. Consider the Van de Graaff generator
from your High School days. That demonstrated the triboelectric
transfer of charges between the rubber belt and the two wheels that
it runs around. There we have 2 large surface areas (the belt and
the wheels) rolling in constant contact at several hundreds of feet
per minute. Cleaning your sensor with a 14mm brush swishing back
and forth a few times is so miniscule.

This is a good thing. Trust me, you wouldn't want a 100KV spark zapping your sensor, even if it did do a good job of clearing the dust.

In fact, only the tips of
the brush are even contacting the glass. The point is that the
transfer of electrons beween the brush and the camera is so small
that it shouldn't even be considered.

Motes of dust are "so small that they shouldn't even be considered", too, by this standard. Small charges can have a large effect on small masses.

And consider that the dust
around us is generally charged either positively or negatively and
not neutral in nature. This is why dust clings to the walls and
sides of things rather than just on top of things as we would
expect. Firing an ionizer (i.e. a piezo electric generator) into
your camera will not decrease the likelyhood of new dust particles
attaching to your sensor, and is at best a foolish practice and at
worst a potentially dangerous act. Read the warnings on those
things...... about the risk of shock and use in explosive
atmospheres!

So, how am I going to get an "explosive atmosphere" inside my camera? I mean, I know a lot of my shots stink, but...

 

[Mark Holmes]

I would be much more worried about scratching the sensor! Damage
the sensor or the LP filter and that'll ruin all subsequent photos.

Jim H.

Hi,

Is it safe to use a Sensor Brush on the mirror, i.e. will the brush
scratch the fragile mirror surface?

Many thanks,

I had about 20 spots on the sensor of my new 20D. Bought the Sensor brush from VisibleDust. One swipe removed them all. Also used the smaller "fan brush" to clean the viewfinder.

Mark
--
http://www.pbase.com/athiker95/galleries

 

[JimH]

I'm sorry that this is so long. I'll break it into two parts to allow it to be posted. I appologize for this sneaky trick.

Though I have no idea, what this Zerostats is; my ionizer for
record cleaning does not create any air stream, it is not working
as a gun; it simply ionizes the air around its nose.

The Zerostat is identical to your Zeepa Electronic Static Eliminator. I got it about 30 years ago and I believe it was made in England.

http://www.2spi.com/catalog/photo/zerostat.shtml

Take it apart and look inside. You'll find that the "trigger" is the handle of a lever which squeezes on a capsule containing Rochelle Salts or other piezoelectric material. When that material is squeezed, it generates a very high voltage.

Look at the "circuit" of this unit. One pole of the piezo element is coupled to the handle of the device and the other is connected via a small wire to the needle in the end of the unit. The potential created when the piezo element is squeezed appears between your body (you're connected by your hand to the trigger which is tied to one pole of the element) and the tip of that needle.

If you want to complete the electrical circuit, squeeze on the trigger with one hand and then move a finger of your free hand up really close to the needle. You'll get a nice spark jumping between the needle and your finger when it's about 2 to 5 mm away. Hold your finger about 2 mm away and pull the trigger over and over. You can hear, see, and feel the sparks jumping between the needle and your fingertip beause you've now provided a complete circuit through which the electrons can flow. They break down the air gap (ionize it) and then jump as tiny little lighting bolts across that gap.

I did't say that the zerostat creates an air stream. But in fact it does. And so does yours.

Put your Zerostat into a smoke-filled chamber. Hold a finger of your free hand about 10 centimeters away from the tip of the Zerostat's needle and pull the trigger. See the stream of air it creates? The high voltage between the needle and your free finger creates a stream of ionized molecules moving between them. Those ionized molecules drag other non-ionized ones with them.

Make no mistake, you are directing a stream of charged molecules (ions) into your camera body. And that stream of particles carries a charge with it. Those charged particles are attreacted to anything with the opposite charge. When they find something with a different charge, they will collide with it and the charge (extra electron, or extra hole) will transfer to that object, thus imparting that charge to it. This charge transfer (AKA electrical current) may or may not be large enough to cause damage to the device it's hitting.

Let's say that I connect a CMOS IC in a circuit such that its ground pin is tied to a metal enclosure (like the body of a camera). Then I put a small glass plate about 1mm away from that IC. Next, I touch the metal box with one hand and in the other I hold the Zerostat. Now I put the nose of the zerostat about 2 CM away from the glass plate and squeeze the trigger.

