Why don't they protect sensors better?

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.

It wasn't a criticism of your idea, but it was just pointing out that the focusing screen isn't going to directly effect the image quality like a sensor will. So, I just saw more value in protecting the sensor or making a removable cover in front of it compared to the focusing screen.

Anyway, I think my rant is getting old now, so I'll move on now... :)
 
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.

Good point. I haven't seen pictures from the SD14, although I think Sigma is trying to do a better job with their cameras and their lenses lately, and so I tend to think the idea isn't colossally bad, even if it might need a fair bit of refinement.
 
Read through the posts. Everybody is talking about cleaning the sensor.

We are not cleaning the sensor but a hardened filter that protects the sensor itself. It is built to be cleaned, and will not suffer scratches unless one decides to clean it with a knife or file.

One can argue why isn't the front of the dSLR sealed. I am talking about the lens mounting, just in front of the mirror. It would be nice, but since all systems were designed in the film days, designers were aiming for compactness, not sealing. It appears there is not enough room for that with the mirror flipping up.

The 4:3 cameras though have no excuse for not having this sealing option. They were designed for digital only. So do they?
 
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?

I agree. The filter in front of the sensor should be as easy replacable as the film in an analog camera. Easy to do and whenever needed.
Cameras who cann't exchange it, have in my opinion a construction fault.
Now it is a matter of convincing a judge. Because in many countries making products with construction faults, makes the producer responsible.
Do hope that Canon, Nikon and others read this thread.
 
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.

I think there are enough possible techniques to replace such a filter without being able to touch the underlining sensor. It is just a matter of thinking about the problem and solving it. In many situation these kind of problems occur, like replacing film (light sensitive) in an analog camera.
 
I have no reason to prefer cleaning techniques. They will in my opninion be more expensive as a replacement of the filter and with less good results.
 
I think there are enough possible techniques to replace such a filter without being able to touch the underlining sensor. It is just a matter of thinking about the problem and solving it. In many situation these kind of problems occur, like replacing film (light sensitive) in an analog camera.

well you do not need to touch the sensor... just the dust that can get in between the sensor and the glass needs to be wiped off the sensor ... and then again, you are right at the sensor surface. i prefer the glass to be glued to the sensor, so that nothing can get in between.

And guys, if you ever saw Canon technicians clean a sensor ... they are rather rough to the sensor ;) ... this "do not touch your sensor with any cleaning device" thing which many companies tell their customers, is a purely warranty thing, and since they know that one out of 10 customers are very clumsy and will use the wrong tools to clean it. After they then wrecked their sensor with a screwdriver with some linen wrapped around it and window cleaner, they wil blame the product and ask for a replacement. It is this hassle that companies try to avoid.
 
well you do not need to touch the sensor... just the dust that can get in between the sensor and the glass needs to be wiped off the sensor ... and then again, you are right at the sensor surface. i prefer the glass to be glued to the sensor, so that nothing can get in between.

O-ring (a rubber ring) or rubber surface will have the same effect as glueing. Glueing is used because the replacement is not made possible. O-rings could be used as well and are used in watches and vacuum pumps. For the same or even a better sealing purpose than just the dust. When the filter is tight enough on the rubber it will do.
The danger of dust in your camera is not that it is exposed to dust for just a small time when replacing the filter but because it is exposed over a longer period for several times, so the chances of dust is real.
The filter has to be taking off the sensor for replacement but this does not have to mean that there will be a way free for the dust to touch the sensor. Why not a sealed replacement?
 
O-ring (a rubber ring) or rubber surface will have the same effect as glueing. Glueing is used because the replacement is not made possible. O-rings could be used as well and are used in watches and vacuum pumps. For the same or even a better sealing purpose than just the dust. When the filter is tight enough on the rubber it will do.
The danger of dust in your camera is not that it is exposed to dust for just a small time when replacing the filter but because it is exposed over a longer period for several times, so the chances of dust is real.
The filter has to be taking off the sensor for replacement but this does not have to mean that there will be a way free for the dust to touch the sensor. Why not a sealed replacement?

hm, with your O-ring you suggest having yet another glass/air interface in your optical system. don't we always try to minimise those?

of course dust is real ... but who cares. i just clean the filter in front of my sensor when there is dust visible at f/22 ... and unless i don't do it horribly wrong, there is no danger in that process.

I think the amout of cameras with damaged sensor filters is negligible.
 
hm, with your O-ring you suggest having yet another glass/air interface in your optical system. don't we always try to minimise those?

There would be no need to have another interface. Filters are already separated from the sensor by a rubber ring on which they are glued.

of course dust is real ... but who cares. i just clean the filter in front of my sensor when there is dust visible at f/22 ... and unless i don't do it horribly wrong, there is no danger in that process.

Since photographers, like me, want to be perfectionist when it comes to pictures why not start with replacing a dirty filter that has been cleaned to often? And maybe one can even do without this anti-static coating which to my opinion shows to much in the pictures taken.

I think the amout of cameras with damaged sensor filters is negligible.

It is not just being damaged, but I think there is many which are ready for replacement....
 
Does someone know the (official) position/opinion of Canon, Nikon or any other DSLR producer on this matter. Is there improvement to be expected?
For Sigma is using something comparable but their method of changing the protecting cover is not a sealed one.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top