SLR changing to DSLR? read this first!

Hi codrog, welcome to the dust debacle ;-)

I think (hope) that bridge cameras have some kind of air filtering system to stop raw or unfiltered external dust ridden air from getting to the innards. I say this because firstly, the lens on a bridge camera, as far as I am aware cannot be removed this side of the manufacturers service centre, and secondly, the sensor in a bridge camera is much smaller, so at a given resolution, say a DSLR and a Bridge camera, both at 12Mp, the scale of an idividual particle of dust would be approx 1/3 bigger, so what is a small out of focus dot on a DSLR (infuriating as that is) becomes a major problem on a Bridge.

There is also the post processing issue, where Jpeg images cannot be as extensively worked as can a RAW (NEF in my case) file in ACR or Photoshop, but that's a minor issue compared to the dust one.

On my way to the DSLR world I owned a Canon SX10-is for over a year, and I have to say, never found any issue with dust on any image. In fact I still have the images on my computer and have gone through a few shot at f16 or smaller and cannot find any signs of dust, so, although I am only expressing a view, not a fact, I would be astonished if the bridge cameras did not have some filtering system to prevent dust ever getting into the sensor.

If anyone else knows better, I bow to their superior knowledge.

Ross.

Ross,
Thanks for your reply - it all makes good sense. Good luck with your camera.

codrog: You have a very probable point. It's more than very probable that a bridge with an enormous zoom is not the way to go if you want more from your photography than just the people, places and events in your life. To explore photography as an activity in its own right you should start with an Advanced Compact, a Compact System Camera, CSC, or a Digital Single Lens Reflex, DSLR. Of those three, personally I would eliminate the CSC, of which I have just bought one... At times it is better to do as I say, not as I do, and this is one of those times.

Nearly all professionals using digital cameras do nearly all of their work with a DSLR, but that doesn't mean other proposals should be ignored. What is your budget, what subjects would motivate you the most when you have your camera? Now stand by for a flood of advice. I'll keep my advice on the back burner for a while... To get the best out of advice you receive here or anywhere, wait before deciding; there could be a last minute suggestion for THE camera that would suit you.

If you still only want a "diary" camera, the best deal around is the Panasonic TZ8, available here in silver:

Panasonic Lumix TZ8 Digital Camera - Silver (12.1MP, 12x Optical Zoom) 2.7 inch LCD

Here in black:

Panasonic Lumix TZ8 Digital Camera - Black (12.1MP, 12x Optical Zoom) 2.7 inch LCD

Possibly elsewhere at lower prices.

The TZ8 represents extraordinary value for money.

Yep - like others here, I've often wondered why on earth a piece of optical glass just behind the lens mount seems to be beyond every manufacturer of expensive dslrs. Fixed lens cameras are sealed of course - that their more expensive cousins aren't makes me wonder about planned obsolescence.

Hi Pickwick,
I'm guessing that there is very little clearance between the rear of the lens and the mirror, as it flicks up and down. Twas ever thus in film days and still is. Therefore you would need to redesign every lens with greater retrofocus and some which at present do not need it would need it.
I have read about people getting dust in compacts by the way - but whether they have improved since I don't know.

Dust does get into compacts and bridge cameras - Just not as much of it. It takes longer to notice any effects of stray dust on your pics.
On the downside of course, once it's in there it's in there for good. Overall I'd still rather be able to remove the lens.

Good point about mirror and lens clearance. But - given the will - I don't think the problem should be insurmountable for manufacturers of sophisticated products like these.

Though I've had SLRs since there were such things to be had, I'm new to dSLRs - only had my own (Canon 600D) about 6 months, and no trouble so far along these lines (touches wood nervously). I bought Canon because I already had EOS lenses from the Canon film SLR system I used for 20 years - though being new to dSLRs I didn't appreciate the inherent problems of changing lenses.

Didn't have any dust problems whatever with previous compact digitals - an early Fuji and two later Canons, but I'm pretty careful with my cameras.

