Why don't they protect sensors better?

[sothoth]

Still, it is not THAT easy to damage your sensor ... the problem is just IF you manage, then you are in real trouble

I agree with the second statement but I don't know about the first.

I just think it would cost Canon/Nikon/whoever about $10 extra to make this more robust by sealing the sensor and so far no one has convinced me that there is any technical challenge to this other than they just don't want to do it.

The vibrating sensor is kind of a joke, since this only eliminates dry particles loosely stuck to the sensor. Canon admits the vibration won't remove things that are attached due to moisture (which aids in adhesion) or a strong static attraction, or larger particles, like hair.

While I appreciate the suggestions for cleaning and lens changes, that's not really the point, and I doubt I have any more trouble with that than the next guy. I just think you're better off never getting stuff on there, and if you do, never having to touch your sensor to remove it. And I don't see why they're willing to add a sonic vibrator to a camera but not address the real problem, which is keep stuff off your sensor to begin with. No one wants to address the pink elephant standing in the room. I do see why, a sonic vibrator sounds cooler and sexier than a sealed sensor and they can charge more for the camera with it on there, AND they can charge you more to fix the sensor if there's an issue. But... I don't think it fixes the problem very well.

That sonic vibrator isn't even strong enough to get you off, even if you sat on it, so what's the point.

It seems like a better business model to encourage people to buy new dSLR's regularly because they improve the design, not gouge you for making an inferior product to begin with. Let's see... could that be similar to why Japanese cars are overtaking American ones in the US?? Japanese cars are built to last, American car companies sell cars with heated cup holders, and illuminated cup holders. WTF!!!

 

[sothoth]

Also remember that a dust particle can always be taken away in PhotoShop after using the spot removal tool

I think I should infiltrate Canon from the inside by getting a job there, then fix the problem from the inside. I'll have to overthrow their lead engineer, but it'll be worth it. I'll also have to start wearing my fake moustache more often just so no one recognizes me.

My rant reminds me of Steve Martin's character in Father of the Bride (just prior to his arrest):
"I'll tell you what I'm doing. I want to buy eight hot dogs and eight hot dog buns to go with them. But no one sells eight hot dog buns. They only sell twelve hot dog buns. So I end up paying for four buns I don't need. So I am removing the superfluous buns. Yeah. And you want to know why? Because some big-shot over at the wiener company got together with some big-shot over at the bun company and decided to rip off the American public. Because they think the American public is a bunch of trusting nit-wits who will pay for everything they don't need rather than make a stink. Well they're not ripping of this nitwit anymore because I'm not paying for one more thing I don't need. George Banks is saying NO! "

 

[lostprophet]

this is the sensor housing from an EOS 300D it has been smacked against many a hard surface and the filter over the sensor still isn't marked.

NOT THAT I RECOMMEND ANYONE HITS THEIR SENSOR

But the glass (anti-aliasing filter) is about as strong as a normal UV filter

 

[sothoth]

But the glass (anti-aliasing filter) is about as strong as a normal UV filter

Fair enough, but how do pictures look after you've banged this thing around and then put it back in your camera (even if the glass didn't break)? Probably not as good as pictures with a sensor that was never touched.

Second, I scratch UV filters all the time, that's why they're on the front of all my lenses, since I can put a new UV filter on my lens for $14 and not pay $100+ to have the lens fixed, or more to have it replaced. Why not do the same with the sensor?

Finally, I was wrong in my thinking that the sensor was covered directly with a film and not protected by a crystal. Nontheless, I still think the point is the same... why not make the crystal easy to remove, or even better have a second crystal over this one that you can swap it out if it gets scratched or you accidentally squirt mustard on it?

I can't find any web sites that recommend cleaning your sensor with any method where you directly touch it, except for the ones that sell sensor swabs. There is probably a good reason for that.

 

[EOS_JD]

I've cleaned my camera a dozen or so times. very easy 5 minute job. Once you've done it a few times you'll stop worrying about it. Just take a little care and all will be well.

As said above the filter above the sensor is pretty tough.

