Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Kitty on May 27, 2008, 06:57:07 am
-
My friend just found his H1D has fungus on IR filter front of CCD. I try to clean it but it seems no way to wipe it out. Does anyone know how to solve this? Or how much it cost to change this IR? Any advise would be appreciated.
kitty
-
My friend just found his H1D has fungus on IR filter front of CCD. I try to clean it but it seems no way to wipe it out. Does anyone know how to solve this? Or how much it cost to change this IR? Any advise would be appreciated.
kitty
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198277\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I had what seemed like the same problem with an Imacon (now Hasselblad) Carnival back in 2003.
I never got to the bottom of exactly what had occurred; it looked like tiny, randomly placed concentric rings - could of been fungus or maybe some separation between layers (if their are any in the filter!?)
It had to go back to Denmark for filter replacement, service and re-calibration. Cost then was about £500. Sorry.
-
Thanks for quick reply.
I think £500 is reasonable. The dealer here quote £1,200 for filter replacement.
No guarantee that the problem will be repeat or not.
Could we send directly to Denmark?
I think £1,200 for filter replacement is too much.
My friend is thinking of switching to phase now.
kitty
-
Thanks for quick reply.
I think £500 is reasonable. The dealer here quote £1,200 for filter replacement.
No guarantee that the problem will be repeat or not.
Could we send directly to Denmark?
I think £1,200 for filter replacement is too much.
My friend is thinking of switching to phase now.
kitty
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198344\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not sure about sending direct.
I sent mine via a dealer, but that was 5 years ago and the filter in my old back was only 35mm format!
I guess the larger filter on your friends later model along with the passing of five years may in fact add up to £1,200 unfortunately.
Both Phase and Hasselblad have good trade-in packages so if your friend fancies the latest model now might be the best time.
I've learned to keep my back in a tiny Pelicase with a constant supply of fresh silica gel sachets!
-
Your friend might want to check out trade-up possibilities. This could end up being the smart thing to do. Especially if you already planned to upgrade or change.
-
A recent thread on the Phase P Back forum emphasised that all returns must be via a dealer and not direct.
-
This fungus issue is a known problem with all Imacon / Hasseblad IR glass on all backs up to the latest new H3D11 which has the new glass.
In the 2.5 years I have had a 528C back it has had 2 vacations to Denmark for the glass to be replaced. Here in Sydney it can be very hot & humid some years. It needs the right conditions to make it grow. The beginning of this year was bad and as such there wee several fungus attacks here.
There is no cleaning method. The only fix is to replace the glass, or as is always suggested to me, upgrade. Spending 20,000.00 + to upgrade never seemed like a solution to a problematic 6 x 4.5 cm piece of glass.
The cost that your dealer is quoting is really far out. Please go to the Hasselblad web-site service section that quotes fixed price repairs.
http://www.hasselblad.com/service--support...xed-prices.aspx (http://www.hasselblad.com/service--support/service/repairs-with-fixed-prices.aspx)
You will find CCD cleaning. To clean the CCD the glass is removed and can then be replaced with the actual glass as the only additional cost. At a quoted cost of 315 Euros this is a far difference from what you were quoted. You can not go direct. However you can show them the Hasselblad site info and ask what is up.
With my last one ( returned 3 weeks ago ) I do not think they charged for the glass as it is a know problem. My last repair was $480.00 AUD all up which about equals the Euro quoted cost. My dealer David Roche at Silver Pixel here in Sydney has been more than great in dealing with this issue, hopefully your dealer will also.
Good luck
Brent Daniels
-
This fungus issue is a known problem with all Imacon / Hasseblad IR glass on all backs up to the latest new H3D11 which has the new glass.
Good luck
Brent Daniels
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198423\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I realize this may be greeted with "Oh, yeah right", but only one of my customers (still using a 6 megapixel 3020 unit) using Imacon/Hasselblad products has yet to experience any fungal issues, going back over 5 years.