@X...

That Lunix TZ8 you mention is a VERY nice little camera - I was handling one a few weeks ago and might have been seriously tempted if the shop had been able to come anywhere near the current Amazon price.

Hi Pickwick,
Of course fitting an in camera dust barrier is not insurmountable (I don't recall suggesting it would be) - I'm thinking it would just mean redesigning all the lenses and camera bodies and probably changing the lens mount to get enough room in the throat of the mount to fit in the dust screen. All your existing kit, in fact the entire system, would be obsolete. The cost would have to be borne by someone too. <Edit: but not if you use a plastic film, assuming it is optically OK> Is any manufacturer likely to do that? And there would be 2 additional glass/air surfaces to degrade the light.

It would be more practical on an EVIL because there is no mirror to worry about.

there is a product called the dust shield by visible dust. unfortunately only available for the canon 5d, and 5d mk 2 at the moment. although their website states that other versions may be released. looks like the answer to a lot of peoples problems.

Interesting evan. Seen this Vid? :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxmsIaequ8A&NR=1
It's a thin plastic film - which gets over the problem of getting in the way of the rear of the lens or front of the mirror.

sorry, its the dust aid dust shield.

Hi Pickwick,
Look what I found out:
"The Sigma SD9, SD10, SD14 and the upcoming Sigma SD15 have a built in filter covering the cavity like this product, so Sigma got the concept right first! It works wonderfully and also is the IR filter, so you can take the glass filter off that covers the lens cavity and then you have an IR camera! This product is a terrific idea for those poor unfortunates who haven't discovered Sigma DSLR cameras." Now that seems like Sigma are on your wavelength. A good idea.

Dr Austin, thanks for your latest post, I looked at the Sigman SD10 and sure enough, it has exactlly the kind of thing I was suggesting Nikon requires (and Canon et al). The glass is just inside the camera's lens mounting ring, and miles away from the (dust free) sensor, a'la porthole style. Wonderful. So, it CAN be done!

Come on Nikon, what are you playing at!

PS still waiting for the postman, my cleaning swabs should be here sometime this morning!

OK, the evil moment arrived, I have done the sensor clean.
The cleaning pads and fluid were individually sealed in clean room conditions so before you start, choose a non dusty area (relatively speaking) to work in. A non carpeted laminate floored area is as good as any, and close the door and give family strict orders to ignore the phone and leave you in peace for 20 mins.

The cleaning paddle, or wand, was a toothbrush kind of handle with a thin rectangular plastic 'business end'. Around the end was wrapped a dust free fabric of some kind. In the kit was a small dropper of liquid. The instructions tell you to use (on 1.6x sensors) two to three drops of the fluid, the graphic shows one near each corner and one centrally, which I did.

Before this I prepped the camera, first by entering sensor cleaning mode, flipping the mirror for cleaning, and using the blower one last time to remove (ha ha) any dust that would give up the fight.

Next I closed the camera again, got it ready to re-activate the cleaning mode so that I was only one button away from starting. I had very bright light to work with, then I impregnated the cleaning pad with the fluid, hit the button on the camera and proceeded thus: the paddle size was designed for moving across the longer edge of the sensor, so I placed it right into the left hand corner, tilted the handle about 30 degrees to the right, and with a firm pressure (the anti aliasing filter is strong glass, no need to worry) dragged the pad across the sensor, as I approached the right hand edge, I had to straighten the handle to vertical as the lens mount is in the way. As per instructions I removed the pad, turned it 180 degrees to use the reverse side, and started on the same left hand edge.

Once swiped, I removed the pad and hit the on/off switch to close the camera, as quickly as possible.

Result: Mixed... the original villian in the bottom left corner had gone, but, I had gained three tiny specs in the diagonally opposite corner. This was testing on a white ceiling at f27.

I tried blowing the sensor with the Giottos Rocket blower and re tested - NO EFFECT!

I then repeated the wet wipe cleaning procedure as above, using a new pad. They are one time only use products, do NOT try to re-use one.