Do you believe that the inoized air molecules which are being drawn away from the needle are going to just strike the glass plate and be annihilated in some magical manner just because that glass is an insulator? Or is it possible that they will just be pulled around the glass plate as they are being attracted to the oppositely charged IC? Put some smoke in the box and see where it flows.

Now you may well get away with this because there are plenty of sites inside the camera body - er.. my metal box - which will be attracting these ions and will provide an even better path through the box and to your hand and through your body and back to the trigger. But what if some of them decide that a convenient path is through some of the exposed legs of that IC and then through some part of the IC's structure and then to the ground lead of the IC and then to the box? If you pass some current through paths within the IC that were intended to be insulators, they may well be damaged. It might not cause catastrophic and immediate failure, but it may well degrade the IC. Such degradation in most ICs manifests itself as increased noise or even delayed and seemingly unexplained failure.

I've seen a small field effect transistor destroyed by holding a static charged styrofoam cup about ten centimeters away from it. How did that transistor-destroying static charge get transferred from the cup to the transistor? By ions drawn from near the cup and accelerated to that particular path.

Ions don't just stand still in some imaginary field around the nose of the zerostat. If they did, how would it neutralize the charges on a vinyl record? Nope, the ions blow off of that pointy needle and are drawn toward anything with a different charge. And they transfer their payloads of extra electrons or extra holes when they strike something with a different charge.

On to part two:

 

[JimH]

I'm sure this is so. However, you don't get even close to the
sensor, only to the glass plate. As you noted, that is not
conductive - although the charge will "spread" on it, and it WILL
spread to the other side as wll.

The streams of highly charged particles coming off of the tip of the "needle" in the end of the Zerostat will take whatever path is required for them to reach a point of highest opposite charge.

Here is the problem. The ionizer does not generate any voltage; it
generates unbalanced charges.

This is incorrect. An electrostatic voltmeter connected between the needle on the Zerostat and the handle you're squeezing will show tens of thousands of volts.

The ionizers used in IC manufacturing or PCB assembly areas are "Balanced Inonizers" aka Bipolar Ionizers. The Zerostat is not one of these unfortunately.

But the most important point: the ionized air CAN NOT CAUSE ANY
DAMAGE, because it is a mix of positive and negative ions (ionized
air molecules). The sum is pretty much balanced.

Again, that's not true. The ionized air will be of primarily one polarity when generated by the Zerostat. One polarity when you're squeezing the trigger and the opposite as you release the pressure.

And as for ionized air not being able to cause damage to ICs. Again, that's not true. The description of the Zerostat at the link I provided claims a charge of 1.5C per "squeeze". Plenty to blow most ICs.

Now, this is a different issue, and I too am wary of it. The brush
carries inbalanced charge, and that will be passed on other
surfaces.

However, small bristle brushes obviously carry very small charge.

If the brush scares you a little, the Zerostat should scare you a lot!

If this was a real problem, you would find in the camera's manual
that you have to ground yourself before changing a lens (or
generally, before touching a metal part on the body).

Do you see this warning in the manual?

Your logic here is incorrect.

The camera body behaves as a Faraday Cage around the electronics within. In effect, you have a conductive enclosure protecting the electronics. You can probably static zap the living daylights out of the body of the camera with no ill effect. The path that these electons will take should be through the camera body and not through the electronic circuits within. Still, I wouldn't try applying the direct sparks from the Zerostat to the buttons or other potentially electrically connected parts of the body.

Let's analyze the worst-case scenario of putting a lens onto the camera.

First mount the camera in a vise so you don't have to hold it in your hand (if you did, you'd have already brought it to the same potential as your body, right?).

Now be sure that the camera body and vise are grounded to a reasonable "earth ground".

Next, grab the lens and then scuff your feet all around the room on a nice plastic carpet to generate a really big charge.

Now approach the camera without touching anything else, especially not the camera body or the vise, and reach out with the lens and start to mount it to the body. Your hand is touching the lens barrel and as you bring the lens up to the body, there will come a point where the lens is close enough to the camera body that the air will ionize to the point of breakdown and an arc will occur. (In other words, a spark will jump from the lens to the body). At that instant, a lot of the charge differential between your body and the camera will be discharged.

Now if that pulse of current (around 15 amps at 30,000 volts in many cases) were to find a path through an IC, your camera or lens would be toast.