To be sure, this happens more commonly in tropical humid climates, although here in the southeast US, we qualify to some degree at least part of the year.
Sensor fungus is not restricted to Imacon/Hasselblad, as I have seen other digital back brands (won't be named) experience this. In any case, it is not common.
In the USA, IR Filter replacement for a Hasselblad product is typically in the $500-$700-ish range, depending on your dealer.
Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
-
Thank you all for all the reply.
At least there is hope.
Changing IR is the 1st choice.
Upgrade would be the last choice.
I just hope the dealer will listen to me. 700 US and 1,200 Euro is big different.
Camera is still in good shape. Take only 4,500 shots.
The model is H1D Ixpress 132C, 22 MP.
I also attached some pictures so you how it looks like.
Steve, I am curious. Why the price is so much different?
And if they don't reduce the price to normal rate.
Can I contact directly to Hasselblad or send to you?
TIA,
kitty
[attachment=6810:attachment][attachment=6811:attachment]
-
Thank you all for all the reply.
At least there is hope.
Changing IR is the 1st choice.
Upgrade would be the last choice.
I just hope the dealer will listen to me. 700 US and 1,200 Euro is big different.
Camera is still in good shape. Take only 4,500 shots.
The model is H1D Ixpress 132C, 22 MP.
I also attached some pictures so you how it looks like.
Steve, I am curious. Why the price is so much different?
And if they don't reduce the price to normal rate.
Can I contact directly to Hasselblad or send to you?
TIA,
kitty
[attachment=6810:attachment][attachment=6811:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198452\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Regardless of the manufacturer, this should be covered by the maker of the backs, including a loner, shipping and return.
I'm serious, because anytime a manufacturer has a reaccuring problem there should be a big sticker on the front of the camera that warns you and says something like , DO NOT USE IN HUMID CLIMATES, or they shoud fix it and send a big note of apology.
After all it's not like you did some hell raising shoot for 6 months in the Amazon.
A $30k camera should be fixed for free for this type of issue.
I had my ups and downs with the Aptus, but on Leaf's behalf when my A-22 suffered overheating, they gave me a brand new one in days, no price, no charge, no questions asked.
That is exactly the way this should work and one thing Leaf is spot on about.
No manufacturer should look at this as a profit or cost center and no manufacturer should put this type of issue on the user or the dealer.
JR
-
Regardless of the manufacturer, this should be covered by the maker of the backs, including a loner, shipping and return.
I'm serious, because anytime a manufacturer has a reaccuring problem there should be a big sticker on the front of the camera that warns you and says something like , DO NOT USE IN HUMID CLIMATES, or they shoud fix it and send a big note of apology.
After all it's not like you did some hell raising shoot for 6 months in the Amazon.
A $30k camera should be fixed for free for this type of issue.
I had my ups and downs with the Aptus, but on Leaf's behalf when my A-22 suffered overheating, they gave me a brand new one in days, no price, no charge, no questions asked.
That is exactly the way this should work and one thing Leaf is spot on about.
No manufacturer should look at this as a profit or cost center and no manufacturer should put this type of issue on the user or the dealer.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198454\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
JR, I totally agree 100%.
By phone they said no warranty that fungus problem will be repeated.
I talked to someone and they said even H3D2 also has fungus problem on IR filter too.
I don't know whether it is true or not. But I think a lot of people never heard this.
I just hope there is something wrong with their communication.
I hate to think they are making money from reparing services.
kitty
-
JR, I totally agree 100%.
By phone they said no warranty that fungus problem will be repeated.
I talked to someone and they said even H3D2 also has fungus problem on IR filter too.
I don't know whether it is true or not. But I think a lot of people never heard this.
I just hope there is something wrong with their communication.
I hate to think they are making money from reparing services.
kitty
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198459\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not to belabor this, but I feel strongly about the equipment we use, because I feel strongly about getting the job done.
If you buy an expensive back, you take precautions and your check clears you lived to your end of the bargain, the manufacturer should live to theirs.
