Sensor cleaning??

[Bill Kuta]

OK, I bit--apparently it's a blue checkered shirt.

 

Wonder if the photog got models all the same size to save on wardrobe?

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, Bill Kuta said:

OK, I bit--apparently it's a blue checkered shirt.

 

Wonder if the photog got models all the same size to save on wardrobe?

how come the pretty boy didn't get one?

[Mr Standfast]

Good example of keeping stock photo costs down. 12 images, 6 or so models and ONE shirt.

[Chuck Nacke]

Funny story about "Sensor Cleaning"  I currently have two D800's and a D700

and I often use the built-in sensor cleaning before I go out and then last year

I had one D800, less than 20,000 clicks, that had a spot on the upper right

corner.  I took it to a local shop, Boston, MA, they cleaned the spot, but I

lost all of my AF,  They gave me a loaner while they sent it to NIKON in NY.

It was a huge pain and in most cases if is better to just knw where the spot is

and "Clone" it out than cleaning the sensor......

[MizBrown]

If I didn't learn how to wet clean my sensors, I'd have to fly to Miami to get it done.  I've found with all my cameras that they're the most be-specked the first year or so, probably from manufacturing crud left behind. 

[Bill Brooks]

I used to DAMP clean, not wet clean my sensors. Now I find no need to DAMP clean. I only DRY clean.

 

My method is to locate the dust using an inspection device (see below) and then try to clean with a DRY pad with only one or two light sweeps. 

If this does not work then DAMP clean, Not WET clean. Use a minimum of cleaning solution. One light cross sweep with the DAMP pad. Wait 10 seconds for the solution to work. Then two light sweeps with the DRY pad.

 

DO NO SCRUB or you will scratch the sensor cover glass.

 

Use a pad that is the proper size for your sensor.

 

If you still have spots then repeat the DAMP clean again, without any additional cleaning solution on the pad.

 

Use this inspection device to check your sensor. It is invaluable. It will make scratches, stains, dust spots, blackflies jump out at you. You cannot do a proper cleaning without it. It will pick up very small dust spots that do not even appear in the digital file. It is valuable even if you only ever dry clean with a blower device.

 

https://visibledust.com/products/quasar-r-5x-sensor-loupe-magnifier-with-dark-adaptation-technology/

 

I have not had to DAMP clean my sensor since I upgraded to a 5D2 with its inbuilt cleaning function. I inspect to find any dust, then a dry sweep if there is any dust, run camera sensor shaking function, inspect again, dry sweep again if necessary. I have never had to do the dry sweep more than twice.
 

[Ed Rooney]

What about a Brillo pad and some Ajax? 

[Allan Bell]

30 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

What about a Brillo pad and some Ajax? 

 

I prefer wire wool and lapping paste.

 

Allan

 

[spacecadet]

2 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

What about a Brillo pad and some Ajax? 

Ed, you need some new glasses. They're quite inexpensive here.

[Ed Rooney]

😎

[John Mitchell]

4 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

What about a Brillo pad and some Ajax? 

 

OMG You must mean Ajax the Foaming Cleanser from the 50's. I remember that stuff, but I'm not sure how many Alamy contributors would. It might be a bit too environmentally unfriendly for today's sensors. 😀

Edited October 11, 2019 by John Mitchell

[Ed Rooney]

Environmental unfriendly? You want a clean sensor or not? You got to put some caustic stuff on it and rub! Get your back into it!

 

To be serious, I've never cleaned a sensor. I tend to go along with Chuck's idea and do any needed cleanup in PP.  Ajax hasn't gone away:

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ajax-Powder-Cleanser-Bleach-14/dp/B00MUE8M2M?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-osx-uk-21&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B00MUE8M2M

[DDoug]

I've tried to avoid sensor cleaning by using a couple of bodies in the field. When I do need to do it I use a cheaper version of what Bill suggested, a Lenspen Sensorclear kit.

 

This method of wet cleaning looks interesting, though.

[John Mitchell]

9 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

Environmental unfriendly? You want a clean sensor or not? You got to put some caustic stuff on it and rub! Get your back into it!

 

To be serious, I've never cleaned a sensor. I tend to go along with Chuck's idea and do any needed cleanup in PP.  Ajax hasn't gone away:

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ajax-Powder-Cleanser-Bleach-14/dp/B00MUE8M2M?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-osx-uk-21&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B00MUE8M2M

 

I haven't seen Ajax the Foaming Cleanser on shelves in Canada for decades. Good to know it's still around. I've never had to clean a sensor (other than using a rubber blower) either. The Sony a6000 is the cleanest camera I've owned when it comes to dust, etc. on the sensor. Not sure why that is.