 

[Don Simon]

Why not make it easy to remove and clean the filter or other parts yourself? My guess is, for the same reason most companies haven't designed focusing screens to be interchangeable by user in consumer cameras; because they don't think it would matter to enough buyers for them to bother doing so.

 

[Alex_B]

Why not make it easy to remove and clean the filter or other parts yourself? My guess is, for the same reason most companies haven't designed focusing screens to be interchangeable by user in consumer cameras; because they don't think it would matter to enough buyers for them to bother doing so.

cleaning isn't hard ....

... it is just us faint-hearted cowards being afraid of doing it

I have never heard of anyone really wrecking his sensor by cleaning ... unless he had mineral particles ("sand") in the brush or the cloth used for cleaning (or on the sensor) ... or unless he used the wrong liquid (one that attacks the surface )

What happens most of the time if something goes wrong is, that the sensor gets more dirty (residues) .. and that can be solved by a proper wet cleaning.

 

[Alex_B]

Why not make it easy to remove and clean the filter or other parts yourself?

For heavens sake, no! Removing the filter would give you access to the sensor surface and you could get dust between the sensor and the filter. This should only be done in a cleanroom as used to work and experiment with semiconductor wafers .

also, as I understand it, if there is air or anything in between the filter and the sensor, then you might get reflections between the two giving funny effects.

 

[sothoth]

Why not make it easy to remove and clean the filter or other parts yourself? My guess is, for the same reason most companies haven't designed focusing screens to be interchangeable by user in consumer cameras; because they don't think it would matter to enough buyers for them to bother doing so.

Well, that's also quite a bit different from a sensor... the focusing screen only effects what you see thru the eyepiece and doesn't effect the picture you take. In this case I can see why they don't care to make it interchangeable.

 

[sothoth]

Saw this link:
http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/sensor-dust-clean.html

and a quote from it is here about Sigma's solution to the problem:
Sigma - Image Sensor Dust Protector
A removable clear plate that sits above the sensor, allowing a first surface for dust to settle upon, reducing the visible defects. The dust on the protector is rarely visible because it is far from the image plane, and it effectively seals the mirror box and also protects the reflex mirror and viewing screen (according to Sigma). Incorporated into the SD9 and SD10 cameras.

I assume that means they use it on the SD14.

So... my question is why don't they all do this? If they want to vibrate their sensor or sell you pads for swabbing, or use software remapping, go for it, but frankly I think a simple dust protector is easy, inexpensive, and makes all the risky cleaning obsolete.

Hail, Sigma!!

 

[sothoth]

I have never heard of anyone really wrecking his sensor by cleaning ... unless he had mineral particles ("sand") in the brush or the cloth used for cleaning (or on the sensor) ... or unless he used the wrong liquid (one that attacks the surface )

If you can explain to me why it's better to take the chance every time you clean the sensor when you can avoid the problem altogether by protecting the sensor for a few extra bucks, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Don Simon]

Well, that's also quite a bit different from a sensor... the focusing screen only effects what you see thru the eyepiece and doesn't effect the picture you take. In this case I can see why they don't care to make it interchangeable.

I don't really follow... there is far more reason to make the focusing screen interchangeable; different screens for different purposes - architectural lines, split circle and microprism for more precise manual focus etc.

 

[darich]

cleaning the sensor is easy and takes no more than 5 minutes.
take your time and it's easily done.

I've cleaned the sensors on my Digital Rebel, 20D and now my 5D.

 

[EOS_JD]

If you can explain to me why it's better to take the chance every time you clean the sensor when you can avoid the problem altogether by protecting the sensor for a few extra bucks, I'd love to hear it.

this has been a problem with DSLRs since they started making them. If there was an easy way, it would have been done by now.

 

[Big Mike]

I think that part of the issue is that if they put something else in front of the sensor...it will affect the image quality. Sure, they could design something that would be optically fantastic, to allow the light to pass through...but now it's getting expensive. It sounds like Sigma have the same idea that you have...but I'm wondering how the image quality will stand up against Canon & Nikon.