Most of us use these tools for our livelihood and few clients are asking us to move up to a bigger camera, larger files, or know the difference betwen 14 bit and 16 bit conversion. We do this of our on accord to provide what we hope is a better image with a better workflow.
Losing days, even weeks waiting for a paid repair for something that obviously is a known issue is really not right and if medium format wants to stay in the camera game, they all need to up their game and deliver EXACTLY what they promise.
After all we are held to that standard in our work.
JR
-
Spending 20,000.00 + to upgrade never seemed like a solution to a problematic 6 x 4.5 cm piece of glass.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198423\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I do agree it is a ridiculous price for replacing the IR filter (which can't even be the new and improved filter). The upgrade advice was because her friend already planned on going to another back.
At the price of 1200euros for a new IR filter it is a good deduction of any trade-in price. Which are way less than 20K btw, more in the order of 10K (slightly above).
-
I sent my Ixpress back for IR filter cleaning recently through my local dealer. The back was sent out from Malaysia to Copenhagen, and returned 3 weeks later just as they said. The cost was EURO 315 + shipping and insurance, which came up to approximately EURO 372 at the prevailing exchange rate or at the time about USD 550.
My Ixpress back now lives inside a dry cabinet as ambient humidity here is a soggy 86% average all year round, especially after my dealer urged me to keep it stored either in a permanently air conditioned room, or a dry cabinet. But to me, I am a bit peeved at the apparent delicateness of the IR filter on the Ixpress - afterall, we practically throw our Nikons about with no particular care for them except to take them for the very occasional clean at Nikon, and they don't appear to be susceptible to any of these problems. Our local conditions being what they are though, dealing with "welded" dust due to condensation, temperature and humidity changes is a fact of life as we go from outside weather to airconditioned interiors, etc. I can't do all my photography inside a safe "bubble" all the time.
BTW, I have no experience of other digital backs in tropical weather, so I cannot comment on them.
-
I sent my Ixpress back for IR filter cleaning recently through my local dealer. The back was sent out from Malaysia to Copenhagen, and returned 3 weeks later just as they said. The cost was EURO 315 + shipping and insurance, which came up to approximately EURO 372 at the prevailing exchange rate or at the time about USD 550.
My Ixpress back now lives inside a dry cabinet as ambient humidity here is a soggy 86% average all year round, especially after my dealer urged me to keep it stored either in a permanently air conditioned room, or a dry cabinet. But to me, I am a bit peeved at the apparent delicateness of the IR filter on the Ixpress - afterall, we practically throw our Nikons about with no particular care for them except to take them for the very occasional clean at Nikon, and they don't appear to be susceptible to any of these problems. Our local conditions being what they are though, dealing with "welded" dust due to condensation, temperature and humidity changes is a fact of life as we go from outside weather to airconditioned interiors, etc. I can't do all my photography inside a safe "bubble" all the time.
BTW, I have no experience of other digital backs in tropical weather, so I cannot comment on them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198475\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Shutay, Could you please give me address and email of your dealer in Malaysia? I live in Bangkok, Thailand. The dealer here is Shriro [Thailand].
kitty
-
Shutay, Could you please give me address and email of your dealer in Malaysia? I live in Bangkok, Thailand. The dealer here is Shriro [Thailand].
kitty
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198479\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh that's interesting because my dealer is also Shriro...
-
Shutay, Could you please give me address and email of your dealer in Malaysia? I live in Bangkok, Thailand. The dealer here is Shriro [Thailand].
kitty
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198479\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've PM'ed the requested information.
-
We have a lot of humidity problems in Hawaii so to prevent fungus I put 2 zorb-its in each of my camera bags
http://www.zorb-it.com (http://www.zorb-it.com)
Marc
-
I will never cease to be amazed by the irrational ideas and assumptions that some otherwise intelligent people are willing to believe and repeat to others as if it is fact. In some cases it is because they are uninterested in doing even a little research and/or they hear or read nonsense that they want to believe.
