Sunday, July 31, 2005

The danger of cleaning your digital SLR sensor

One of the problems with a digital SLR camera which uses interchangeable lenses, such as my Canon 300D, is that dust can build up on the sensor. The first time this happened, the camera was still under warranty, so I sent it back to Canon Canada for cleaning. They did a reasonable job, but it took 6 weeks for them to send it back.

Since then there have been a number of cleaning kits released onto the market, one of the ones that has received the most praise from professional photographers is the Sensor cleaning system from Visible Dust of Edmonton. After reading a number of reviews (e.g. #1, #2, #3) about the Sensor Brush, Sensor Clean and Chamber Clean products, I decided to purchase all three products from a local retailer here in Vancouver.

After reviewing the instructions and sample videos on the Visible Dust website, I set up a workspace on the dining room table and set to work.

Before attempting to clean the sensor I took an image of the sensor before cleaning, which is shown below. To do this you take an image at the highest f-number you can of a uniform subject that's out of focus. I used a sheet of white paper and took the images with a Canon 100 mm macro lens at f32. The dust appears as the dark spots all over the image.


Original state of the sensor

After cleaning using the Sensor Brush 3 times, the treatment has removed a lot of the dust, but some appeared to be persistent. Remember that the dust is the small dark spots, not the hazy background, which is the result of the extreme adjustment of the levels in the image.


After cleaning with the Sensor Brush (x3)

So I decided to use the Sensor Clean option, which consists of a sterile polyester tipped swab and a proprietary cleaning solution supplied by Visible Dust. I followed the instructions to the letter, 2 drops of the liquid onto the swab then wipe the sensor and then using three more dry swabs clean off the entire area.

As you can see from the next image, it did remove a number of the persistent dust spots from the sensor. But notice the small dark line appearing on the left hand side of the image.


After cleaning with Sensor Clean

After seeing this dark spot appear, I once again examined the sensor and noticed that the line appeared to be between the sensor and the filter that sits on top of it. Because you are not actually cleaning the CCD sensor directly, there is an infra-red filter that is mounted on top of the CCD - this is where the dust accumulates.


Another shot of the sensor 30 minutes after the previous image

Taking another shot 30 minutes later, it was becoming obvious what had happened. A small amount of the sensor clean solution had run down between the CCD sensor and the infra-red filter which sits on top of it. Presumably, the filter wasn't completely sealed fully around its edges, allowing the liquid to penetrate under the filter. This last image shows the full extent of the damage.

Further images show the dark area has stopped growing and presumably the liquid has dried up. Not without leaving a large and disfiguring stain on the sensor.

Now this isn't going to be easy to resolve. In order to clean this stain away would require removing the infra-red filter from on top of the CCD and cleaning the CCD directly. This isn't something that I feel comfortable or qualified to do, the camera will be sent off to Canon to see if they can salvage it.

So my conclusion from this experience is that you need to be very careful about using any liquid cleaners on the CCD sensor of a digital SLR camera. Obviously there is a real danger of liquid creeping under the IR filter and causing what appears at the moment to be permanent damage.

I have also sent off a note to Visible Dust and will post any feedback I get from them.

UPDATE:

Below is a copy of the correspondence with Dr Degan of Visible Dust over this issue. I have removed e-mail addresses of individuals, but everything else is verbatim from the conversation. I will update as new responses are received.
--------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 05 23:27:49 +0000
From: Darryl Luscombe
To: tech@visibledust.com, wanda@visibledust.com, info@visibledust.com
Subject: A problem using the Sensor Cleaning solution
I wanted to let you know that I have experienced a major problem with
using the sensor cleaning solution. It appears that a small amount of
the solution wicked down under the IR filter and spread between it and
the CCD sensor. I didn't read anywhere that this could be a problem with
using the Sensor Clean system, and would suggest that you may want to
advise people of the danger of using liquids to clean their sensors -
even when following you directions to the letter.
Full details are on posted my blog here:
http://dazza101.blogspot.com/05/07/danger-of-cleaning-your-digital-slr.html
Darryl Luscombe
Vancouver, BC
-----------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 05 17:59:46 -0600
From: Visible Dust
Reply-To: support@visibledust.com
To: Darryl Luscombe
Subject: Re: A problem using the Sensor Cleaning solution
Hello Darryl
First of all, one has to make sure the conclusion that person is drawing
from his experience is the right one. I suggest to clean that smear using
another solution of ours which either could be smear away or chamber clean
and applied on the sensor. They are more powerfull in removing the smear
caused by any method from the sensor.
One has to be really very careful in reaching conclusion with any one single
person experience and generalizing it. First of all, assume that conclusion
is correct and there is a gap, this is considered to be a DEFECT and the camera
should be taken back to canon for repair. *There should not be any gap in sealing*
as using even the bulb blower will force some dust underneath the cover glass.
So you are reaching a conclusion based on a defective sensor .
Just think for a second, if you have double layer window for insulation,
what happens if there is any gap, mositure will accumulate and the glass
indow becomes opaque and usless to see through. The same thing happens if
there is any gap between the sealing, the mositure and condensation will
appera under the cover glass if you start using your camera in winter time
eventually becomes useless, IS IT THE FAULT with sensor clean. of course
NOT. as a metter of fact one the advantages of sensor clean is that contrary
to methanol based cleaning solution that are GLUE REMOVER and can remove the
sealing , sensor clean is not. therefore this is considered to be one of the
advantages that is posted in our website.
So my conclusion is that first try to remove the smear first using other
solutions such as smear away as the sensor clean can not remove the smear,
once it was decided that this is due to the hole in sealing, this is
considered to be a defective sensor and camera should be taken to
manufacturer period. Even without cleanign you will have problem with this
kind of defect in future.
thanks technical Dr. Degan
-- 
Thank you for choosing Visible Dust to clean your sensor!
Visible Dust
P-780-455-1082
http://www.VisibleDust.com

----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 00:20:06 +0000
From: Darryl Luscombe
To: support@visibledust.com
Subject: Re: A problem using the Sensor Cleaning solution
Dear Dr Degan,

Thanks for the prompt response.
However, I do not believe I am jumping to conclusions in my assessment
of what happened. The smear is not on top of the IR filter, and
continued to grow over a period of 30 minutes. This was obvious from
viewing the surface of the sensor in reflected light and the images I captured.
Also, I don't understand your contention that this is a smear on the
surface of the filter. The only liquid to touch the surface was Sensor
Clean and it supposedly is residue free and is not a "glue remover". So
I don't understand, by your own reasoning where this smear would have
come from, especially as it grew in a very liquid like fashion over the
course of 30 minutes. If it was a smear on the surface, the sensor clean
would have removed it, as it was still growing. (not static)
I agree that this may be due to a pinhole in the seal around the sensor,
but as you didn't warn that this could be a potential problem, I think
it is a real issue that should be acknowledged.
After all, Canon only recommends the use of a blower for cleaning the
sensor (or returning it to Canon). Perhaps their rationale for not
recommending third party solutions such as yours is that there is a
danger of liquid wicking down under the filter from small pinholes in
the seal. Which to my mind can't necessarily be considered a "defect" if
a liquid seal was never a design consideration in the first place, but a
dust seal may have been.
I have to say that I am disappointed by your response to this issue. I
also wish to point out that I haven't only mentioned Sensor Clean on my
blog, but rather that, "...my conclusion from this experience is that
you need to be very careful about using any liquid cleaners on the CCD
sensor of a digital SLR camera. Obviously there is a real danger of
liquid creeping under the IR filter and causing what appears at the
moment to be permanent damage."
Darryl

