Puzzling 1DX Mark II Sensor Issue?

[YuengLinger]

Uneducated guesses? Is somebody forgetting this is a rumors site???

I haven't detected anything but the usual good natured chiding and grumbling in this thread!

 

[Loswr]

users who don't want to help others out[/b].

I'll just point out that's a completely inaccurate characterization of PBD.

 

[R1-7D]

users who don't want to help others out[/b].


I'll just point out that's a completely inaccurate characterization of PBD.

Perhaps, but thus far I've just got the above in this thread. He obviously feels strongly on the issue at hand, which is fine. I've seen his other posts and know he's a decent member.

 

[YuengLinger]

users who don't want to help others out[/b].


I'll just point out that's a completely inaccurate characterization of PBD.

Perhaps, but thus far I've just got the above in this thread. He obviously feels strongly on the issue at hand, which is fine. I've seen his other posts and know he's a decent member.

Yes, he is. But if you were ever to call me "a decent member," I'd report you to the mods.

 

[R1-7D]

users who don't want to help others out[/b].


I'll just point out that's a completely inaccurate characterization of PBD.

Perhaps, but thus far I've just got the above in this thread. He obviously feels strongly on the issue at hand, which is fine. I've seen his other posts and know he's a decent member.

Yes, he is. But if you were ever to call me "a decent member," I'd report you to the mods.

I see what you did there. Lol

 

[jrista]

Just doing a bit of reading on RBI -- isn't it a bit like an image burn in, to some extent like what you'd get on an older plasma tv? I'm seeing examples of silhouettes of images for RBI if I google.

At the moment I'm not completely convinced what I am experiencing is RBI, but I do suspect it is indeed a property of the sensor.

I was just reconfirming tonight that my macro shots from the other day, before I even had the sensor looked at (let alone touched) did exhibit the same patterns. The cleanings should have at least smeared the lines if it were oil on the top glass. Therefore, it's either the top glass which has defects, or the sensor itself, or something akin to RBI like what Jrista suggests.

What's interesting is the Dehaze tool lets me over-hence the problem, and I can see these markings stretch across the Center of the sensor, although it's not nearly as pronounced in the Center as it is along the left edge of the image. It's the only left edge where I can make the markings out without any adjustments; the Center smears are non existent without Dehaze.

I can post a raw file in the morning.

The sensor substrate accumulates electrons when deeply cooled, including those that sometimes leak from the photodiodes. So yes, that does result in a ghost image. However in a lot of cases, the ghost image is actually the least of the problem...the larger problem is often the radial pattern of the crystal itself as preserved in the sensor substrate, which will occur regardless of whether the sensor is exposed to light or not (i.e. it will show up in dark and bias frames.)

Again, I've only heard of crystal pattern appearing with RBI in the case of extreme cooling. I have not known it to appear at warmer temps. It could be an entirely different problem...if it is, I don't know the cause.

 

[jrista]

Well, good to see the loving, friendly, welcoming atmosphere of CR Forums is alive and well. Christ!

 

[Loswr]

It's the Internet, Jon...didn't anyone tell you to leave your copy of Emily Post at the door?

 

[R1-7D]

Just doing a bit of reading on RBI -- isn't it a bit like an image burn in, to some extent like what you'd get on an older plasma tv? I'm seeing examples of silhouettes of images for RBI if I google.

At the moment I'm not completely convinced what I am experiencing is RBI, but I do suspect it is indeed a property of the sensor.

I was just reconfirming tonight that my macro shots from the other day, before I even had the sensor looked at (let alone touched) did exhibit the same patterns. The cleanings should have at least smeared the lines if it were oil on the top glass. Therefore, it's either the top glass which has defects, or the sensor itself, or something akin to RBI like what Jrista suggests.

What's interesting is the Dehaze tool lets me over-hence the problem, and I can see these markings stretch across the Center of the sensor, although it's not nearly as pronounced in the Center as it is along the left edge of the image. It's the only left edge where I can make the markings out without any adjustments; the Center smears are non existent without Dehaze.

I can post a raw file in the morning.