But what really happens? Instead of finding a path through any of the ICs in the lens or camera body, the lowest resistance and lowest inductance path is right through the outer metal shell of the lens, down through the lens mount, across the air gap, and into the lens mount of the body, then through the body itsef, and finally throgh the vise and to "ground".

No damage occurs because the electricity takes the easiest paths through the Faraday Cages which the manufacturer engineered into the lens and camera body.

Now let's do that same experiment with a slight variation.

Set up the body just the same way only lock the mirror up and the shutter open in the "sensor clean" mode. You've breached the Faraday Cage because the metal shutter is now open.

Now don't even bother with the lens. Instead, carry a brush with a metal handle in your hand. As you approach the camera body, be very careful not to touch anything, including the lens mount with the brush, and very carefully insert it into the camera body down past the shutter opening (don't let it touch that grounded metal opening, now) and finally touch the brush to the sensor. If you've done your job right, and the bristles of the brush are short enough, you may be able to get that nice spark to occur between the brush handle and the sensor IC. It'll jump right around the edge of the AA filter with no problem.

I'd lay even money that your camera is now a paperweight.

What I will do is to just breathe gently into it

This is, what I will never do.

That's up to you. We use humidifiers in our PCB assembly rooms and computer rooms to keep the static at bay. Maybe that's a bad idea all of a sudden.

Jim H.

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

This thread has been very instructive, especially the bits about triboelectricity.

It's clear that there's a lot of stuff going on in there. However, there are a lot of unknowns, and especially a lot of interactions. Some questions that have come to my mind but that haven't been conclusively answered by theory or verified by experiment:

(1) How much charge does a common synthetic artist's brush pick up when you blow air through it?

(2) How significant is the charge in picking up dust? Which part of the dust-sensor-brush interaction is simple surface adhesion?

(3) How much charge is imparted to the sensor when it is brushed, either via more triboelectric interaction or by transfer from a previously charged brush?

(4) How quickly does it dissipate of its own accord?

(5) How much effect does this residual charge have in attracting dust? (Remember: the sensor is covered by the shutter most of the time, and if you did your cleaning in a reasonably clean room, there won't be much dust caught between the shutter and the sensor when you finish up.)

(6) How effective is a "static gun" in discharging the sensor?

(7) How sensitive is the sensor and other camera electronics to ESD?

(8) How do different brush materials (synthetic and animal) behave (electrically or otherwise?)

I believe we should consider these questions before trying variants of the "blow and brush" technique, which we know from lots of empirical evidence to be safe and reasonably effective (after all, very large numbers of people are using this technique, both with VD's products and with "filter tested" brushes).

For example, I would not assume as a matter of course that using a brush very effectively "charged up" e.g. by brushing it against PVC would be equally effective and safe -- for example, it's entirely conceivable that it could leave a greater residual charge to the sensor which would thereby attract more dust post-cleaning, or it could be that the charge is strong enough to cause sparks or induce currents in the electronics which could damage them.

Likewise, I would not assume as a matter of course that an ESD zapper is safe either -- there are some very high voltages involved, and solid-state electronics are sensitive to high voltage.

Mind you, I'm not saying that they're not safe. All I'm saying is that they have not been empirically demonstrated to be safe, and it appears to my limited understanding that there are too many factors and too many unknowns involved to demonstrate theoretically the safe beyond a possibility of a reasonable doubt.

Bottom line: I will follow with great interest any further experiments by adventurous people with cameras, zappers, and oscilloscopes. However, personally I will continue to consider my cameras as photographic tools first, and stick to the technique that has been empirically shown to be safe and effective (by the large number of people using it successfully) -- that is, plain ol' blow-and-brush, using a source of clean compressed air and a soft synthetic brush.

Moreover, I would also urge others to do the same, unless they're (a) competent enough to set up experiments like they should be set up, and (b) aware of the risk, however small, that they're taking. IOW, if all you want to do is clean your sensor, don't try to break new ground. However, if you want fame and glory as the inventor of a new and more effective sensor-cleaning method, go for it -- but be aware of the risks to your gear that any such activity involves.

End sermon...

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]

 

[JimH]

Hi.

Please read my post in followup to Gabor.

People have odd ideas about static damage and grounding.

