Thank you Leica, no thank you Dust-Aid

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have it, it works as advertised, but is a bit bulky to take on the road.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wlaidlaw]

I have it, it works as advertised, but is a bit bulky to take on the road.

 

Jaap,

 

Thanks for the info. I think I will get one. If you can get most of the dust out of the chamber, then the Arctic Butterfly and a few sensor swabs should be OK for on the road. I keep hoping for an E3 solution which is less prone to leaving marks. However, I think that E2 is the best solution currently available.

 

Wilson

[diogenis]

Ok Ok Wilson

I FULLY and wholeheartedly retreat and accept that the vacuum presssurized with maybe an arctic are indeed splendid, and furthermore I will buy one immediately as well

However, there is still some danger on this, due to high suction power, but I guess you can regulate suction

but I will also give dustaid another chance too

[jaapv]

It is not a suction system. It is pressurized air "pulling" the aircolumn up by blowing over the far end of the aspirating tube. No danger of aspirating your shutter blades

[diogenis]

Remember those comics, where a vacuum cleaner sucks everything, including the owner? ha ha ha.

Anyway I was looking for something like that. Very good solution

[Doc Henry]

Henry,

If you check Jaap's case, the problem was formed "indirectly" from dust aid. Actually Jaap, scratched his sensor, while trying to remove some goo that was never supposed to transfer from dust aid.

Apparently as he said, there must have been a dust particle that scratched the glass while trying to remove the whole matter. This is exactly what worries me with dragging these swabs in that sensor glass.

As for particles, I believe that the majority is actually dust/soil and not human cells or metal scraps that fall from the shutter. For this reason alone I am convinced and insist that the dustaid/pentax blob/butterfly from visible solution are preferred over any swab that removes with dragging. Now if you do use the swabs, use them with a "feather touch" as light as you can, and always check with a magnifier and a strong light.

I have the butterfly myself, but it hardly works for me (maybe humidity, heat, combo?)

The dust aid is my last resort by the way, unless it leaves goo, like as it happened to Jaap. Also, please notice that dust aid stamp is considered a dry clean solution as opposed to swabs and isopropyl liquid.

Obviously, a solution for something like what happened to Jaap would be to inspect the surface of the stamp, but we need dust aid to tell why that happened.

 

 

Jaap, thank you for your reply

 

Diogenis, thanks for the advice and for your information.

You're right: dust and sensor - lens are almost enemies

 

The problem is that dust are everywhere and any time.

As Jaap dust creeps in and has damaged its sensor

The Green Clean vacuum solution may be better than others but it does not prevent some return of dust during the operation.

 

I agree it is difficult: what is the ideal technique ?

Diogenis, i agree with you that we must go " very slowly and carefully " with the swab system

It is for this reason that I rarely change lenses on my two M

Regards

Henry

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There is a lot in what Doc Henry says about not changing lenses. I can manage on trips for pretty much everything except indoors work, with my 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar. In reality, I could manage perfectly well with a Bi-Elmar of 28-50 as my feet could usually compensate for the missing 35mm. If Leica did a Bi-Elmar, how small could they make it and still have an f2.8 speed? A lens does not have to be big to be fast. I know how tiny the Zeiss Opton Sonnar 50/1.5 is when I am using it on an M body (usually my M4 with Rollei B&W film). There are often times I want to go out just with a camera, no bag, no extra lenses, no flash, no filters, no cleaning gubbins.

 

I am beginning to come to the conclusion I have too many underused Leica lenses, taking up shelf space. I don't mind about the older and Visoflex ones, as they did not cost a lot and are needed for specialist occasions. For 95%+ of the rest of the time, my M9 has either the Tri-Elmar or 35 ASPH Summilux on it about 50/50. When I got my M8 a few years ago, I was always changing lenses. I am not convinced my photography improved for doing it and I certainly was always having to clean the sensor.

 

Wilson

[dpattinson]

Honestly, I think that the kind of dust that manages to float in after you've vacuumed and swabbed the sensor is very unlikely to be visible on your images.

 

The stuff that I've noticed on images has been visible to the eye when looking at the sensor and certainly wasn't the kind of dust that hangs in the air.

 

So I think that practically, the fact that some dust will inevitably be on the sensor immediately after cleaning isn't really going to result in image deficiencies and can comfortably be ignored.

 

For the most part, spotting in PS is a very minor chore compared to spotting prints - so the worst case isn't even all that bad.

[dpattinson]

While we are talking cleaning, has anyone tried this dust vacuum Digital camera sensor cleaning ? I would love it if someone else has been the guinea pig on this. I have found the Visible Dust Arctic Butterfly and Rocket to be some use in getting sensor dust off but far from perfect and I am sure the Rocket really just blows the dust into corners in the chamber, from where it will re-settle on the sensor. I feel it is important to get as much dust off as possible, prior to wet cleaning.

 

Wilson

 

I have that system (greenclean) and it works fine for me - although I generally have had to wet clean the sensor as well after vacuuming.

 

One problem is that you can't really take compressed air cans on aircraft - so it's not a great travelling kit.

[diogenis]

Me too, I believe that only one good lens is needed and that should be the new summilux 35mm. But if one has 28 and 50 like I do, then it's fine I can do without it for now.

Now this is one thing.

It is quite the opposite for dust to force me to change lenses. This I would never tolerate. We should use the camera in any way we like, and when the time comes, clean that sensor from dirt.

 

As dpattinson suggests, carrying pressurized cans in airplanes can generate fuss. But that does not mean that this product is not good: on the contrary, vacuuming will eventually result to less need for dry/wet sensor cleaning.

 

Soon, I will run some tests with the dustaid on a IR filter, and maybe wait for an answer from them as well to Jaap's letter.