-----------------------------------------------------------
From: Visible Dust
Reply-To: support@visibledust.com
To: Darryl Luscombe
Subject: Re: A problem using the Sensor Cleaning solution
Hello Darryl
There should not be any hole in the sealing. The sealing should be tight and
liquid proof. This is manufacturer's problem and should be repaired by them.
canon refers a lot of customer to us, as a matter of fact canon headquarter
in Netherland( Europe) is one of the centers that we get a lot of referral from.
My suggestion is take your camera to canon, DO NOT DRAW YOUR CONCLUSION, ask
them simply to clean it, what answer they can come up with, the sealing is
broken, this is not your fault, you discovered it. after all this is not
scratch. Broken sealing is considered to be a camera defect and should be
repaired by canon.
Even if you do not use any liquid, dust will eventually find its way under
the glass . If liquid can get under the glass so the moisture and so the
condensation and so the change in air pressure during the flight.

There should be no way liquid to get under the glass even if you immerse the
sensor in liquid , If it does therefore, the sensor is defective. The change
in air pressure will take dust under the glass too as you travel with the
camera in airplane. So the sensor should be sealed and tight.
thanks technical Dr. Degan

---------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:06:26 +0000
From: Darryl Luscombe
To: support@visibledust.com, wanda@visibledust.com,
tech@visibledust.com, info@visibledust.com
Subject: Re: A problem using the Sensor Cleaning solution
G'day Dr Degan,
Sending my camera to Canon is something that I intend to do, but as it
is out of Warranty, any repairs won't be covered by Canon. In fact, such
repairs can be a major issue, as the cost of repairing or replacing a
CCD sensor, is not simple and may not be economic compared to the cost
of a replacement camera.
Despite your rationale for what has occurred, I would strongly suggest
that this issue is something that you should acknowledge on your website
and promotional literature. Even if your contention is that this is due
to a manufacturing defect (which I don't necessarily agree to), then
many of your customers may experience a similar problem using sensor clean.
I do not consider it acceptable behaviour for a company to simply
dismiss this potential problem of the use of their products as "someone
else's fault". I don't understand how you can be so certain that the
sealing should be "liquid proof". I have never seen anything from Canon
that would indicate that this is the case, or something that they
guarantee.
It appears that you are the person making assumptions here. I would
strongly suggest that you may need to warn people about the potential
consequences of using liquid cleaners on their DSLR cameras and the
possible damage that can ensue.
Darryl
------------------------------------------------

[No response so far...]
Update 21 October 2005

38 Comments:

Anonymous Allen George said...

The following is my OPINION only:

Yeah - looks like he's trying to give you the runaround. Although I bought a VB product, it's not an experience I'd recommend. To me it seems like a carefully chosen paintbrush that they've aggressively marked up. Besides something about the email says "questionable marketing". Maybe it's the caps.

And all this because no one outside of Olympus thinks that sensor dust is a problem...

2005-08-01, 4:13 AM  
Anonymous Dan said...

I've always been suspicious of Visible Dust due to their promotional materials (they don’t make a lot of sense) and the very high cost of the brush.

Petteri's Pontifications has a good article on the subject. I've tried it myself with a $3 brush from a crafts store and it works flawlessly.

As to liquids, I personally would not want to use any liquid that could sit on the sensor. Your experience sums up my concerns as to why. Before I got the brush I used a hand-made swab and Eclipse fluid. The benefit to this is that it evaporates immediately however, it is menthol based. According to VisibleDust that’s bad but I don’t believe anything they have to say. It very well could be an issue but without knowing more specifics as to the construction of my camera (also a 300D) I can’t say for sure. I haven’t had any issues to date after regular cleaning. I’ve heard more than once that Canon and others simply use a swab and menthol-based cleaner for cleaning sensors anyway.

The responses you have gotten are a plain cop-out.

2005-08-01, 8:52 AM  
Anonymous Patti said...

Just fyi: It's methanol (aka methyl alcohol) not menthol.

2005-08-01, 9:17 AM  
Anonymous Steven Kinberg said...