The sensor substrate accumulates electrons when deeply cooled, including those that sometimes leak from the photodiodes. So yes, that does result in a ghost image. However in a lot of cases, the ghost image is actually the least of the problem...the larger problem is often the radial pattern of the crystal itself as preserved in the sensor substrate, which will occur regardless of whether the sensor is exposed to light or not (i.e. it will show up in dark and bias frames.)

Again, I've only heard of crystal pattern appearing with RBI in the case of extreme cooling. I have not known it to appear at warmer temps. It could be an entirely different problem...if it is, I don't know the cause.

Well, that's interesting information nonetheless. Thank you for taking the time to post and offering up a suggestion as to the problem.

There definitely hasn't been any extreme cooling -- The coldest it's been is about 20 degree celsius (68 F).


Upon process of elimination, and much to Privatebydesign's chagrin, I think the two most plausible situations are: 1) dust/oil streaks between one of the sensor stack layers, or 2) just really badly stuck on oil (but after a thorough sensor clean without further smudging or streaking, the less likely of the two).

From my experience, these don't look like scratches on the sensor to me. Scratches, or at the least the ones I've seen in person, have always been visible when looking through a loupe, and also appear dark like a piece of dust on an image. These streaks don't really change definition while stopping down either.


Anyways, thanks again Jrista.

 

[YuengLinger]

Just doing a bit of reading on RBI -- isn't it a bit like an image burn in, to some extent like what you'd get on an older plasma tv? I'm seeing examples of silhouettes of images for RBI if I google.

At the moment I'm not completely convinced what I am experiencing is RBI, but I do suspect it is indeed a property of the sensor.

I was just reconfirming tonight that my macro shots from the other day, before I even had the sensor looked at (let alone touched) did exhibit the same patterns. The cleanings should have at least smeared the lines if it were oil on the top glass. Therefore, it's either the top glass which has defects, or the sensor itself, or something akin to RBI like what Jrista suggests.

What's interesting is the Dehaze tool lets me over-hence the problem, and I can see these markings stretch across the Center of the sensor, although it's not nearly as pronounced in the Center as it is along the left edge of the image. It's the only left edge where I can make the markings out without any adjustments; the Center smears are non existent without Dehaze.

I can post a raw file in the morning.

The sensor substrate accumulates electrons when deeply cooled, including those that sometimes leak from the photodiodes. So yes, that does result in a ghost image. However in a lot of cases, the ghost image is actually the least of the problem...the larger problem is often the radial pattern of the crystal itself as preserved in the sensor substrate, which will occur regardless of whether the sensor is exposed to light or not (i.e. it will show up in dark and bias frames.)

Again, I've only heard of crystal pattern appearing with RBI in the case of extreme cooling. I have not known it to appear at warmer temps. It could be an entirely different problem...if it is, I don't know the cause.

"Ghost image"? He is seeing brush marks, for goodness sakes, not a Japanese child weeping in a dark attic--unless I'm missing something in the images.

 

[tpatana]

Now THAT would be a camera I wouldn't clean ever.

 

[privatebydesign]

Just doing a bit of reading on RBI -- isn't it a bit like an image burn in, to some extent like what you'd get on an older plasma tv? I'm seeing examples of silhouettes of images for RBI if I google.

At the moment I'm not completely convinced what I am experiencing is RBI, but I do suspect it is indeed a property of the sensor.

I was just reconfirming tonight that my macro shots from the other day, before I even had the sensor looked at (let alone touched) did exhibit the same patterns. The cleanings should have at least smeared the lines if it were oil on the top glass. Therefore, it's either the top glass which has defects, or the sensor itself, or something akin to RBI like what Jrista suggests.

What's interesting is the Dehaze tool lets me over-hence the problem, and I can see these markings stretch across the Center of the sensor, although it's not nearly as pronounced in the Center as it is along the left edge of the image. It's the only left edge where I can make the markings out without any adjustments; the Center smears are non existent without Dehaze.

I can post a raw file in the morning.