There is nothing inherent in any type of glass that will make it more or less susceptible to fungus growth. There is nothing a manufacturer can do to prevent the occurrence on any optical surface that is exposed to the environment. Certain types of microscope and sporting optics are sealed against air and moisture, often with nitrogen inside, to minimize the risk of contamination. This not possible with optics that must move in a way that requires displacement of air, as nearly all camera lenses do, and impossible with an IR filter on a digital back.
Fungus growth on optics is something that I've seen on a wide variety of camera lenses, some viewfinders and prisms and never on a digital back, though none are immune to the possibility. It only requires the right environment, exposure to the right type of spores and time to grow undisturbed with something to feed on over that time period. Fungi are living cells that require an environment that will support them including organic matter for nourishment. It is not the glass itself that provides the needed environment, but microscopic organic material from the environment that is deposited and builds up, allowing spores in the air to attach and grow. Moisture is also needed to sustain life in the cells, which is why humid environments are ideal.
The owners and users of vulnerable equipment can take proper care and precautions to reduce the risk of fungal growth... or not. The use of desiccants to absorb moisture and storing equipment in a safe environment can certainly help. Cleaning the surface of lenses and sensors occasionally, to remove the invisible environmental films that build up, would also be a sound practice.
-
I will never cease to be amazed by the irrational ideas and assumptions that some otherwise intelligent people are willing to believe and repeat to others as if it is fact. In some cases it is because they are uninterested in doing even a little research and/or they hear or read nonsense that they want to believe.
There is nothing inherent in any type of glass that will make it more or less susceptible to fungus growth. There is nothing a manufacturer can do to prevent the occurrence on any optical surface that is exposed to the environment. Certain types of microscope and sporting optics are sealed against air and moisture, often with nitrogen inside, to minimize the risk of contamination. This not possible with optics that must move in a way that requires displacement of air, as nearly all camera lenses do, and impossible with an IR filter on a digital back.
Fungus growth on optics is something that I've seen on a wide variety of camera lenses, some viewfinders and prisms and never on a digital back, though none are immune to the possibility. It only requires the right environment, exposure to the right type of spores and time to grow undisturbed with something to feed on over that time period. Fungi are living cells that require an environment that will support them including organic matter for nourishment. It is not the glass itself that provides the needed environment, but microscopic organic material from the environment that is deposited and builds up, allowing spores in the air to attach and grow. Moisture is also needed to sustain life in the cells, which is why humid environments are ideal.
The owners and users of vulnerable equipment can take proper care and precautions to reduce the risk of fungal growth... or not. The use of desiccants to absorb moisture and storing equipment in a safe environment can certainly help. Cleaning the surface of lenses and sensors occasionally, to remove the invisible environmental films that build up, would also be a sound practice.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198910\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I had to have fungus removed from in between the AA filter and sensor on my 5D
Marc
-
Losing days, even weeks waiting for a paid repair for something that obviously is a known issue is really not right and if medium format wants to stay in the camera game, they all need to up their game and deliver EXACTLY what they promise.
After all we are held to that standard in our work.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198462\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The only thing that I've seen here "that obviously is a known issue" is that people have the freedom to go on the internet and make absurd claims that a company is responsible for damage to their products due to environmental and natural forces over which they have no control.
It's good to have standards that apply to one's work. It would also be nice to have standards that apply to one's words and claims, maybe even some rationale and logic. Especially if those words might damage a reputation.
-
The only thing that I've seen here "that obviously is a known issue" is that people have the freedom to go on the internet and make absurd claims that a company is responsible for damage to their products due to environmental and natural forces over which they have no control.
It's good to have standards that apply to one's work. It would also be nice to have standards that apply to one's words and claims, maybe even some rationale and logic. Especially if those words might damage a reputation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have mixed feelings about this. As I pointed out in an earlier post I suffered with fungus on the filter of a 3020 which took a trip to Denmark to be corrected.
I bought the back second hand and believe the storage regime of the original owner may have contributed to it's affliction.