Edited October 12, 2019 by John Mitchell

[Bryan]

2 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

I've never had to clean a sensor (other than using a rubber blower) either. The Sony a6000 is the cleanest camera I've owned when it comes to dust, etc. on the sensor. Not sure why that is.

 

Matches my experience John. My Sony a6500 has never required a clean other than with a blower brush, and I change lenses frequently. Presumably a slippery surface coating on the sensor and a self cleaning cycle that works is part of the answer.

[Ed Rooney]

Not pocket-size, but such terrific, light, versatile cameras, the Sony a6000 series. I've been walking around with both my a6000 and my RX100-6 in a small shoulder bag lately. I have the Sony 10-18 on the a6000.

 

I'm wondering which street zoom you finally bought for yours, Bryan? 

 

When changing lenses, I always keep the camera pointed down. 

[Bryan]

5 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

 

I'm wondering which street zoom you finally bought for yours, Bryan? 

 

 

 

Not managed to find one to my taste as yet Ed.

 

Tried the Sony Zeiss 16-70 and was hugely disappointed, razor sharp in the centre and with great colour but useless edges. Next came the 28-70 kit lens from the FF Sony - edges  better than the Zeiss overall but the copy I tried was soft down one side.

 

Moved on to my collection of vintage glass, tried a Tamron adaptall 28-80 and that was OK, certainly sharper across the frame than either of the Sony offerings, but the images lacked detail contrast and the lens is a bit of a brute to cart around. Latest test was of an old  Pentax 28-80 and that was promising, but, sadly, my copy appears to have some internal issues resulting in an occasional and random lack of sharpness in the centre of the frame.

 

This is all reported in gory detail on my Blog

 

Tried to buy a Pentax 28-70 advertised on the web site of a local store, but they couldn't find it when I turned up to make the purchase!

 

Actually my kit 16-50 was better across the frame than the two other Sony lenses tested, although nothing like as sharp as the Zeiss in the centre, but that fell apart and I'm unwilling to part with cash for another.

 

The search should continue, but I'm becoming a tad weary...........

[Ed Rooney]

Well, that's a drag. 

 

I'm very happy to have my budget Sony 28-70, although the wide 10-18 is the lens that gets most use. I also have a very sharp Sony 50mm prime. The shot below was done in Seville with the 28-70 on a tripod. 

 

[John Mitchell]

2 hours ago, Bryan said:

 

Not managed to find one to my taste as yet Ed.

 

Tried the Sony Zeiss 16-70 and was hugely disappointed, razor sharp in the centre and with great colour but useless edges. Next came the 28-70 kit lens from the FF Sony - edges  better than the Zeiss overall but the copy I tried was soft down one side.

 

Moved on to my collection of vintage glass, tried a Tamron adaptall 28-80 and that was OK, certainly sharper across the frame than either of the Sony offerings, but the images lacked detail contrast and the lens is a bit of a brute to cart around. Latest test was of an old  Pentax 28-80 and that was promising, but, sadly, my copy appears to have some internal issues resulting in an occasional and random lack of sharpness in the centre of the frame.

 

This is all reported in gory detail on my Blog

 

Tried to buy a Pentax 28-70 advertised on the web site of a local store, but they couldn't find it when I turned up to make the purchase!

 

Actually my kit 16-50 was better across the frame than the two other Sony lenses tested, although nothing like as sharp as the Zeiss in the centre, but that fell apart and I'm unwilling to part with cash for another.

 

The search should continue, but I'm becoming a tad weary...........

 

Just wondering how your 16-50 fall apart. Did you drop it? That's my main concern with this tiny lens. It can easily slip out of your hand when changing lenses, and I tend to be more of a butter fingers than I used to be. I took my 16-50 on a recent trip to Montreal, and it performed well. I still think it's a very cool little lens once you get to know its shortcomings.

[Bryan]

1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Just wondering how your 16-50 fall apart. Did you drop it? That's my main concern with this tiny lens. It can easily slip out of your hand when changing lenses, and I tend to be more of a butter fingers than I used to be. I took my 16-50 on a recent trip to Montreal, and it performed well. I still think it's a very cool little lens once you get to know its shortcomings.