The sensor substrate accumulates electrons when deeply cooled, including those that sometimes leak from the photodiodes. So yes, that does result in a ghost image. However in a lot of cases, the ghost image is actually the least of the problem...the larger problem is often the radial pattern of the crystal itself as preserved in the sensor substrate, which will occur regardless of whether the sensor is exposed to light or not (i.e. it will show up in dark and bias frames.)

Again, I've only heard of crystal pattern appearing with RBI in the case of extreme cooling. I have not known it to appear at warmer temps. It could be an entirely different problem...if it is, I don't know the cause.

Well, that's interesting information nonetheless. Thank you for taking the time to post and offering up a suggestion as to the problem.

There definitely hasn't been any extreme cooling -- The coldest it's been is about 20 degree celsius (68 F).


Upon process of elimination, and much to Privatebydesign's chagrin, I think the two most plausible situations are: 1) dust/oil streaks between one of the sensor stack layers, or 2) just really badly stuck on oil (but after a thorough sensor clean without further smudging or streaking, the less likely of the two).

From my experience, these don't look like scratches on the sensor to me. Scratches, or at the least the ones I've seen in person, have always been visible when looking through a loupe, and also appear dark like a piece of dust on an image. These streaks don't really change definition while stopping down either.


Anyways, thanks again Jrista.

Hmm, chagrin?

cha·grin
SHəˈɡrin/
noun: chagrin
1. distress or embarrassment at having failed or been humiliated.

I said

• asking the internet about your happiness was pointless
• asking the internet about Canon's willingness to deal with your worries was pointless
• you have absolutely zero technical knowledge or evidence to make specific technical assertions
• asking the internet would lead to farcical and fanciful theoretical bullshit

Now could you tell me exactly which of those has been proven wrong that has resulted in my failure, embarrassment and humiliation?

You are still not happy (and seem to want to take that frustration out on me).
You still don't know what Canon's opinion of your worries is.
You are absolutely no closer to knowing what has caused the streaks, despite your assertions to a 'process of elimination' you haven't eliminated anything other than a phenomena that only seems to affect CCD's and only when they are being artificially cooled (though I did find out the correct name for that phenomena).
Talk of RBI is farcical and fanciful bullshit. Talk about chagrin!

Now you might have taken exception to the way I wrote, but you can't take exception to the meaning.

Only you know how happy or not you are and only you know if you are going to ask Canon to do something about it. Until you make that decision and if you decide to get Canon to look at it you won't know if they acknowledge it and are prepared to do anything about it.

As for getting the fullest background to pass on to them. My experience with Canon is it is irrelevant, they test the body to their specs, if it passes they don't do anything, if it doesn't they do, simple as that. I have sent in CD's full of images that they never look at, they don't care, they put the equipment on their test benches and draw their own conclusions as to whether it is in spec or not.

As for not asking the internet for help, thanks to those who pointed out I am not one of the ones "who don't want to help others out". I have a long posting history here based on helping others out, I haven't treated the forum like an ego trip and I have never taken to self promotion, I have posted hundreds of relevant and illustrative images that often show me in a bad light purely for the help of others. I have done this consistently for years. But what the heck, you are pissed and don't like how I show your inquiry for the pointless excercise it is.

I have posted thousands of answers on technical and equipment questions, queries and opinions where they are relevant. Nobody can help you with your issue other than Canon.

 

[unfocused]

Well, this took a predictable, but not necessarily helpful turn.

1) I agree with those who say to "send it to Canon." I said that from the start.

2) I took the original post to be a plea to have other 1DX II users repeat the same experiment to see if they could reproduce the same results. Several did that (including me. I couldn't).

Still, just because someone else has similar results, that doesn't mean it isn't defective or damaged. It just means someone else has the same problem. No solution there.

That said, this does raise a question for me.

What do others do about sensor cleaning?

1) I've always sent my cameras in to CPS for an annual cleaning. In fact that's probably the number one reason why I joined CPS.

2) Now I'm reading (and experiencing) that this may not do all that much good. (After all, when I sent my new 1DX II to have sensor dust cleaned, it came back with dust on it.

So, what do others do?

Regular blowing with a Giottos seems like the safest technique. But, it can also just mean moving dust around. (I understand this is the only cleaning Canon sanctions).