However, I would of expected the filter to be all but hermetically sealed to the sensor assembly to prevent anything alien getting into the sensor/filter gap. So does this mean that the spores are already in there but simply require the correct environment to run riot?
Whatever the answer, my expensive lesson has resulted in all my kit being stored in a small room with de-humidification 24/7 and every Pelicase having a bag of indicator desiccant.
.....and I live in England not the Tropics!
-
The only thing that I've seen here "that obviously is a known issue" is that people have the freedom to go on the internet and make absurd claims that a company is responsible for damage to their products due to environmental and natural forces over which they have no control.
It's good to have standards that apply to one's work. It would also be nice to have standards that apply to one's words and claims, maybe even some rationale and logic. Especially if those words might damage a reputation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's an interesting idea, to have to prove everything that is written on the interent, not that the person posting this original issue doesn't have have a genuine problem and not that the replacement costs isn't high, but hey, everybody has an opinion, including me.
Have you called a camera company (or some dealers) and told them you have a problem. Usually the first thing they do is have an assumption that it's user generated and I could write and list a lot of issues and dealers, manufacturer's responses, but that would probably be reviewed as someone complaining, not informing, or god forbid even discussing the issue.
Actually from what I can tell this is the way these forums work. somebody has a problem, other people respond, and some where down the line, (usually way down the line) the truth is sussed out.
In my opinion if Hasselblad, Phase, or Canon have issues with what is written, then have someone respond to these forums with an answer, because most of the manufacturers do read these forums.
This fungus thing or whatever it is does happen and I guess there is a remidy, though finding a solution seems to be after the fact, not before it.
Maybe the Haselblad is the best system in the world, I don't know because the few times I've tried it wasn't for me and when I heard Christian Paulsen speak I didn't really get the impression that what I needed out of a system was high on his list, but then again that is just my opinion and it's the only opinion I can present.
Maybe there is an assumption about me that since Phase did a feature article that I somehow am camera bias or have an agenda and I don't, in fact call the Phase people and ask how deep my bias is and how much I directly profited from this.
I use what I use because it works today, but and this is a big thing to me, my loyalties are only to my studios, my paying clients and my employees. Past that I would switch all of this equipment to any brand if it worked better, faster, easier and more reliable.
As far as claims and opinions well, if I'm wrong in anything I write then I'm more than willing to admit it, but if all of us only commented on something we actually had in hand and had used for 10 years, then these forums would only have about one post a day.
JR
-
I will never cease to be amazed by the irrational ideas and assumptions that some otherwise intelligent people are willing to believe and repeat to others as if it is fact. In some cases it is because they are uninterested in doing even a little research and/or they hear or read nonsense that they want to believe.
TechTalk you refer to intelligent people with irrational ideas and assumptions based on a lack of research, and or believing in nonsense they read. You seem to take offence at my statement that
the IR glass fungus is a known issue to Hasselblad.
However do you have any direct knowledge of this Hasselblad fungus issue?
Have you had in writing discussions with someone at Hasselblad such as their Field Application Specialist about this issue?
Well I have had both. I am not spreading irrational ideas. Just real life experience and direct in writing information from a Hasselblad Field Application Specialist. I would think that most people on this forum would not consider that irrational ideas, assumptions, or nonsense.
Yes the conditions need to be correct for it to arise. Basically heat at 30 C+ and humidity at 70 % +. The fungus also needs something to grow from, to feed. You state that cleaning the glass surface could prevent feed for the fungus. The only problem in both of the situations I have experienced is the fungus was not on the top surface of the IR glass. How do you clean inside / under the IR glass? Also in the 3 years I owned and used a Sinar back in the same studio only conditions not one bit of fungus. Over an 8 year period not one bit of fungus on any lens or even the Arca leather bellows. So why just the Hasselblad IR glass?