What does static do to blow up an IC? Well, on a microscopic level, it can actually "blow up" parts of the IC. If you look at a static damaged IC under an electron microscope, you'll often see small areas that look like they've been hit by lightning. There will be little balls of melted metal and black stuff all around the area. Just very tiny

On the other hand, you can have more insideous damage that is not visible at all because some of the characteristics of the semiconductor or insulating materials in the IC have been altered slightly.

ICs and PC boards are static damaged primarily by allowing the IC or board to become the path through which a static charge is conducted. Read that sentence again, please.

Here's an example of how to blow up a PC board.

Pick up the board and walk around the room with it or maybe just get up off of a plastic covered seat. Now reach out and hand that board to someone else. There, you've done it!

You are very likely to have a different relative charge on your body than the other person. The capacitances of your bodies are not large, but large enough to store a reasonable charge. As you hand the board to the other person, the voltage difference between your body and theirs will try to equalize itself. Since you're handing the board to them, there will be an instant, just as the board touches their hand, when the best path for that charge to take will be through that PC board.

If they happen to touch a ground trace or metal bracket of the board first, and if you're touching that same ground trace or metal bracket, then more than likely no damage will occur. But if the places where you're both touching the board ends up putting one of the ICs in the path of the current pulse, then you've just ruined or damaged some of the components on that board.

So the moral of the story is that you NEVER hand a bare PC board to someone. Instead, either touch that person first to let your charges equalize and then, while "holding hands" pass the board between you. Or, set the board down on a safe, non-conductive, non static surface, and then just let them pick it up. Thus avoiding making the PC board the path through which your charges must equalize.

Notice that I didn't say ANYTHING about grounding anything here. Ground is a relative term. You need to think in terms of relative voltages when considering how static may damage something. And you need to consider what the current path will be if two differently charged objects come into contact with each another. Just don't let that path be through anything sensitive.

Of course, if you're carrying a PC board around and then touch it to something that's "grounded" you'll be using the board as the path through which your chage will equalize with "ground" so that's just as bad as handing to to someone. Again, you need to "hold hands" with the grounded object before touching the PC board to it so that you know that the board won't be the path for the discharge. This is the concept behind using a "ground strap" when working on an electronic device. You're just assuring that you are at the same relative potential as the device.

You don't need to ground yourself or the camera when handling it normally for two reasons.

First, who cares if you or the camera is "grounded"? The main thing is for you and the camera and the lens to all be at the same potential. Be that ground or be that at a million volts. You just want to all be the same. And if you're holding the body and the lens, then you've already brought all three of you to the same potential, so no problem!

Second, the camera and lens are built such that their bodies enclose the sensitive ICs within a conductive shell or "Faraday Cage". That metal or conductive cage provides a better path for any discharge than through the enclosed electronics.

You don't see any exposed electrical contacts anywhere that are not protected in some way. I'd be willing to bet that the contacts that connect the body to the lens all have static protection implemented on both the lens and camera sides. But even without that, by the time those contacts mate up, the mount of the lens has already come into contact with the mount on the camera body so any difference in potential has discharged through that robust, metal path.

Now if someone else was holding the camera body and you came up to them and decided to point your finger at the lens connection contacts in the mount, and you got a bit too close, and the potential between your body and theirs discharged through one or more of those contacts. I'd be very worried that the body may be damaged. But when would that happen?

That's why I just hate it when I'm holding a PC board and someone comes up to me and decides that they need to point to something on the board while we're talking about it. I always pull away and then if they want to point to something, I set the board down and have them pick it up and then point all they want.

Really, if you want to be safe, you should practice these same rules when handing an elecronic device of any kind to someone or when setting it on a condictive surface. Even with the faraday cage, why tempt fate?

The cameras and lenses are designed to be used in the real world. You can relax only because someone else was looking out for you when they designed them. I don't worry about my equipment much. But I won't be Zerostating my exposed sensor either.

Jim H.

You are just WAY too paranoid! If what you say has ANY truth, then
you better attach a ground strap to your camera and never carry it
anywhere! There are deadly static charges waiting to jump from your
finger tips to your sensor and kill your camera! Beware!

Enjoy life. Enjoy the camera. It isn't that fragile.

 

[JimH]

Hi everyone.

I like what Petteri has said.

I, too, do not know if using the Zerostat will damage your camera. I only urge caution based on what I know about electronics, electricity, physics, and the Zerostat.