Wet cleaning seems a bit scary to me. Do others regularly do a wet cleaning of their sensors? And, if so, how effective is that? What brands do people use? I read some things that say the Arctic Butterfly system is not recommended and can damage the sensor. Do others agree.

What about oil? From what I've been reading, oil is a problem with cameras like the 1DX (possibly because of the high frame rate). Cleaning off dust seems fairly straightforward. Cleaning off oil smears not so much.

I'd like to turn this lemon of a thread into lemonade. Anyone willing to help with actual experience and knowledge?

 

[R1-7D]

Just doing a bit of reading on RBI -- isn't it a bit like an image burn in, to some extent like what you'd get on an older plasma tv? I'm seeing examples of silhouettes of images for RBI if I google.

At the moment I'm not completely convinced what I am experiencing is RBI, but I do suspect it is indeed a property of the sensor.

I was just reconfirming tonight that my macro shots from the other day, before I even had the sensor looked at (let alone touched) did exhibit the same patterns. The cleanings should have at least smeared the lines if it were oil on the top glass. Therefore, it's either the top glass which has defects, or the sensor itself, or something akin to RBI like what Jrista suggests.

What's interesting is the Dehaze tool lets me over-hence the problem, and I can see these markings stretch across the Center of the sensor, although it's not nearly as pronounced in the Center as it is along the left edge of the image. It's the only left edge where I can make the markings out without any adjustments; the Center smears are non existent without Dehaze.

I can post a raw file in the morning.

The sensor substrate accumulates electrons when deeply cooled, including those that sometimes leak from the photodiodes. So yes, that does result in a ghost image. However in a lot of cases, the ghost image is actually the least of the problem...the larger problem is often the radial pattern of the crystal itself as preserved in the sensor substrate, which will occur regardless of whether the sensor is exposed to light or not (i.e. it will show up in dark and bias frames.)

Again, I've only heard of crystal pattern appearing with RBI in the case of extreme cooling. I have not known it to appear at warmer temps. It could be an entirely different problem...if it is, I don't know the cause.

Well, that's interesting information nonetheless. Thank you for taking the time to post and offering up a suggestion as to the problem.

There definitely hasn't been any extreme cooling -- The coldest it's been is about 20 degree celsius (68 F).


Upon process of elimination, and much to Privatebydesign's chagrin, I think the two most plausible situations are: 1) dust/oil streaks between one of the sensor stack layers, or 2) just really badly stuck on oil (but after a thorough sensor clean without further smudging or streaking, the less likely of the two).

From my experience, these don't look like scratches on the sensor to me. Scratches, or at the least the ones I've seen in person, have always been visible when looking through a loupe, and also appear dark like a piece of dust on an image. These streaks don't really change definition while stopping down either.


Anyways, thanks again Jrista.

Hmm, chagrin?

cha·grin
SHəˈɡrin/
noun: chagrin
1. distress or embarrassment at having failed or been humiliated.

I said

• asking the internet about your happiness was pointless
• asking the internet about Canon's willingness to deal with your worries was pointless
• you have absolutely zero technical knowledge or evidence to make specific technical assertions
• asking the internet would lead to farcical and fanciful theoretical bullS___

Now could you tell me exactly which of those has been proven wrong that has resulted in my failure, embarrassment and humiliation?

You are still not happy (and seem to want to take that frustration out on me).
You still don't know what Canon's opinion of your worries is.
You are absolutely no closer to knowing what has caused the streaks, despite your assertions to a 'process of elimination' you haven't eliminated anything other than a phenomena that only seems to affect CCD's and only when they are being artificially cooled (though I did find out the correct name for that phenomena).
Talk of RBI is farcical and fanciful bullS___. Talk about chagrin!

Now you might have taken exception to the way I wrote, but you can't take exception to the meaning.

Only you know how happy or not you are and only you know if you are going to ask Canon to do something about it. Until you make that decision and if you decide to get Canon to look at it you won't know if they acknowledge it and are prepared to do anything about it.

As for getting the fullest background to pass on to them. My experience with Canon is it is irrelevant, they test the body to their specs, if it passes they don't do anything, if it doesn't they do, simple as that. I have sent in CD's full of images that they never look at, they don't care, they put the equipment on their test benches and draw their own conclusions as to whether it is in spec or not.