These are are the questions I put to Hasselblad. My statement that this is a "Known Issue" to Hasselblad is based on the responses in writing that I received such as:
- " I am not sure when the fungus issue became, well an issue. "
- " The other reason to change the filter was to better handle flare off the larger chip areas compared to 16MP so the new design is not only for fungal reasons. "
- " True, but your CCD heats up to a lovely 30°C plus, in an environment which I guess is above 60% RH. Then you have the perfect conditions for bacterial growth. The multi coating on the lenses is enough to prevent the growth, like the new coating on the IR filter. "
So based on direct statements from a Hasselblad representative I concluded that this was a know issue to Hasselblad. Wow. Such irrational nonsense.
To myself, one of the effected, Hasselblad has acknowledged the issue honestly and they have worked to find what they think will be future solution to the situation. With the H3D 11 they have made changes to reduce the heat and also use a lens like multicoating on the IR glass. I applaud all these moves. Too bad I can not receive the benefit of these improvements without a 20 000.00 + upgrade.
I have received very very good service from my dealer, and Hasselblad in dealing with my situation. In Kitty's case they were clearly getting hosed because of a lack of knowledge. Forums such as this one provided by Michael and posts by real life users of this expensive technical gear are one of the greatest benefits of the internet to the users MFDB's.
Without direct knowledge of others in the world through forums such as this many owners of the Blad zoom lens would still be believing the element falling out was all their fault, the previous Blad IR glass did not have flare issues compared to other backs.
With the internet it is very easy to assume someone may be throwing out irrational ideas or just plain nonsense. However TechTalk perhaps you should first inquire where that person had gained this knowledge to judge it's accuracy and quality before you pull out the "irrational" name tags.
Cheers
Brent Daniels
-
Regardless of the manufacturer, this should be covered by the maker of the backs, including a loner, shipping and return.
I'm serious, because anytime a manufacturer has a reaccuring problem there should be a big sticker on the front of the camera that warns you and says something like , DO NOT USE IN HUMID CLIMATES, or they shoud fix it and send a big note of apology.
After all it's not like you did some hell raising shoot for 6 months in the Amazon.
A $30k camera should be fixed for free for this type of issue.
I had my ups and downs with the Aptus, but on Leaf's behalf when my A-22 suffered overheating, they gave me a brand new one in days, no price, no charge, no questions asked.
That is exactly the way this should work and one thing Leaf is spot on about.
No manufacturer should look at this as a profit or cost center and no manufacturer should put this type of issue on the user or the dealer.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198454\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not to belabor this, but I feel strongly about the equipment we use, because I feel strongly about getting the job done.
If you buy an expensive back, you take precautions and your check clears you lived to your end of the bargain, the manufacturer should live to theirs.
Most of us use these tools for our livelihood and few clients are asking us to move up to a bigger camera, larger files, or know the difference betwen 14 bit and 16 bit conversion. We do this of our on accord to provide what we hope is a better image with a better workflow.
Losing days, even weeks waiting for a paid repair for something that obviously is a known issue is really not right and if medium format wants to stay in the camera game, they all need to up their game and deliver EXACTLY what they promise.
After all we are held to that standard in our work.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198462\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's an interesting idea, to have to prove everything that is written on the interent, not that the person posting this original issue doesn't have have a genuine problem and not that the replacement costs isn't high, but hey, everybody has an opinion, including me.
Have you called a camera company (or some dealers) and told them you have a problem. Usually the first thing they do is have an assumption that it's user generated and I could write and list a lot of issues and dealers, manufacturer's responses, but that would probably be reviewed as someone complaining, not informing, or god forbid even discussing the issue.
Actually from what I can tell this is the way these forums work. somebody has a problem, other people respond, and some where down the line, (usually way down the line) the truth is sussed out.
In my opinion if Hasselblad, Phase, or Canon have issues with what is written, then have someone respond to these forums with an answer, because most of the manufacturers do read these forums.
This fungus thing or whatever it is does happen and I guess there is a remidy, though finding a solution seems to be after the fact, not before it.
