Cleaning the sensor of a Canon 350D

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Luc Weyn, Oct 26, 2005.

  1. Luc Weyn

    Luc Weyn Guest

    Hi all,

    I just this newsgroup, so my question could have been treated before. In
    this case I apologize, but a search in the available messages did not give
    any answers.

    I bought a Canon 350D (A.K.A. Rebel XT if I'm not mistaken). I have now two
    small spots of dust(?) on the sensor. Is there a really safe way to clean
    the surface of the sensor? Someone suggested to use special pads (which I
    now have) moistened with isopropyl alcohol, but I'm so afraid of damaging
    the sensor.

    Any help in this matter will be highly appreciated.

    Luc
     
    Luc Weyn, Oct 26, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Luc Weyn

    Dave WHite Guest

    From what I understand you shouldn't touch the sensor at all. Clean it
    with a puff of air from the puffer bit of a lens brush with the brush
    removed. NOT a can of compressed air. If that doesn't shift it. It's
    back to Canon.

    Dave
     
    Dave WHite, Oct 28, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Luc Weyn

    Luc Weyn Guest

    Thanks Dave,

    Back to Canon is not really an option here in Belgium, the will send the
    camera to Holland and God knows when I'll see it back. In the good old days
    when I was a professional photographer I could get in the car and drive to
    Holland.....

    Luc

    --
    Imexgra vzw
    Borzestraat 29
    B-2000 Antwerpen
    Tel.: +32 (0)3 233 43 93
    Fax: +32 (0)3 233 34 60
    http://www.imexgra.org
     
    Luc Weyn, Nov 2, 2005
    #3
  4. Luc Weyn

    Dave WHite Guest

    Hi Luc
    I read about cleaning the sensor in a book recently, can't remember
    which one but it was by a professional snapper. That's where I got my
    info from. Did the "puffer brush" trick work? From the book apparently
    it works 99% of the time.

    Dave
     
    Dave WHite, Nov 6, 2005
    #4
  5. Luc Weyn

    Luc Weyn Guest

    Hello Dave,

    As I'm still uneasy about using this isopropyl alcohol I swept the sensor
    with one of the cleaning sticks that I bought dry!

    It worked very well. both spots are gone. Should buy me one of those puffer
    brushes though.

    Thanks for the reply. Should you remember the name of the book, please let
    me know.....


    Best regards,

    Luc
     
    Luc Weyn, Nov 7, 2005
    #5
  6. Luc Weyn

    Dave WHite Guest

    Hi Luc
    I had the book out of the local library. I've just had a look on their
    site, and I think it was:

    Total digital photography : the shoot to print workflow handbook /
    Serge
    Tim. - Hoboken, N.J. : Wiley, 2004. - 076456952x

    Glad to hear you fixed the problem. I think you were right to leave the
    isopropyl alone!!

    Dave
     
    Dave WHite, Nov 9, 2005
    #6
  7. Luc Weyn

    Luc Weyn Guest

    Thanks Dave, will see if I can get hold of the book, this side of the world.

    Luc
     
    Luc Weyn, Nov 10, 2005
    #7
  8. Luc Weyn

    Dave White Guest

    Hi Luc
    I should probably start a new thread for this, but I was interested.
    What lens(ses) are you using with your 350D?

    Dave
     
    Dave White, Nov 20, 2005
    #8
  9. Luc Weyn

    Luc Weyn Guest

    Hey Dave,

    I bought the camera in a packet deal that came with a 18-55 and a 55-200
    lens and a 254 Mb CF card. The 18-55 lens is quite good, although not what I
    was used to when I was a professional, but the 55-200 is rather
    disappointing.

    I should start some saving and buy a decent lens in a few months.

    Best regards,

    Luc
     
    Luc Weyn, Nov 21, 2005
    #9
  10. Luc Weyn

    Dave White Guest

    Hey Yourself!
    I bought mine with the 18-55 lens too. A bit soft on smaller apertures I
    thought??