As for not asking the internet for help, thanks to those who pointed out I am not one of the ones "who don't want to help others out". I have a long posting history here based on helping others out, I haven't treated the forum like an ego trip and I have never taken to self promotion, I have posted hundreds of relevant and illustrative images that often show me in a bad light purely for the help of others. I have done this consistently for years. But what the heck, you are pissed and don't like how I show your inquiry for the pointless excercise it is.

I have posted thousands of answers on technical and equipment questions, queries and opinions where they are relevant. Nobody can help you with your issue other than Canon.

Privatebydesign,

I did not disparage you wholly if you look at my reply to Neuro above. I've seen many of your posts and almost always enjoy reading your contributions. You're a far more valuable and knowledgable poster on this forum than I am; I'm completely happy to admit that, and my intention was not to take anything away from your contributions elsewhere.

As far as the definition of "chagrin" goes, well it can also mean vexation and disappointment, which is what I anticipated your response to my post to be. I don't feel like I'm off the mark, as I think you are finding my posts vexing! http://www.dictionary.com/browse/chagrin

With regards to my issue I have contacted Canon this morning. They've asked me to send photos -- I did. We will see what they say and if they want me to send it in; they probably will want it to come in (again, speculation on my part). I'm prepared to send it in now if it comes to that.


You're right and you're wrong about whether or not help can be had with my issue. Perhaps in this case there is nothing anyone can for sure say is the cause of the problem; but that certainly does not mean that's always the case. As you're quick to defend yourself and your contributions on this forum, people do seek help and answers for questions all the time. Sometimes these questions are technique related, and sometimes they are hardware/technical questions. There are people from all sorts of walks of life on here, and some are able to get right into the nitty gritty of the most technical aspects. Neuro, for one, often has posts that are an extremely technical nature, and I've even seen him speculate on a few things in reply to a question!

Forums give people a chance to ask a question and have things explained to them, as you know. Often times sending photography equipment in for repair only amounts to a bill with no explanation at the end of why something was carried out. Canon is not always right, and it's forums like these that allow a community to help each other and, in some cases, do present exacting answers to issues. I want to know what I'm in store for with an issue and whether it's my fault or a manufacturing defect before I get billed, if at all possible. I'm simply trying every avenue available, and I'm sorry if I have stepped on your toes in the process. I'd like to move past this, and please know that no disrespect was intended.

 

[tpatana]

I thought there were several good comments/suggestions, but you (R1-7D) seemed to take offence on them because they didn't align with your view good enough. Did you come here to ask (honest) comments about your situation, or you just wanted to be patted on your back because you feel sad?

Yes, it sucks if your expensive new toy doesn't perform 100%. I'm sure I'd almost cry, especially after my wife would spank me for spending so much money and then it doesn't perform.

But people here truly tried to give you different views on the situation too, but your responses made it look like you didn't accept the responses.

More pictures, less sadness.

Ps. can you post couple of those flower macro pics too where you said you can see the traces?

 

[R1-7D]

Well, this took a predictable, but not necessarily helpful turn.

1) I agree with those who say to "send it to Canon." I said that from the start.

2) I took the original post to be a plea to have other 1DX II users repeat the same experiment to see if they could reproduce the same results. Several did that (including me. I couldn't).

Still, just because someone else has similar results, that doesn't mean it isn't defective or damaged. It just means someone else has the same problem. No solution there.

That said, this does raise a question for me.

What do others do about sensor cleaning?

1) I've always sent my cameras in to CPS for an annual cleaning. In fact that's probably the number one reason why I joined CPS.

2) Now I'm reading (and experiencing) that this may not do all that much good. (After all, when I sent my new 1DX II to have sensor dust cleaned, it came back with dust on it.

So, what do others do?

Regular blowing with a Giottos seems like the safest technique. But, it can also just mean moving dust around. (I understand this is the only cleaning Canon sanctions).