I've used a Zerostat for almost 30 years to help clean vinyl records and it works reasonably well for that. I've also used one to test the ESD survivability and potential for "soft upsets" of various complete electronic instruments. It's a quick, cheap way to simulate static discharge and you can direct it where you want. Despite the claim in at least one previous post, I am familiar with the proper technique in using a Zerostat for record cleaning.

But back to the subject of sensor cleaning:

I've done what is not recommended and used "canned air" to directly blow dust off of my 20D's sensor. It worked just fine but I think a brush would really help since it would put more force on the dust particles and the canned air could blow the dust in under the AA filter by some accounts.

What I keep thinking would be a great way to get the dust off of the sensor would be to combine the application of "canned air" or possibly well filtered, humidified, compressed air at the same time as the brush was being used. That way, as the brush got the dust particles loose, the humidity would neutralize static and the blowing air would be carrying them away and hopefully out of the camera for good.

I've thought about rigging up a brush with a small tube running down along it so that a jet of compressed gas could be applied at the same time as the brushing was going on.

But any brushing worries me a bit for another reason, too.

It seems like the manual for the camera tells you not to use any sort of brush on the sensor because it may scratch it. Now this seems silly if the AA filter is hard glass unless you’re grinding grit into it with the brush.

But what if the AA filter is manufactured by applying some strange coating to that glass and the coating is on the outer side of it? I've worked on some instruments with diffraction gratings in them. Most of these gratings are not "primary" gratings, but are actually “transfer gratings” made by molding some very fragile polyurethane or the like against a primary grating and then transferring that plastic facsimile to the actual glass optic that goes into the instrument. Just touching that kind of grating with a brush can ruin it because it really is that fragile.

Or what if the way that the AA filter is made is just by etching the surface of the glass slightly. Is it possible that rubbing a brush over it might damage that fine surface somehow?

But if the AA filter has the "business side" against the sensor, and the side we're cleaning is just plain, smooth glass, then it doesn't seem like it would be overly sensitive. The fact is, I just don't know!

Also, if you could remove any static charge on AA filter with something like the Zerostat before cleaning and after, that would be great, I'm sure. I hate to discourage the use of the Zerostat for that purpose because I'm quite sure it would help with the cleaning and it might also help keep dust from being attracted later. But I really cannot, in good conscience, recommend it until someone really proves that it's 100% safe. It certainly has great potential (pardon the pun) to damage the sensor in the camera.

One other note, also from the distant past: We used to be able to buy what was called a “Staticmaster” brush. These were camel hair (I believe) brushes which had a strip of polonium 210 mounted up near where the bristles were attached into the brush. Doing a Google, I come up with:

http://www.optcorp.com/product.aspx?pid=1723&tb=1

Anyhow, polonium 210 is a radioactive isotope which decays by the emission of an alpha particle. Alpha particles are basically a helium nucleus and thus they carry a charge of +2 due to the lack of any electrons to balance the charge of the two protons. The net effect is that alphas are very good at ionizing things. (That’s why it’s called ionizing radiation). In any case, the idea is that the air in the vicinity of the polonium source will be ionized constantly by the flux of alphas so that you can easily clean negatives and the like. Perhaps we could use a bit of polonium to achieve the ionization we want

Ok, I can hear the paranoid folks out there already.

But I deal with radiation measuring instruments all of the time and use various sources to test and calibrate them. You have nothing to fear from that small amount of polonium-210 as long as you don’t eat it or scrape it off and breathe the dust. But now you’re bombarding the AA filter with alphas. Will they pit the glass eventually? Might they find a path to the sensor IC and damage it? Beats me.

I really wish Canon would address this dust cleaning issue. They've got to know that it's a major problem and surely they can answer all of our questions. As it is, we're all just speculating about lots of these things. It seems like Canon would make a lot of friends if they first admitted that dust can be a problem, and second, sold an easy to use system for cleaning the sensor. But I can see how they may well be worried about people damaging the camera and they don’t want to have anything to do with it. As long as they leave it to others, they can wash their hands of any possible damage and just say “we told you so” if you do end up hurting your camera.

Well, this is a great thread because we would all like to find the easiest, most effective, and safest way to keep our cameras' sensors clean.

Keep up the good work everyone.

Jim H.

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

I wouldn't worry too much about scratching the filter. Two reasons:

(1) Empirical. Lots of people are doing this, very very few are causing damage.