 

It didn't actually fall apart John, just ceased to work. I took it to my local repair man who looked at it and drew breath through his teeth. "I've a box of these, none can be fixed". However he did fix it, but the repair didn't last. I do abuse my camera kit, often carrying it on my bicycle and it does occasionally get accidentally dropped, while I do take a lot of photos. A friend bought a used 16-50  from Ebay but that didn't work properly so he sent it back. Not inclined to go down that route.

 

If we had a local camera shop selling new Sony gear I might have another go at the FF 28-70 in the knowledge that I could easily return it if it were as bad as the last one I tried. I seem to recall Wim saying that he went through a few of them before he found a keeper. This kind of thing is not exclusive to Sony, I once bought an expensive Canon lens that was never right despite a number of trips back for adjustment and repair, including the replacement of a lens cluster. Hopefully won't happen to me again as I now test all new kit and return if not A1.

 

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Bryan said:

 

It didn't actually fall apart John, just ceased to work. I took it to my local repair man who looked at it and drew breath through his teeth. "I've a box of these, none can be fixed". However he did fix it, but the repair didn't last. I do abuse my camera kit, often carrying it on my bicycle and it does occasionally get accidentally dropped, while I do take a lot of photos. A friend bought a used 16-50  from Ebay but that didn't work properly so he sent it back. Not inclined to go down that route.

 

If we had a local camera shop selling new Sony gear I might have another go at the FF 28-70 in the knowledge that I could easily return it if it were as bad as the last one I tried. I seem to recall Wim saying that he went through a few of them before he found a keeper. This kind of thing is not exclusive to Sony, I once bought an expensive Canon lens that was never right despite a number of trips back for adjustment and repair, including the replacement of a lens cluster. Hopefully won't happen to me again as I now test all new kit and return if not A1.

 

 

Thanks for the reply. I treat the 16-50 with kid gloves, as the saying goes. The flimsy build doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Also, I've never trusted power zooms. The original 18-55 is much sturdier. I've dropped and banged it a few times, and it doesn't seem to have suffered. I still use it as well but really like the compactness of the 16-50, plus I use the 16mm setting quite a bit (it ain't bad at all if you get the focus point right). As mentioned, the 16-50 that came with my a6000 was badly de-centred. The replacement is fine. Best of luck with your ongoing quest.

[Ed Rooney]

It's too bad you got a bad copy of the 28-70 (42-105 view), Bryan. Mine seems fine and according to these other owners there are lots of good copies out there.

 

https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/lenses/sony_fe_28-70_3p5-5p6/user-reviews

 

I don't do "bench tests" any more, but when I last did them, I used a poster on a wall in Lower Manhattan. It had lots of various sized type on it. I would not use a brick wall, as you do. 

 

My Sony 10-18 (15-24 view) is very sharp. Mister Kilpatrick liked his, as I recall. I must add that shooting with a super-wide lens is a whole different bag of tricks. I took it out on a prowl last night and did not get a single keeper.

 

Well, I do have 20 keepers on Page One today 10-13-2019 if you click on the blue number. 

Edited October 13, 2019 by Ed Rooney

[Ed Rooney]

On 01/10/2019 at 19:53, Bill Kuta said:

OK, I bit--apparently it's a blue checkered shirt.

 

Wonder if the photog got models all the same size to save on wardrobe?

 

I used to pack a red and yellow bikini when traveling with models for a beach shoot. That was before Me Too when models were all the same size, more or less. I also packed clothes pins. One time when returning alone, a customs officer looked through my bag. He gave me a knowing wink when he found the bikinis. Hmmm. 

 

 

[MDM]

1 hour ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

I don't do "bench tests" any more, but when I last did them, I used a poster on a wall in Lower Manhattan. It had lots of various sized type on it. I would not use a brick wall, as you do. 

 

 

 

I don't do bench tests but I always do field tests on new lenses and cameras so I know what I can do with them. For sharpness, text is great as long as it extends right across the image but you can't beat a big brick wall for checking out distortion and it can be used to estimate sharpness across the field from a distance as well (the sort of distance at which you might be taking pictures of buildings - most bench tests are done close in and may not be the same at distance). I have a favourite brick wall - a side of a local residential house - which I use whenever I get any new kit. Fortunately so far nobody has come out of the house to ask me what I'm doing. 

Edited October 13, 2019 by MDM

[Ed Rooney]

"What am I doing? I'm taking a picture of your bricks and I will be reporting you to the proper authorities!"