    I just bought a 28-105 (the f3.5-4.00 USM 2)
    This seems pretty good for a mid price zoom. (Mid price!!!!!! More than
    a reasonable compact camera!)
    I'm impressed with the sharpness and colour.
    I think the camera itself is excellent!
    Anyway I've spent out now!!!!!

    Pity about the 50-200 though.

    Dave
     
    Dave White, Nov 21, 2005
    #10
  11. Luc Weyn

    Luc Weyn Guest

    Hello Dave,

    Is that 28-105 lens specially made for digital cameras or is it a standard
    lens meant to be used on full frame 24x36 cameras? And how much did you pay
    for it in the UK? Here in Belgium all this equipment is rather expensive.
    For the price that I paid for the 350D I could have bought a 20D in the US.

    Luc
     
    Luc Weyn, Nov 22, 2005
    #11
  12. Luc Weyn

    Dave White Guest

    Hi Luc
    It's the 28-105 standard lens. This makes it a bit limited at the wide
    end, but of course you end up with a bit more at the other end to
    compensate.
    I bought it because it seemed to be about the best deal (in terms of
    price/performance) "walking around" lens I could find, and I'd read some
    good reviews. I bought the lens from warehouseexpress.com and it was
    £184-00 (About 300 Euros?) inc. Vat.
    Incidentally if you do look at this lens it is the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM
    II. From what I've read don't get the f4.00-(I think)4.5. It's just not
    as good.
    I've just taken a day or two off from the day job and I've been down on
    the coast today trying the lens out. I was just looking at the results,
    and I reckon they're not bad.
    I wasn't really happy with the depth of field I was getting with the
    18-55, although I still think it's a useful lens, particularly at the
    wider end with larger apertures.
    I sell some of my pics on Istockphoto and they like them to be sharp!
    The 18-55 passes the test OK most of the time as long as you work within
    it's limits.

    I'm telling you this! I'm only an amateur. What sort of professional
    photographer were you?

    You're right gear is cheaper in the States but I have trouble with the
    fact that when you import it back to the UK (in my case) you have to
    pay import duty and VAT. Plus of course if you have problems it's more
    difficult to send it back.....

    Have you had a look at Pixmantec "Rawshooter Essentials" which is
    freeware. You'll have to search on the web for it, and you have to
    register, but it's an excellent RAW format conversion utility.

    Anyway. Enough!

    Dave
     
    Dave White, Nov 22, 2005
    #12
  13. Luc Weyn

    Luc Weyn Guest

    Hi Dave,

    Just under 270 euros I think
    Good advice, I didn't even know there were versions around
    Apart from the summer holidays I can't remember having found the time to
    take a few days off. Should consider this one of these weeks and put the
    camera really to the test.
    Agree completely
    That seems normal to me, unless you go for the really artistic stuff.
    I did all sorts of things. Started off as a freelancer for a newspaper, then
    got more and more involved in product photography (which is still one of my
    favourites). Later I opened a shop, but that was probably not one of my
    brightest ideas. It did pay for all sorts of costs when I was not shooting
    packshots, but on the other hand it limited the time I could spend on the
    more serious work. And when things started to go wrong for all classic
    photographers with shops, I had to quit. I did work some time for a
    publicity agency, but working for a boss after having been self-employed
    (and a boss who did not have a clue about photography) was not for me.

    While I had the shop I did some wedding photigraphy but I hated it so much
    that I tried to avoid it. Portraits on the other hand where very pleasant
    (most of the time anyway)
    Same for Belgium I think, that's why I have the 350 and not the 20.
    No I haven't. Never heard of this program. Is the conversion software
    supplied with the camera no good? I haven't installed it yet, my computer is
    too old. Have to buy a new one first.