I think, although slightly defensive in tone, VD's response is on target. Thousands of us have used liquid cleaners on our sensors without ever running in to a problem (and I have to say the image of your original sensor shows a very, very dusty sensor).

You have run in to a problem in using one of these products. Instead of just repeating the same words over to VD, did you take their advice and ask Canon whether this is a defect and whether the design is meant to withstand liquid as well as dust? VD's point about needing to stop condensation from getting below the filter and to the sensor (therefore requiring that it block liquid) seems to make a lot of sense.

Bottom line, you may have a defective camera. If so, I don't agree that every maker of sensor cleaning products needs to give warnings about what might happen if one has a defective camera. Had they, I would have probably been scared away from using products that have kept by 1ds and 1dsmkII sensors spotless without any problems.

As to the VD sensor brush, I highly recommend it. As all reviews attest, they work brilliantly. Worth every penny -- in fact for what they do, a great bargain.

Will be much more interested when you come back to us with your letter to Canon and their response.

Best, Steven

2005-08-03, 11:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't believe that a company would treat one of its customers so badly, giving half baked ranting answers like that. perhaps the VD guy should have taken his mediaction before responding. i think I will look for an alternative product for cleaning.

2005-08-03, 12:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

scs

2005-08-04, 2:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any update from Canon on the repair?

2005-08-05, 1:43 AM  
Blogger Daz said...

Canon won't speculate on cause or potential costs until they examine the camera. Based on my past experience it will probably take a week or two before they respond (they seem to have a substantial backlog of work at their Calgary workshops). So its just a matter of waiting until they have examined the camera and assessed the damage.

In the meantime, Visible Dust have gone very quiet and haven't replied to my last e-mail...

2005-08-05, 7:09 AM  
Anonymous Steven Kinberg said...

Daz, what is left for them to say to you? Looks like they've given you a reasonable and quite thorough explanation several times now and just been played with for it. So what possible reason is there not to "go silent."

You're obviously looking for something that they have wisely -- for the rest of us -- decided they can't give you. Leave them be until you hear back from Canon, and then you may have something new worth saying.

Best, Steven

2005-08-05, 9:06 AM  
Blogger Daz said...

G'day Steven,

I will, of course, be contacting VD when I hear back from Canon.

I have re-read the responses from Dr Degan of Visible Dust several times and I fail to see anything considered, reasonable or even rational about them.

I see a series of responses that seems much more concerned about protecting a company's reputation and deflecting responsibility for its products.

cheers,
darryl

2005-08-05, 11:03 AM  
Anonymous Steven Kinberg said...

Daz, I would suggest a more objective read.

What I see them saying to you is:

1. Canon cameras sensors are sealed for liquid and dust.

2. If your camera meets these criteria, using a liquid cleaners (as instructed) does no harm. Thousands of us use these products, and your experience is the first time I've read of such a thing happening.

3. To the extent that your sensor was defective, so that a liquid based sensor cleaner would cause the problem you have documented, that's not their product's fault.

3. For those of us with non-defective camera sensors, VD products, and all other liquid cleaners work perfectly.

4 And what they were too cautious to say, so let me:

4a. the original image of the sensor you provided shows us an absolutely filthy sensor. I could not imagine allowing a camera I owned to reach such a state. It strongly suggests that the real problem is likely the way you maintain your camera. And what types of environmental stresses you have exposed it to.

4b. The condition you have allowed your sensor to get to (clearly not what Canon instructs) raises questions about whether you really did follow the VD instructions any more closely -- so liquid sensor cleaners may be being damned by you and asked to provide warnings to the world for something that is solely a result of your defective camera, combined with likely over use of a product to try and overcome what you had let the camera come too.

That's is at least how I read it.

Best, Steven

2005-08-05, 7:43 PM  
Blogger Daz said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2005-08-06, 2:23 PM  
Blogger Daz said...