I still am convinced into dust lifting over dust sweeping practice, which is actually how Leica is also cleaning its sensors.

 

Jaap, when used the stamp transferred some goo over to his sensor. Why is that? Can I do it as well? As for it lifting the IR glass, as far as I remember from that video in Leica, the Pentax's solution uses even more sticking power.

[jaapv]

I will be sending the kit back to Dust-Aid at their request.

[Doc Henry]

There is a lot in what Doc Henry says about not changing lenses. I can manage on trips for pretty much everything except indoors work, with my 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar. In reality, I could manage perfectly well with a Bi-Elmar of 28-50 as my feet could usually compensate for the missing 35mm. If Leica did a Bi-Elmar, how small could they make it and still have an f2.8 speed? A lens does not have to be big to be fast. I know how tiny the Zeiss Opton Sonnar 50/1.5 is when I am using it on an M body (usually my M4 with Rollei B&W film). There are often times I want to go out just with a camera, no bag, no extra lenses, no flash, no filters, no cleaning gubbins.

 

I am beginning to come to the conclusion I have too many underused Leica lenses, taking up shelf space. I don't mind about the older and Visoflex ones, as they did not cost a lot and are needed for specialist occasions. For 95%+ of the rest of the time, my M9 has either the Tri-Elmar or 35 ASPH Summilux on it about 50/50. When I got my M8 a few years ago, I was always changing lenses. I am not convinced my photography improved for doing it and I certainly was always having to clean the sensor.

 

Wilson

 

Wilson,

It is true that one of the solutions is to mount a Tri Elmar on the camera even if the brightness is lower compared to a Summilux in example.

A TriElmar costs 4620 Euros and still have only 3 focal lengths 16 to 18 - 21mm

But I still say that each camera's with his lens

I know that the solution is more costly than having one camera with interchangeable lens.

I have an R8 with a Elmar 35-70mm and I find really fine

I rarely change my lens (I have a R90mm and R135mm)

 

I think that Jaap changes quite often its optical particularly for his photographs of animals with tele (and with his Visoflex)

 

I have my M8 for almost one year and have already cleaned three times with 1500 releases,with Eclipse and swab system

Henry

[wlaidlaw]

Wilson,

It is true that one of the solutions is to mount a Tri Elmar on the camera even if the brightness is lower compared to a Summilux in example.

A TriElmar costs 4620 Euros and still have only 3 focal lengths 16 to 18 - 21mm

But I still say that each camera's with his lens

I know that the solution is more costly than having one camera with interchangeable lens.

I have an R8 with a Elmar 35-70mm and I find really fine

I rarely change my lens (I have a R90mm and R135mm)

 

I think that Jaap changes quite often its optical particularly for his photographs of animals with tele (and with his Visoflex)

 

I have my M8 for almost one year and have already cleaned three times with 1500 releases,with Eclipse and swab system

Henry

 

Henry,

 

I was not thinking of the WATE (16-18-21), which I also have but rarely seem to use, but the out of production MATE (28-35-50). Out of production why?????. You are doing well only having to clean three times in the first 1500 shots. My M8 was flinging off oil dots furiously for the first 3,000 releases. The M9 has been a lot better.

 

Wilson

[schnapshot]

This matches my experience too - I've been using these products since early days with the Canon 1D mk2 and 20D through to M9 and have had no problems - EVER.

 

Strongly recommend.

 

 

Which products of visible dusts are recommended from the users in the forum by personal experience?

 

Thank you very much in advance!

[01af]

... but the out-of-production MATE (28-35-50). Out of production why?

One of the glass suppliers has stopped making a very special kind of glass required to make the Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 mm Asph—dunno why ... maybe due to environmental regulations or economical constraints. Leica found themselves unable to replace that glass with another kind and keep the lens' size, performance, and price. So the discontinuation of that glass forced them to stop the MATE's production. That's what I've been told ...

[jaapv]

oAnd the lens was so complicated to build that the profit per lens was minimal if not a loss. Another consideration was that it was duew for a recomputation, which would have made it (too?) exep

[jaapv]

Drat those smartphones_too expensive.

[wlaidlaw]

oAnd the lens was so complicated to build that the profit per lens was minimal if not a loss. Another consideration was that it was duew for a recomputation, which would have made it (too?) exep

 

Jaap,

 

Surely those same arguments and the one about special glass equally applied to the Noctilux but because it is a "Halo" product, they went ahead anyway and came out with a new one. I am certain that if the lens gurus in Solms really got their huge collective brains in gear, a new MATE could be forthcoming within a year. I am equally certain that it is within the abilities of Schott to produce any glass that Leica could require. I don't think that "fings ain't wot ther used ter be" applies in the exotic glass world today. I think it is will/desire not ability/technology that means we don't have a MATE 3 today.

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[chris_tribble]

Which products of visible dusts are recommended from the users in the forum by personal experience?

 

Thank you very much in advance!

 

I use the Arctic Butterfly brushes + the range of Sensor Brushes that they've produced with excellent results. I also HIGHLY recommend the Sensor Loupe. I've also used the different Sensor Swabs + fluids that Visible Dust offers (but only needed to do this on very rare occasions). For my purposes, the dry brush system (with the brushes charged either by rapid rotation or the use of canned air) has been fully sufficient. My cameras have been used every where from Namibia through to the Gobi Desert and in high humidity environments like Sri Lanka. Dust on the sensor has just not been a problem.

[wlaidlaw]

I agree with all that Chris says. My only reservation on Visible Dust products is their two two fluids, Sensor Clean and Smear Away. I have had poor results from both on M8/9. I went over to them because of issues flying to and from the USA with Eclipse E2, even in hold luggage. I now put E2 in a small Visible Dust bottle and that seems to fool them every time.

 

Wilson