Wet cleaning seems a bit scary to me. Do others regularly do a wet cleaning of their sensors? And, if so, how effective is that? What brands do people use? I read some things that say the Arctic Butterfly system is not recommended and can damage the sensor. Do others agree.

What about oil? From what I've been reading, oil is a problem with cameras like the 1DX (possibly because of the high frame rate). Cleaning off dust seems fairly straightforward. Cleaning off oil smears not so much.

I'd like to turn this lemon of a thread into lemonade. Anyone willing to help with actual experience and knowledge?

I'm interested in this too.

 

[tpatana]

Wet cleaning seems a bit scary to me. Do others regularly do a wet cleaning of their sensors? And, if so, how effective is that? What brands do people use? I read some things that say the Arctic Butterfly system is not recommended and can damage the sensor. Do others agree.

What about oil? From what I've been reading, oil is a problem with cameras like the 1DX (possibly because of the high frame rate). Cleaning off dust seems fairly straightforward. Cleaning off oil smears not so much.

I wet clean my 1DX about every 2-3 months. First few times were scary, now it's just one routine in the maintenance.

 

[unfocused]

Wet cleaning seems a bit scary to me. Do others regularly do a wet cleaning of their sensors? And, if so, how effective is that? What brands do people use? I read some things that say the Arctic Butterfly system is not recommended and can damage the sensor. Do others agree.

What about oil? From what I've been reading, oil is a problem with cameras like the 1DX (possibly because of the high frame rate). Cleaning off dust seems fairly straightforward. Cleaning off oil smears not so much.

I wet clean my 1DX about every 2-3 months. First few times were scary, now it's just one routine in the maintenance.

What do you use?

 

[R1-7D]

I thought there were several good comments/suggestions, but you (R1-7D) seemed to take offence on them because they didn't align with your view good enough. Did you come here to ask (honest) comments about your situation, or you just wanted to be patted on your back because you feel sad?

Yes, it sucks if your expensive new toy doesn't perform 100%. I'm sure I'd almost cry, especially after my wife would spank me for spending so much money and then it doesn't perform.

But people here truly tried to give you different views on the situation too, but your responses made it look like you didn't accept the responses.

More pictures, less sadness.

Ps. can you post couple of those flower macro pics too where you said you can see the traces?

Tpatana,

I'm sorry, but I've followed the suggestions given in this thread -- even by Privatebydesign. I don't feel as if I've taken offence to anything because they didn't "align" with my views. If people are getting that impression from my posts, well, then I have not articulated myself clearly and I apologize. I did take issue with the suggestion that no one on here could be helpful or offer an explanation. However, as it looks like there is no clear-cut explanation, well, I'll be dealing with Canon as it's the only thing to do. Thank you for your posts and contributions to the thread, however.

I thought perhaps people might have some idea what causes this, or what could potentially be done to fix it. As I said in a previous post, I've had a rough experience with CPS in the past, which is why I like to have some information when I go in and speak with them. Privatebydesign is not wrong -- at this point it's all speculation. Since it could be a number of issues, Canon is the final say on it now.

 

[Mario]

2) I took the original post to be a plea to have other 1DX II users repeat the same experiment to see if they could reproduce the same results. Several did that (including me. I couldn't).

Still, just because someone else has similar results, that doesn't mean it isn't defective or damaged. It just means someone else has the same problem. No solution there.

That said, this does raise a question for me.

What do others do about sensor cleaning?
...

I was one of the persons who did the test and sent a raw file to R1-7D since I couldn't see the problem myself. However, I had another look at my dust pic, and after a 100 % dehaze I can indeed see the stripes, I just wasn't looking at actual pixels in the beginning.

Since I had severe dust and oil problems with my 1DX, the first thing I did was taking a dust picture when I got the 1DXII (the first picture I took with it for future reference). I gave that dust picture the same dehaze treatment, and it has the same stripes. So based on this I'd say it's not related to sensor cleaning.

I then took a look at the dust pictures of the 2 1DX's I had, and although is less pronounced, there seems to be stripes as well after the dehaze treatment. So I am not too sure it's a real issue.

Anyway, I don't care too much about it since I don't see it on my actual real life pictures .

But it is/was an interesting discussion .

Mario