Daz, I would suggest a more objective read.

What I see them saying to you is:

1. Canon cameras sensors are sealed for liquid and dust.


Yes, that is what Visible Dust are saying, however this is not anything that CANON says in any of its literature, as I pointed out in one of my responses to Visible Dust. In fact Canon only recommend using a blower brush or returning the camera to Canon for cleaning. They have no information in any of their technical literature or manuals claiming that the sensor & IR-filter are sealed liquid tight. So despite what Visible Dust may claim, this is not something that CANON claims.

2. If your camera meets these criteria, using a liquid cleaners (as instructed) does no harm. Thousands of us use these products, and your experience is the first time I've read of such a thing happening.

I seriously doubt you have personal experience of thousands of people using Sensor Clean, so I would be interested in your source of information about this. I have read many reviews, most of which are positive in regards to the Sensor Brush. But have seen very few comments regarding people who have actually used the Sensor Clean liquid. Just because I am the first to report it, doesn’t mean that this isn’t a problem.


3. To the extent that your sensor was defective, so that a liquid based sensor
cleaner would cause the problem you have documented, that's not their product's fault.


That the senor is “defective” is an assumption that Visible Dust and yourself seem keen to promote. My view is that this remains to be seen. I intend to fully document the damage caused following a detailed assessment by Canon. As to the Sensor Clean liquid itself, Visible Dust does not provide any details of its composition, apart from claiming that it is not methanol based and it is residue free. But given my experience, I would prefer some specific details as to its actual composition. Also, as it does not evaporate as quickly as a methanol based cleaner, this may have allowed greater time for the liquid to seep under the sensor and cause the damage it has done. So I reserve my judgement on the full extent of Visible Dust’s culpability here.

3. For those of us with non-defective camera sensors, VD products, and all other liquid cleaners work perfectly.

Well, if my sensor was not faulty, then this wouldn’t be the case. I suspect now that Visible Dust products are becoming more available at retail stores, there may be further cases of damage reported. I guess only time will tell, but I feel that its important that potential customers are aware of the potential risks associated in using any liquid cleaners on their sensor.

4 And what they were too cautious to say, so let me:

4a. the original image of the sensor you provided shows us an absolutely filthy sensor. I could not imagine allowing a camera I owned to reach such a state. It strongly suggests that the real problem is likely the way you maintain your camera. And what types of environmental stresses you have exposed it to.


4b. The condition you have allowed your sensor to get to (clearly not what Canon instructs) raises questions about whether you really did follow the VD
instructions any more closely -- so liquid sensor cleaners may be being damned
by you and asked to provide warnings to the world for something that is solely a result of your defective camera, combined with likely over use of a product to try and overcome what you had let the camera come too.

That's is at least how I read it.


I have been involved in photography for close to 25 years now. Both with 35mm and medium format gear. I have been shooting digital for only the last 5-6 years.

I maintain my camera gear like it is in new condition. My camera and lenses are inspected and cleaned before/after each session.

I suspect that most people have more dust on their sensor that they know about.

This “filthy” sensor as you describe it only resulted in 3 or 4 dust spots that were easily visible in most photos. It was only after increasing the contrast and stretching the levels in the shot that all the dust is revealed.

I find this suggestion both offensive and irrelevant to the discussion.

I guess if you don’t like what’s being said, then it’s always better to attack the messenger, which is what you appear to have resorted to here.

Just for the record, do you have any association with Visible Dust, its staff or any associated companies? Just wondering...

2005-08-06, 2:39 PM  
Anonymous Steven Kinberg said...

"I guess if you don’t like what’s being said, then it’s always better to attack the messenger, which is what you appear to have resorted to here.

Just for the record, do you have any association with Visible Dust, its staff or any associated companies? Just wondering..."

Daz, what an interesting response. So now I'm an agent of VD out to get you?