    Take care,

    Luc
     
    Luc Weyn, Nov 24, 2005
    #13
  14. Luc Weyn

    Luc Weyn Guest

    Hi Dave,

    Thanks for the ongoing conversation. I quite like it.
    I'm not that young anymore. And I noticed that the longer you live, the more
    you can do :)
    Let's just say it's not bad, and no it's my third language. When you are
    brought up in Flanders your first language is Flemish or Dutch if you prefer
    (it's practically the same) and the second language is French.
    A woodworker! great profession. Just the thought of the smell of fresh wood
    all day makes me jealous
    I'd leave it to the pro's! The problem with weddings is that you cannot
    really redo them if something goes wrong. You hang around a bunch of people
    that celebrate while you are supposed to remain concentrated sometimes for
    more than 18 hours without interruption. Very exhausting and very
    disappointing moneywise. and that is only the photography part, then you
    need many hours to select the different photographs to put in the album (in
    my days this meant gleaming at contactsheets), then have the photographs
    printed in the different sizes and making the album....
    Or in case of video the editing, adding sound, music, titles...
    Thanks but no thanks.
    This is satisfiying photography!
    Well I have printed some photographs that I made and they were all too red.
    Now I must say that the conditions were far from professional. As you know,
    I have a rather old computer and the monitor is just as old. The colours on
    the monitor are probably not trustworthy anymore so I don't even bother to
    try to calibrate it. Furthermore the printer that I used is just a simple HP
    inkjet printer, not really designed for printing photographs. One of these
    day I'll send some files to a real printservice and see what they make of
    them.
    I don't need a good excuse for bying a new computer, all I need is the money
    :)

    All the best

    Luc
     
    Luc Weyn, Nov 29, 2005
    #14
  15. Luc Weyn

    Dave White Guest

    Hi Luc
    Yes I've been enjoying our "chat" too.
    "All I need is the money" Sounds like the story of my life!!

    Going back to the red photos I used to print out photos on my old HP
    850c printer, and they used to be fine (ish!). Were you using "Auto" for
    the white balance on the camera? That will get you very red photos using
    tungsten. I've set up a custom setting just for that job. I find I have
    to increase the exposure too. of course you can cheat and do it all in
    post processing, but that brings us back to where we started....!

    Speaking of tungsten lights I'd been taking some shots yesterday, and
    went out to the pub later. I had that sudden horrible thought that I'd
    left the lights on, and imagined the house burning down! A quick call by
    my wife to her mum, who lives just up the lane, and after she checked it
    was OK I hadn't left them on. Just goes to show though I think my brain
    is going!

    I've been having a look on ebay for a new (second hand) tripod. The leg
    locks on my old Vanguard are getting pretty worn it was only a "cheapie"
    in the first place. I've been looking at the Velbon ones. Know anything
    about them?

    Incidentally there's a guy on there who does remote releases for the 350
    d for £12.50 new, including post. It's not a Canon one, but the proper
    on is about £30.00! I've spent out after the recent buys!

    Anyway all the best

    Dave
     
    Dave White, Dec 5, 2005
    #15
  16. Luc Weyn

    Luc Weyn Guest

    Hi Dave,
    I think it's the story of most of us
    Must check that again, but AFAIK it's on auto, and I have these reddish
    photo's outside too, so there's no tungsten around.
    What do you mean by increasing the exposure? Do you mean overexpose? I used
    to do that when I was shooting film (colourneg) I systematically overexposed
    by 1/4 to 1/2 fstop, just to have better saturated negs.
    They can go very hot I know. Do you always use tungsten lights indoor, no
    studio flashes? They're not that expensive anymore these days.
    I know both Vanguard and Velbon. If I remember well there are two sorts of
    Velbon amateur and pro. I'd never go for the amateur version. We used
    Manfrotto (Italian) and Gitzo (French). If sturdiness is what you're after
    then Gitzo is the answer. Not cheap but they'll live longer than we will.
    Problem is that you're plugging a device into your very expensive camera
    that is not made by Canon. If it screws up the electronics inside who will
    stick his neck out?
    Instead of a remote realease you can use the selftimer most of the time.
    Always remember to block the viewfinder because, if your eye isn't blocking
    the viewfinder, the light that comes in has influence on the lightmeter.