Maybe the Haselblad is the best system in the world, I don't know because the few times I've tried it wasn't for me and when I heard Christian Paulsen speak I didn't really get the impression that what I needed out of a system was high on his list, but then again that is just my opinion and it's the only opinion I can present.
Maybe there is an assumption about me that since Phase did a feature article that I somehow am camera bias or have an agenda and I don't, in fact call the Phase people and ask how deep my bias is and how much I directly profited from this.
I use what I use because it works today, but and this is a big thing to me, my loyalties are only to my studios, my paying clients and my employees. Past that I would switch all of this equipment to any brand if it worked better, faster, easier and more reliable.
As far as claims and opinions well, if I'm wrong in anything I write then I'm more than willing to admit it, but if all of us only commented on something we actually had in hand and had used for 10 years, then these forums would only have about one post a day.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199403\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have quoted your previous comments in this thread completely, but have taken the liberty of highlighting in bold some of the comments that I found of interest. I find your comment "That's an interesting idea, to have to prove everything that is written on the interent" curious. I haven't seen that idea suggested anywhere. It might have merit, but is completely impractical. However, I embrace your suggestion that we should hold ourselves to high standards. The question that I pose is how high or how low those standards should be. I admire the high standards you apply to your work. I wish that high standards were also applied to jumping on a soapbox or bandwagon to condemn companies and their products for "something that obviously is a known issue".
My personal opinion is that it is a pretty low standard to assume that something is in fact a "known issue" because someone (Brent Daniels) states it, as if it's a fact, on a message board and is backed up by "I talked to someone and they said even H3D2 also has fungus problem on IR filter too. I don't know whether it is true or not. But I think a lot of people never heard this." as we are informed by Kitty. I'm sorry if this offends you James (or anyone else), but before I would accept and repeat with a strong dose of indignation this kind of "information" that could damage a reputation, I would need some confirmation that meets a higher standard.
Frankly, those statements defy common sense. We're not discussing a component failure like the cooling issue with your Aptus. We're talking about an organism that attaches to and grows on things. I don't have to be an expert in astrophysics to know that the sun does not rotate around the earth and it does not require a degree in biology to know that mold that grows in a shower is NOT "a known issue" that is the fault of the tile maker. That fungus will grow on optics in humid climates is a pretty well known issue and should not require much research to understand. Your statement "finding a solution seems to be after the fact, not before it" is a dangerous assumption as the opposite is true. The solution for minimizing the risk of damage comes from preventive measures on the part of the user in the storage and maintenance of equipment before the conditions combine that allow fungus to grow. (This would also apply to your shower by the way)
I suspect that if what we we're discussing here wasn't optics and fungus, but another message board. Let's say one where people that make hiring decisions for photographers meet to discuss their experience with photographers. And let's say someone posted claims damaging to your reputation. Then someone else chimes in with what they have heard (don't know if it's true or not... but that's what I heard). Then a well known art director takes up the cause and says... well, I don't know these other posters or the cause of these problems, but this is something that obviously is a known issue and should be a concern to us all! Your attitude regarding the standards for people writing damaging information might be a bit higher. Pure speculation on my part, I realize. Perhaps your attitude would be that people don't have to prove everything that is written on the internet. Don't know you... can't say for sure how you'd react.
Let me also address the general lashing out at manufacturers and dealers ("Have you called a camera company (or some dealers) and told them you have a problem. Usually the first thing they do is have an assumption that it's user generated and I could write and list a lot of issues and dealers, manufacturer's responses, but that would probably be reviewed as someone complaining, not informing, or god forbid even discussing the issue.") by stating that I'm quite sure that on many occasions you and I and many others have been disappointed in service that fell far from the standards of service we expect. On the other hand, I could also provide examples of dealers who have answered the phone to help with problems on holidays, weekends and evenings to patiently work through problems (including "user errors"), given tons of free advice and counsel as well as free loaners (at their own expense) for testing or non-warranty repairs. I have also known manufacturers to provide repairs, replacements and assistance that was well above and beyond the call of duty. Best not to paint with too broad of a brush in this area as I have many times had both great service and lousy service, at various times, from most companies.