Answering your question, I am exactly who I said I was, which is why I have used my full name. I am an owner of Canon equipment (as well as other brands)who has kept his equipment in top form by buying and using among other things, VD products. And no, no association with any company that has anything to do with cameras or their maintenance. But, as said before, I find, as the reviews confirm, VD products to be excellent, and I've found their customer service to be the equal of their products.

And for the record, I have never come to the defense of a company before. I did in this case because, as I still read it, and actually confirmed by your last response, VD has behaved responsibly towards you. You have not towards them, and are simply out to "shoot the messenger" whenever you don't happen to like the message delivered, even if true.

I would suggest you get back to us when you've heard back from Canon. They too are an excellent company with great customer service, so I'm sure you will soon be able to pass on to all of us their answer to the question of whether Canon sensors are in fact sealed from liquid and dust. And again, if so, I would suggest you stop trying to shift the blame to where it does not belong.

Best, Steven

2005-08-06, 9:32 PM  
Blogger Daz said...

Daz, what an interesting response. So now I'm an agent of VD out to get you?

I don’t believe I made any reference to you being “out to get me”, but it wouldn’t be the first time a company dealt with a potential problem with their products by resorting to standard Public Relations tactics. One of the first of which is to deal with the issue by posting positive stories in response to bad press and trying to discredit the messenger.

Such tactics would be to throw around comments such as, “thousands of us use these products” and to attack the individual with comments like, “…the real problem is likely the way you maintain your camera,” “raises questions about whether you really did follow the VD instructions…” and “I would suggest you stop trying to shift the blame to where it does not belong.”.

So I don’t think its unreasonable to raise the question of affiliation with VD at all.

I will definitely be passing along the response from Canon regarding their assessment of the damage. In order to assist them I have included full details of what occurred and the responses I received from Dr Degan of Visible Dust.

So hopefully they will come back with some definitive comments on the cause and their views regarding the claims by VD.

2005-08-07, 12:33 PM  
Anonymous Ryan McCalmon said...

Personally, I think it is too soon to say what the cause is. You are right in saying that Canon has never publicly (as far as I have heard) come out and said that their sensors are liquid and dust sealed. But, what VD have said makes sense. If it wasn't sealed in this way, you would very likely see condensation and dust build-up eventually show up underneath the IR filter of every camera without this type of seal. Pictures I've seen online (see here: http://ghonis2.ho8.com/rebelmod4.html) where people have completely taken their 300D apart seem to show that it is definitely sealed this way. As I've never heard of anyone having dust or condensation show up under their IR filter, I'm inclined to lean toward that explanation.

They are a young, small company with a lot to lose if their reputation becomes tarnished. I can see this making them inclined to diverting responsibility from themselves in order to keep themselves afloat. Even so, I would still think they would have more understanding about the design of sensors than the general public. Especially considering that, according to the statements above, they have some sort of relationship with Canon (if their claims of Canon referring customers to them are to be believed).

Either way, not taking sides. I don't own any of these products at all, but am always interested in reading about others experiences with these products as I plan on buying a solution soon. If anyone has used and abused their 300D, it would be me. I've ridden my bike with it in my backpack well over 2500 miles (very conservative estimate!). Its been exposed to both extremes of Utah weather (very dry 100+ degree summer heat and below freezing winters). I've never cleaned my sensor and have avoided doing the high f-stop test for fear of seeing how extremely dirty my camera is.

One other thought before I go. You mentioned at the beginning of your review that you had once sent your camera to Canon for a cleaning. Has anyone else made the correlation between this and the defective sensor theory? I don't think it would be too unreasonable to think that maybe the technician that cleaned your camera might have made a small mistake during their cleaning. Maybe not getting the IR filter sealed completely back onto the sensor. That is, of course, only if they go that far when cleaning cameras. Your experience may be due to a sad coincidence. This whole situation may be the responsibility of Canon because of their faulty cleaning job. Or not. Just a theory.

I look forward to hearing how this whole situation is resolved!

