Link to auto sensor cleaning test

[sgpix]

400D owners might be surprised (and disappointed!)...

 

http://pixinfo.com/en/articles/ccd-dust-removal/

 

Olympus owners may feel better!

 

Those of us with no auto system probably feel vindicated :)

[jakobl]

nice :)

That really would have been a reason for me to get a 400D as a second body.

I'd really want to see pictures (of persons, buildings...) taken after the dirt was applied.

[beauh44]

I think that, to some extent, the DSLR industry brought on some of this problem themselves in that they implied that cleaning one's sensor is second only to brain surgery and it's all too easy to "kill the patient" in the process.

 

For some reason if a lens that costs more than some DSLRs gets dirty, they seldom recommend returning it to the manufacturer to clean it. They pretty much figure that an "end-user" can do it just fine and in most cases they're right.

 

Yes, there's the occasional horror story of some Rhodes Scholar who sprayed Clorox on his sensor and whipped out some steel wool to give it a good scrubbing, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

 

If one uses a bit of common sense and a few products and/or techniques easily Googled on the Internet, then it's a relatively easy thing to do. I've done it dozens of times to several DSLRs with no problems whatsoever.

 

So I think some of these alledgedly "automatic" sensor cleaning gizmos are, in effect, an "answer in search of a problem". No one suggests making self-cleaning lenses with little "windshield wipers" on them. Just my .02 cents.

[steve torelli]

Beau couldn't have put it better. The dust removal systems are a way of solving a problem that doesn't exist. The industry has helped perpetuate the myth that cleaning the glass filter over the sensor is akin to playing Russian roulette with your camera and have successfully frightened thousands of us, myself included until I actually did it, into believing this ridiculous system is necessary.

 

I still can't believe that Canon included this thing in one of their pro-level bodies. Gimmicks like this are for entry-level cameras in hopes of attracting the first time buyers. Does anyone really think it's a good idea to have the sensor glass vibrating around like that ?

It's just a matter of time before it causes problems with the glass or the sensor itself in some folks' cameras. Bottom line IMO, it's unnecessary and just something else to go wrong. Good luck.

[jakobl]

I can't completely agree with the statement that it's a complete obsolete tool (if it would work).

Sometimes you have no time to clean the sensor or you have no access to the right equipment.

When I travelled to Paris last year (I decided 1 day earlier), I noticed some dust on my sensor. I noticed it on the way to Paris and the trip only last 2 days, so there was no time to let it clean on location.

I have to say that it was of course my fault not to check the sensor at home but I think there are situations where a working cleaning system could do a good job.

(And with working I mean not breaking the sensor or limiting the lifetime in any way)

[beauh44]

Here's a good example of how *not* to clean your camera or sensor. ;-)<div></div>

[beauh44]

Well that worked like a charm! Let's try this:<P>

 

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5773125-md.jpg"> <P>

[bobatkins]

" Does anyone really think it's a good idea to have the sensor glass vibrating around like that ? It's just a matter of time before it causes problems with the glass or the sensor itself in some folks' cameras"

 

You're basing this on what - a complete and total guess? You assume that Canon engineering is so poor that they didn't look at this?

[mike_smith2]

Ah, but that's an Olympus E-1, and unlike Canons 1D series it is really truly showerproof - so the picture is not as daft as it first seems - the Oly waterproofing on the pro and semi pro series lens works like a dream on the E-1

 

Mike

[oceanphysics]

<i>You're basing this on what - a complete and total guess?</i>

<p>

Welcome to photo.net, Bob.

[steve torelli]

" Does anyone really think it's a good idea to have the sensor glass vibrating around like that ? It's just a matter of time before it causes problems with the glass or the sensor itself in some folks' cameras"

 

You're basing this on what - a complete and total guess? You assume that Canon engineering is so poor that they didn't look at this?

 

No. I just believe firmly in Murphy's Law. Good luck.

[peter_nelson1]

<i>I can't completely agree with the statement that it's a complete obsolete tool (if it would work). Sometimes you have no time to clean the sensor or you have no access to the right equipment. </i><p>

 

I agree - if you're shooting in the field or on location where you're changing lenses a lot you don't have time or <b>the right conditions</b> to do a proper manual cleaning. A built-in system <i><b>if it worked</i></b> would be something you could just run for a minute or two while the model was getting her hair or makeup adjusted, or if you were covering a sports story you could run it during timeouts or when the team is walking back to a huddle, etc.<p>

 

I shoot models and if I'm in the middle of a 5-hour model shoot and I get a dust spot on my sensor during hour 2 I'm going to have hundreds of frames with that dust spot which I'm not even going to see in the viewfinder so I might not notice it until the shoot is over when I'm reviewing the images! It would be great to have a built-in cleaning system I could just run pro-actively during my shoot.

[davebell]

Canon engineering would have thoroughly tested the reliability of the cleaning mechanism and it's impact on the rest of the camera in some sort of extended lifecycle test, e.g. left it vibrating for days or weeks on end at temperature extremes, different battery voltages, under external vibration etc. I am an engineer myself who worked for another Japanese electronics company, and this is my guess. The actual effectiveness is another issue all together.

[steve torelli]

My point is this.I don't doubt that Canon engineers did a thorough job designing this thing. They did a good job designing auto focus, auto metering and image stabilization too, systems that make a difference in IQ and performance, but all of those systems break down from time to time. Because of the advantages of these developments, most of us are willing to take the risk and would hesitate to revert to a completely manual camera despite the fact that it would be more reliable.

 

The anti-dust system does nothing to improve the IQ or performance of the camera and increases the chances of problems over just cleaning it yourself. Sooner or later this thing will disable somebody's camera, great engineering notwithstanding. I think I've just described in depth, Murphy's Law. Of course, the owner doesn't have to use the system, but he or she does have to pay for it. Whether it's effective or not isn't the question. As I see it, there's little to be gained considering the increased risk of more problems. My $.02 of course YMMV. Good luck.

[davebell]

Steve Torelli wrote

 

"Whether it's effective or not isn't the question"

 

Come on man, that is the topic of this post. Of course it is the question! Everything ever engineered by man has a finite breaking point. Obviously if it is effective, it's one up for the marketing guys at Canon, especially if it came out as best. But it isn't, it so appears.

[peter_nelson1]

<i>As I see it, there's little to be gained considering the increased risk of more problems.</i><p>

 

I don't see any basis for this statement.<p>

 

I described above how it would certainly benefit me <b>if it worked</b>.<p>

 

And while I grant that it might increase the risk of problems, we have no way to assess the magnitude of that risk, nor any reason to assume that it's outside the level of statistical noise.

[digitmstr]

>>they implied that cleaning one's sensor is second only to brain surgery<<

 

No, they are just acutely aware of the VAST majority of DSLR users...which are the same who aske for "self-cleaning", "more megapixels, bulit-in mp3 player, etc...

[glenn nk]

I suspect that the Canon engineers did a good job of testing and knew the weaknesses, but when the marketing and advertising goo-goos heard that some other manufacturer was offering sensor vibration cleaning, it was likely that they made the decision to go that way.

 

Surely some of you are old enough to remember O-Ring seals on a space shuttle on or about the 26th January 1986. The engineers knew the seals weren't ready, but management over-ruled them - at least that's the final story as I recall it.

 

I've responded to too many pleas for help from 400D owners with sensor dust - it became apparent to me several months ago that the system isn't 100 percent effective - in fact the Canon blurbs don't claim that it is. I suspect that overzealous salesmen have left buyers with the impression that the system will solve the problem - it helps sales.