    Apart from our conversation, this NG is very quiet isn't it?
    Take care

    Luc
     
    Luc Weyn, Dec 6, 2005
    #16
  17. Luc Weyn

    Dave White Guest

    Hi Luc
    I usually use the camera in AV mode and I set the exposure to
    overexpose about 1/2 stop when using the custom white balance when I'm
    using tungsten. To over/underexpose you hold down the AV button and move
    the thumb wheel, this moves the "pointer" on the exposure display.
    The need to do this is probably a peculiarity of the setup I'm using and
    the white balance setting. Anyway this gets it about right for me. I use
    tungsten for nearly all the "studio" shots I do. You're right the studio
    flash units have come down a lot in price, but I like the way you can
    see how things are going to look with the tungsten, and the flash units
    with modelling lights are more expensive.....

    Speaking of expensive I've just seen what I want for Christmas! :)

    http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000177071211/

    I tend to agree with you about randomly plugging in bits of tat to
    expensive equipment, however in a past existence (so to speak) I was an
    industrial electrician and we did some electronics as well.

    I thought that the Canon wired remote was probably only a couple of
    single pole switches, and a quick search on the net found this

    http://home.freeuk.com/m.gavin/digsky4.htm

    There's actually lots of stuff out there on this and it all agrees. In
    this case it looks as if you would'nt do any harm whatever you did with
    the remote socket as long as you did'nt put any voltage on it.

    It does mean that you can make up a switch more or less any length. Mind
    you, if it all goes bang it could get a bit expensive being a
    smarta***!!! :)

    As always with this gear the dollar price in the US is cheaper than the
    price in Pounds here!!

    I've got a Manfrotto tripod, but at the moment it has a fluid head on it
    for the video. I reckon it's an excellent piece of kit, but it's HEAVY!!

    I was looking for something a bit lighter, but the same thing applies as
    with the remote. You don't want to drop a £600.00 camera because you
    saved £50.00 on the tripod.

    I always forget to block the eyepiece. That rubber thing is a bit of an
    afterthought!

    You're right this NG is quiet. Perhaps we're boring everyone off it!!

    Anyway. Enough!

    All the best

    Dave
     
    Dave White, Dec 7, 2005
    #17
  18. Luc Weyn

    Luc Weyn Guest

    Hi Dave,
    I should try this, and see what happens.
    Sorry did'nt think there were studio flashes without modelling lights, my
    mistake. Anyway I still have some left from my pro period.
    What an animal!!! 22 Megapixels. Unfortunately the price is a little bit
    over my budget (only about $ 10,500.00)
    Very interesting
    OK, I understand
    Terrible isn't it?
    Heavy means sturdy (or should) so it's probably a very good tripod. Buy
    another (photo)head for it. Most likely a lot cheaper than a new tripod.
    Hey, where is everybody!!!

    Greetz,

    Luc
     
    Luc Weyn, Dec 12, 2005
    #18
  19. Luc Weyn

    Don Miles Guest

    Out here listening carefully.

    Went to a Canon pro-show a few days ago. It was interesting to play with
    the stuff you can't afford but much impressed with the way the
    technology is going. I have a Canon D60 - now very long in the tooth -
    and enquiry of the shop how much trade in value there would be, was told
    £70. I wasn't too surprised ... as and when I decide to jump again
    it'll be a back-up as it would be daft to sell at that price. As I do
    some semi-pro sports photography I keep checking for new models with
    greater fps which is more important to me than other features. However,
    friend of mine who does mainly weddings and studio is looking at the
    full frame cameras. Chatting to the Canon guys I began to wonder if they
    were going to produce models in the future more suited to different
    tasks.

    Incidentally they were doing a sensor clean at £10 on site. I wish I'd
    known before I went as I didn't bother taking the camera with me!

    Don
     
    Don Miles, Dec 13, 2005
    #19
  20. Luc Weyn

    Luc Weyn Guest

    Hello Don,
    Never heard of
    I know the feeling. When I bought my 350D I asked them about my analog
    cameras a Canon A1 and a Contax 167MT both with some fine lenses, and they
    would give me ? 50,00 each (That's about £ 34,00).
    I think the new 5D is full frame.
    That will make things very expensive for all-round photographers
    Not cheap but good to know anyway

    Luc
     
    Luc Weyn, Dec 14, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.