2005-08-07, 7:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any new developments?

2005-08-17, 5:12 PM  
Blogger Daz said...

No new developments yet. Canon has had the camera for over a week, but the last time I sent it for cleaning it took them almost two weeks to look at it, they seem to have a large backlog.

I will post any news as soon as I hear from them...

2005-08-17, 5:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any new developments?

2005-08-26, 4:13 PM  
Blogger Daz said...

Still haven't heard from Canon. I am going to call them to find out progress on Monday. Will update after I have spoken to them...

2005-08-26, 6:19 PM  
Blogger Daz said...

Canon called yesterday and left a message to say that the repair costs would be $216.60.

I spoke with the Canon Service Department this morning and was informed that the $216 cost is the standard repair charge. Further, that payment is required before a technician actually examines the camera. They also explained that this is will be the total charge, ragardless of the actual repairs that are required.

It will be another 1 to 2 weeks before a technician will actually begin the repairs. At that point they will inform me of the full details of the damage and the repairs carried out.

2005-08-30, 10:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anything new? With all the negative comments you have gotten (plus VB's reply) I'd really like to hear what was the final outcome.

Or is there an outcome yet? Hard to say when you made your last post since there are no dates on the comments.

br,
mikko - finland

2005-09-29, 11:51 AM  
Blogger Daz said...

No there is no update. Canon have had the camera for four weeks and I've heard nothing back from them. Despite the original comment that they would get back to me in a week or two...

I am still waiting for a response from a call I placed with the service department.

I will post any info I get from Canon as soon as I hear from them!

2005-09-29, 2:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks. Look forward to hearing what you find out. October 7.

2005-10-07, 8:54 PM  
Blogger Daz said...

Oct 8

It's been over a week since I phoned Canon Service in Calgary and still no response. I have also e-mail customer service, but after 3 days, also no response.

This is different to my previous experience with dealing with Canon. They have always been fairly prompt in the past with their responses, especially via e-mail.

I will provide updates, as soon as I get some sort of response out of them.

2005-10-08, 11:53 AM  
Blogger Daz said...

October 14

I finally managed to talk to a service rep at Canon Canada this morning. It turns out that apart from an initial inspection by a service agent some considerable time ago, the camera has been on a shelf ever since.

The rep was very apologetic once he realised how long the camera has been sitting there. He explained that there has been a major re-organisation of the service department, complete with new systems and moving to a new location within the building.

He promised to let me know what they are going to do by the end of Monday.

I'll post another update Monday night...

2005-10-14, 5:27 PM  
Blogger Daz said...

October 18

Well, despite the good promises from Canon Canada, I did not hear from them yesterday or today. I put a call in to them late this afternoon but failed to get through. I will follow up tomorrow and demand some answers.

2005-10-18, 8:45 PM  
Blogger Daz said...

I was not able to get through to actually speak with a Canon Services rep today, but did leave a message. So far no response - will try again tomorrow...

2005-10-19, 6:25 PM  
Blogger Daz said...

New update posted on 21 October:
http://dazza101.blogspot.com/2005/10/update-on-camera-damage-from-visible.html

2005-10-22, 4:13 PM  
Anonymous MCB said...

Just had to get in here and share my experience using VD products. I got down to it and proceeded to use the sensor brush on my Canon 1DS MKII and boy did I regret that move! I followed the instructions carefully (before anyone jumps on that bandwagon) but I caused much more of a problem than I already had. Now the dust marks had become smears! I guess I must have been thinking ahead, as I had ordered the sensor cleaning liquid solution along with the brushes, so now I had to go in there and do what I was hoping I would not have to do! I approached this with not just a little trepidation, but thankfully this did the job, after about six attempts! This basically got me back to about where I was before I attempted the cleaning! It's just about impossible to get the sensor 100% clean. Even if you do, it will be about a minute before something shows its ugly head again. Anyway, all said and done, I have no confidence using the sensor brush anymore and I will now be looking for some other product. The bummer is, I bought two sets of brushes (for two different bodies), along with chamber and sensor cleaning liquids and I don't believe I'll ever use them!