Upon re-testing, brilliant! completely clean sensor, no dust whatsoever, and I seem to have got away without damaging the anti aliasing filter atop the sensor. No sign of trouble at high magnification.

I have 8 pads left, I will restock shortly and will never go overseas without these on board again.

All's well that ends well, but, I have now invalidated the warranty, and, going back to my original post, the design IS wrong, it just is! No way should this D5100 be prone to dust penetration so easily. I dread to think that the D4 and the D800 cost thousands and have the same setup with respect to sensor, mirror, dust etc.

Whew! thanks to all who have contributed to the discussion, very pleased at the outcome, and have overcome my nervousness to delve into the innards of the camera - my natural tendency was never to go near the sensor, or the mirror, based on my film SLR experience.

Ross.

Hi Ross,
Thanks for the account and well done.

Nice one!

Clean room conditions? No need. Just put the whole plot and your hands inside a big clear plastic bag and do it in there. Also works well for disassembling fiddly components. If something pings off it'll be inside the bag and not in some dark corner of the floor. :-)

you probably have not voided your warranty. i contacted nikon a while back and the reply was that any damage due to sensor cleaning was chargeable, no mention of voiding it. incidentally at one time nikon had a swab type cleaning kit on the market. there was a video, (still on you tube where it shows someone cleaning a d100).

Graham, yes, it's a thought, but then, a plastic bag may have some dust present, anything in the environment will be suspect - plus, this is fiddly work and you really do need exceptional sighting of the sensor, wouldnt like to try doing it through a bag to be honest, it was worrying enough as it was.

Evan, yes, you are probably right in that the warranty on the sensor would be void, but on the rest of the camera, probably not. Unfortunately, from what I've read elsewhere, it seems the sensor is pretty much going to be the cost of a new camera, so damage to it is a very expensive and serious issue. I wouldnt recommend anyone to try this cleaning method, that is a matter for you, your experience, and your ability. I've worked as a locksmith for five years, in the past, so I am reasonably sensitive with handling equipment which can do more harm than good etc.

Regarding your last point, that is the stinger for me, I was aware that Nikon, IN JAPAN, still sell a sensor wet cleaning kit like the one I used today - yet in the UK and many other countries, they'll reject warranty IF you do this. Very odd - if they made a camera more impervious to dust, rather than concentrating on a vibrating sensor to shake it off, I think we would all be a tad happier with them - or am I being grumpy?

Regards & thanks both,

Ross

My blood-pressure soared just reading that. Well done, but not for everybody and certainly not for numpties like me. My Olympus bias has fortunately saved me from that problem, but I did not have a clue what I was avoiding!

An Arctic Butterfly is a better solution than wet cleaning for most users. The Arctic Butterfly is a device which electrically charges a brush which you then move over the sensor (not on the sensor). It lifts off all of the dust, and doesn't generally add additional blotches. I've been shooting DSLRs since the D100 in 2001, and have only ever had to resort to wet cleaning in extreme circumstances once the Arctic Butterfly became available. You have to try wet cleaning a few times before you ever get it right - until then you get (as noted above) blotches back for the blotches you get rid of.

Hi Martin, I read around this sensor cleaning business about a week into the situation where one speck of dust proved impossible to move by blasting with air. I even tried, very carefully, a thin pvc tube connected to a 2000w vaccum cleaner, air gaps sealed with gaffer tape, camera on a heavy ball head topped heavy tripod, good light, and got the end of the tube 6mm away from the sensor surface. Even that failed, and I think there are two categories of dust trapping going on. One kind is probably organic, someone suggested pollen early on in this thread. I think they were probably right. Pollen is designed, by nature, to 'hold on' to whatever it encounters as a part of it's mission in life. If you get a pollen grain on a sensor, it has probably glued itself, as much as it can, to that sensor surface. The second category is static charged dust of the opposite polarity to the sensor. A bit like a balloon rubbed on a woolen sweater will then attract people's hair veritally if you hold the balloon above their head, or, the balloon will stick to a wall, vertically, with the charge generated. In either case, the hold the dust has with the sensor is, for it's given size, enormous, a bit like the old saying, an ant can carry five times it's own weight!

