spray duster (can of air)

[cocacola186]

i went to asda today and picked up a can of spray duster made by STRAND. i never really looked the instructions but it has a picture of a camera with a red X on it. why can't you use this on cameras. if there is an alternative please can someone advise. really just bought it to get rid of some dust.
my camera is the canon eos1000d

[chris-p]

You mustn't use them on cameras because they have a tendency to spray propellent out of the can along with the air.
This is especially damaging if you use one to clean your sensor as the propellent is very cold and causes serious damage.

I'd avoid using one on any electronic equipment at all.

[Cathus]

You shouldn't use it on sensors as it can mix up with the fluid in the can & spray gunk all over the sensor.

You should be able to use it on the body just keep it away from the sensor.

[cocacola186]

ok thanks for the replys. wasn't sure what would happen if i used it. might just take it back and get refund. it was £3.00 a can

[Cathus]

I'll let you into a little secret. I use it all the time to clean my sensor. I have had it spray the sensor with propellent about twice in five years, but I just clean it with swabs & fluid then.

I wouldn't suggest anyone else do this, mind.

[chris-p]

Originally Posted by Cathus

I wouldn't suggest anyone else do this, mind.

Neither would I! It's not getting the propellant off the low pass filter that's the problem, it's the fact that it's very very cold and could (depending on ambient conditions) cause the filter to split.

[Cathus]

Hi Chris, I'd be intersted in the background of your last comment as my understanding when I looked at it was that
a) the element over the sensor is pretty rugged being classed as a 5 on the hardness scale equal to that of quartz (10 being diamond). I can't recall the name of the element off the top of my head & I know that different manufactuters use slightly different materials but roughly similar.
and that
b) there are already sprays available specifically for cleaning sensitive electrical equipment including camera sensors utlising CO2 or Nitrogen (Nitro Blast) which I presumed were also cold but specifically manufactured for camera sensor use, the difference between them & what I do being that they don't contain propellant (& being ten times more expensive)

I'd not heard that there was a risk of cracking the sensor cover

[matt wilson]

strange .I too had heard about propellants etc and sensors .

http://www.kenro.co.uk/productlist/2...cqrfdllj2s7vr4

Not usedmyself but heard this is widely used and respected.

[cosmicma]

i can see where chris is coming from iv'e used cans of compressed air for freezing things before now but that means intentionaly holding the can upside down to spray the liquid

i'm sure if your carefull enough and spray the can first to make sure there is nothing but air before you go near the camera there wouldn't be that much risk

iv'e allways had the thought it is better to extract the dust rather than blow it around the inside of the camera body

[chris-p]

Originally Posted by Cathus

a) the element over the sensor is pretty rugged being classed as a 5 on the hardness scale equal to that of quartz (10 being diamond). I can't recall the name of the element off the top of my head & I know that different manufactuters use slightly different materials but roughly similar.

Thats true. Most are optical low pass filters are silica based (even the proprietary ones). It's not that they're not hard, it's that they're thin and they don't take kindly to freeze/thaw cycles. I've not specifically known anyone split or crack their OLPF but it can be done.
I would also say that you don't really want propellant sloshed around your mirror box.

Originally Posted by Cathus

b) there are already sprays available specifically for cleaning sensitive electrical equipment including camera sensors utlising CO2 or Nitrogen (Nitro Blast) which I presumed were also cold but specifically manufactured for camera sensor use, the difference between them & what I do being that they don't contain propellant (& being ten times more expensive)

Originally Posted by matt wilson

strange .I too had heard about propellants etc and sensors .
[COLOR=#810081]http://www.kenro.co.uk/productlist/2/1/Kenair.html?PHPSESSID=ps4v3j3q4f1icqrfdllj2s7vr4[/COLOR]
Not usedmyself but heard this is widely used and respected.

There are special ones available and they're generally fine as they use a different propellant which doesn't react endothermically when the pressure is released. To be honest, it depends on which propellant (or mixture of) is used. Methyl ether based propellants might be safer as they're unlikely to be as cold as propane or butane derived ones.

Originally Posted by cosmicma

i can see where chris is coming from iv'e used cans of compressed air for freezing things before now but that means intentionaly holding the can upside down to spray the liquid

What cans do you use? We have them all over the place at work and they literally chuck out propellant almost as much as they do air. If I get time, I'll video one and upload it so you can see.
We were hoping to use them on our flow cytometer but we were worried about the volume of propellant coming out so we measured it. From one can (a 400ml) one, we collected over 150ml of liquid propellant, and that was with the can in an upright position.

I have to say that I tend to subscribe to this though:

Originally Posted by cosmicma

iv'e allways had the thought it is better to extract the dust rather than blow it around the inside of the camera body