2005-12-16, 10:08 AM  
Blogger Daz said...

MCB I can completely sympathise with your problems. I am stil waiting for Canon Canada to respond to my detailed questions, but I think its fair to make a couple of general points at this stage.

Visible Dust have made a number of claims that are not supported by Canon, and their liquid cleaning product is potentially damaging to use. Hopefully, they will acknowledge this.

Anything less is not being honest with their customers.

2005-12-22, 6:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From Rick vW:
I have read all the previous comments and have to say that Daz' assessment is very reasonable. If VD is a small company that has a lot to lose then they certainly go about it the wrong way. They could have shown concern and be consultative. What is read is a mad rant from 'technical' Dr something and Steven the VD (...) guy. Anyways, I think Daz is asking for the right thing: a warning that will help people avoid issues like these. He's not even asking for C$ from VD, and I am sure they have plenty of that given the margin on those little microscope-cleaning-brushes-gone-Hollywood.
Even if their products work I will not do business with a company that has such an attitide. ESPECIALLY at their young age.
VD is also a bad acronym, they might wanna think about that.

2006-01-04, 7:52 PM  
Anonymous Hique said...

"There should not be any hole in the sealing. The sealing should be tight and liquid proof."

SAYS WHO??

I understand what you mean.

VisibleDust is the one making conclusions without certain, not you.

Canon doesn't afirm in their manuals that the sensor is isolated against liquid. So, how can VisibleDust be so certain?

When they say "The sealing should be tight and liquid proof" it seems that they want the Camera to be adequate to their product when their cleaning product should be adequated to the Camera, right?

Very sad to know about their reaction.

2006-05-23, 4:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Greetings,

I found this blog while searching for cleaning solutions for my DSLR.

Almost a year after the last post, I am interested on what happened. Could you kindly give n update.

Thanks.

N0OB

2006-08-18, 3:28 PM  
Blogger Daz said...

There's little to add to this sad and sorry saga - i did post another update on October 21 (http://dazza101.blogspot.com/2005/10/update-on-camera-damage-from-visible.html), but there has been nothing from Visible Dust since.

The summary is, the camera was repaired by Canon at a reasonable cost, but the company (Visible Dust) just seem happy to ignore the problem and not deal with it at any level. I still use their brushes, but wouldn't recommend anyone use their cleaning liquids, or hope for much in the way of genuine support from them. An expensive lesson learned...

2006-12-18, 6:17 PM  
Blogger RVTravelGuy@ItsAllAboutImages.com said...

What VD should have done in this case: They should have asked you to send them your camera. They should have looked at it instead of all this guessing from all the sides in this drama.

If they are a small company, this would have only given them creditability. Brochures and marketing can't give you that...

I found this because I am now looking for sensor cleaning products and I will stay away from VD.

Just my thought...

Great pictures will make this insignificant...

Ron

2007-11-07, 2:22 PM  
Anonymous vancouver carpet cleaning said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2010-07-03, 2:47 AM  
Blogger David said...

I read the comments about your experiences cleaning your sensor.
I apologize for the time it took for me to stumble across your post and reply.) It is regrettable you had the problems with your camera, let alone the lack of a true response from the company with whom you had the problem. In their response they claim methanol is damaging to sensors, yet over a dozen camera manufacturers have recommended the Eclipse solution for cleaning their own cameras' sensors. ( IN WRITING! )
Eclipse is 100% purified and refined methanol. And we (the manufacturers of Eclipse and other sensor cleaning products) offer a 100% "No-Damage" guarantee if your cleaning attempts cause any damage!

Should you have any questions please feel free to email us from our website : www.photosol.com

David M. Stone, President
Photographic Solutions, Inc.

2010-08-01, 8:56 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home




Click Here