Wet cleaning is the only method that I trusted to use to do this job, after all that reading around, I did find a fair few mentioning the Arctic Brush causing damage to sensors due to the movement. It could have been inept users, a faulty brush, a dirty brush, who knows?

With the one-time wet system, the pads are made in clean room conditions and packed individually in sterile bags. The fluid is capped and very pure (the book I mentioned earlier stresses the importance of using the right fluid) and the important thing is, NOT to over-wet the tip of the pad. Three drops is the absolute maximum. Any residual (I have found none) would be minimal, or, as in my case, non-existant.

The fact that the swabs are ONE TIME only, means that you run them along the sensor in one direction, with an even, firm but not too hard pressure, after which, the side making contact is considered 'dirty'. When that wipe is completed, right into the edge of the sensor, the swab is lifted clear, rotated so that the other, clean edge, is facing the sensor, and the wipe is repeated, in an identical fashion. The swab then goes into the bin immediately!!!

Cleaning your own sensor is not for the faint hearted, the inept, the heavy handed, or the impatient. It brings risk, and I was frankly quite distressed at having to attempt it, even though my own background involved using sensitive materials on occassions.

Quite where this leaves us, as to cleaning method, will remain debatable. What does not remain debatable is this...

If Nikon, Canon and the like insist on making products with inherent vulnerability to dust contamination on the sensors, then, they should have a cheap or no cost cleaning service, pay for the postage only kind of thing, with a fast turnaround. After all, we pay many hundreds, if not thousands, for these electronic boxes. At major events, eg a Grands Prix, Nikon and most others actuallly have a booth on site where photographers can not only get sensors cleaned, but relatively minor repairs to lenses and cameras can be effected. The rest of us, it would seem, can go whistle.

Takes me back to my discussion opening, the design is wrong, the sensor should be in a sealed dust free chamber with filtering seals to prevent all dust entering and landing on it. Failing that, if they insist on leaving it vulnerable to the environment when the poor photographer changes a lens (which is what a DSLR is meant for) they should have a no cost or very low cost cleaning service, a prompt one too! One Sony owner (see earlier postings) told us the charge for cleaning was £100! if that is not disgraceful, nothing is.

In summary, thanks for your reference to the Arctic Butterfly, I did see it while researching cleaning methods, but some of the user's disaster stories put me completely off the idea of risking it. By saying that, I concede 100% that ANY cleaning method is risky, and Nikon make it worse by forcing you to invalidate your sensor warranty IF you do it.

This is shameful, and needs to be adressed urgently. Something so basic as changing a lens should not be something that we need to worry about. Not ever!

Thanks Martin, and regards,

Ross

Ross, far more sensors are damaged by bad wet cleaning than by an Arctic Butterfly. Visible Dust, the company that makes the Butterfly, also supply wet swabs. If you are using the Butterfly correctly, you do not touch the sensor at all.

If you want to get your camera cleaned by Nikon at events, you have to be a member of Nikon Professional Service. This is free to join, but you have to be a professional photographer owning two or more Nikon Pro Bodies (D3, D4, D300, D700, D800) and you have to prove that you are a working professional. That said, I had a couple of cameras cleaned by NPS and they were no better at it than doing it oneself.

I've used both wet cleaning and the Butterfly, and would definitely recommend the Butterfly as the first line of cleaning. Try it - the results are remarkable.

By the way, where does it say that you invalidate your Nikon warranty by cleaning?

from what i have learned via research on the net, the arctic butterfly suffers from poor quality control. i have read horror stories about the spinning brush flying off into the camera. it is rather overpriced too.

You're not supposed to have the spinning while it's anywhere near the camera. The spinning charges it. You disconnect the brush from the spinning bit. If people are having trouble that way they need to read the instructions!