(2) Because of the material. The first layer of filter is actually a dichroic mirror or "hot mirror," not the AA filter. These are hard materials, comparable to coated optical glass.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]

 

[John Seymour]

So now i'm confused. Is the Camel hair on a plain old camera puffer brush good or bad for sensor cleaning?

John

So given that someone in the last thread said normal cheap
'photographic' brushes were unsized, and are presumably clean, and
made of camel hair - how suitable do you consider this?

Good that you asked it; this made me try out something, and that
lead to another important recognition.

 

[JimH]

If you want Canon's advice, see page 37 of the Eos 20D manual. It says (among other things):

"Use a blower not attached with a brush. A brush can scratch the sensor."

I'm sure they mean to say that you should NOT use a blower brush but their English isn't too good. They want you to just use the blower part without the brush.

I've tried that, though, and it didn't even budge the dust.

So I violated another of their rules and just used "canned air". That worked, but it was scary because I had to get the nozzle right near the sensor and really blast it hard. I'm sure that was very dangerous, but I lucked out - and got the sensor relatively clean, actually.

I think a soft brush would be safer, personally. But Canon doesn't want you to do either one.

I'm leaning toward a sensorbrush at this point.

Jim H.

John

So given that someone in the last thread said normal cheap
'photographic' brushes were unsized, and are presumably clean, and
made of camel hair - how suitable do you consider this?

Good that you asked it; this made me try out something, and that
lead to another important recognition.

 

[jeffx]

I also design using CMOS and other families of logic, as well as analog. The use of these ionizers is dangerous to your camera. They do generate high voltages.

Commercial ionizers are sold to reduce static at ESD benches. But these units are carefully constructed AND GROUNDED to ensure that stray charges are not generated. These handheld devices use your HAND as one electrode. The are safe for records; not electronics.

js

 

[jeffx]

When your camera is closed (lens on), it is ALMOST a faraday shield-enclosed device, and is pretty tough. When you are sticking things in the camera and touching the sensor, you are tempting fate.

If you knew the EXTREME precautions that Canon takes in handing the sensors, which include ESD benches with static-dissipative tops, ESD FLOORS, special shoes with grounded heels, humidified environment, ESD trays, packaging etc ect - then you'd stop promulgating your opinion, which is not based on facts. These people are talking about touching the sensor itself with a charged tool. The chances of damage when using "charged" tools is high.

js

You are just WAY too paranoid! If what you say has ANY truth, then
you better attach a ground strap to your camera and never carry it
anywhere! There are deadly static charges waiting to jump from your
finger tips to your sensor and kill your camera! Beware!

Enjoy life. Enjoy the camera. It isn't that fragile.

 

[MarkAM]

But I won't be Zerostating my exposed sensor either.

Very informative posts, Jim. Thanks.

So what course of action would you take for cleaning electrically adherent dust from your sensor?

 

[MarkAM]

I'm leaning toward a sensorbrush at this point.

Why? Why do you think a Sensor Brush (TM) is any better than what Petteri describes?

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

jeffx wrote:
[snip]

The chances of damage when using "charged" tools is high.

Then how come nobody, to my knowledge, has reported damaging their sensor using this method, despite the fact that it's well known and been extensively used for at least six months?

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]

 

[John Seymour]

Indeed, and popular wisdom (ad Canon recommendation) would suggest using a 'normal' camera brush is a bit of a no-no. Let I think Petteri's works may suggest it's actally a good bet?!

Petteri, what would your insight be?

John

I'm leaning toward a sensorbrush at this point.

Why? Why do you think a Sensor Brush (TM) is any better than what
Petteri describes?

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

I don't have any divine insight into this sort of thing -- I can only say what I've done and what the results were. I also don't have any more dirty cameras, and I don't intend to spray gunk on them purely in the name of science.

However, FWIW, I wouldn't be scared to try one -- first with the Filter Test, of course. I think it's extremely unlikely that it would cause any damage (any more than a synthetic brush), and if it passed the Filter Test, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't put on any gunk either. Whether it'd be effective or not only a test could tell.

Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]

 

[andrewD2]

I tried your technique with a brush butit smeared the dust, seemed like the dust was stuck on.

Before *

After o--

So it lightened the speck but left a trail of the dust. Would you go with eclipse in this situation?

This happened to anyone else? Maybe its because its pretty damp atmosphere most of the time here.

Thanks
Andrew