If you feel that I'm singling you out and picking on you, compared to other posters in this thread... I guess I am. Based on the number of posts, the length of your posts, the indignation expressed, the call for being held to high standards... I felt that I should start with your posts.
But in the time that it took to type this, I see that Brent Daniels has responded. So let me discuss this with Brent next.
-
Brent,
That fungus can grow on any optical surface is a known issue. I've seen this many times over many years, mostly with lenses.
That this is some how unique to Hasselblad makes no sense at all and I'll be happy to address this and all of your other points.
It is too late in the day to respond to your lengthy post, so let me get back to this tomorrow.
Best wishes to you. Remember to keep your powder dry... and your camera gear.
In the interim, you might want to do some shopping... Dry Storage for Optics Link (http://www.totechamerica.com/optics/index_optics.php)
-
We have a lot of humidity problems in Hawaii so to prevent fungus I put 2 zorb-its in each of my camera bags
http://www.zorb-it.com (http://www.zorb-it.com)
Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198703\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you marc. This is very interesting. I would order some soon.
My friend is thinking about the IR replacement. The cost is too high.
kitty
-
I have to be honest and intervene here to give my knowledge and point of view. AND also to support and agree with most of what "TechTalk" has said here and in the post above.
"Fungus can grow on any optical surface".
I can say that we had such a problem with fungus with the very first Sinarback model, the SB 22 with the Loral 4 MPx sensor, although this has nothing to do with the sensor type. We had some very few customers having fungus growing on their IR filter. After some research with the IR filter manufacturer it came out that it was due to the special coating of these filters, a kind of gelatin. This provided ground and food for fungus to develop and grow under humid and warm circumstances, e.g. in very warm and humid countries, when not taken care of. I recall having dealt with 2 or 3 such cases in Asia, and there were may be 5 or 10 worldwide.
This type of filter was immediately replaced by another one and though I can imagine that this can still happen somehow, there are no known cases from us so far and since. I would however still be very taking care of my optics and sensor(s) and keep them in a dry place whenever possible.
What "TechTalk writes concerning "lashing out at manufacturers and distributors/dealers", I can only agree with his reaction. One always forgets the many examples where those manufacturers (or dealers) do anything and more to help. Even when it comes out that it was a "user error or mistake", we (not only speaking for Sinar here, but all) still say "You are welcome". I can speak of my tech colleague at Sinar who has his mobile ready on saturdays and sundays, when he knows that a particular customer might need his help. I can only suspect that this is the case with other manufacturers as well. I also know my dealers in some countries, who have their mobile switched on day and night, and customers are informed that they can call day and night and 7 days. I do also suspect that this is the case with others as well. Yes, bad support and service happens, but the opposite is also true.
Coming to "claims", "complains" and "statements" made here or on other public forums, I have my fair share of experience: I do take all these claims and complains very seriously, but by looking back, I have to say that among all those "lashings", a good percentage of it is far from the "truth" that is posted under public eyes. There are often many "unsaids" in a story. However, I know also that we nevertheless take this seriously until the case is settled at the satisfaction of the customer. I am sure that is the case with all manufacturers, in the limit of their possibilities. The "damage" because something has been claimed in a public place can however almost not been cleared away.
Best regards,
Thierry
Brent,
That fungus can grow on any optical surface is a known issue. I've seen this many times over many years, mostly with lenses.
That this is some how unique to Hasselblad makes no sense at all and I'll be happy to address this and all of your other points.
It is too late in the day to respond to your lengthy post, so let me get back to this tomorrow.
Best wishes to you. Remember to keep your powder dry... and your camera gear.
In the interim, you might want to do some shopping... Dry Storage for Optics Link (http://www.totechamerica.com/optics/index_optics.php)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199481\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I agree with Thierry and Techtalk that there are people out there doing more than might be expected from them but things like this are not measured by the things that do go right. Unfortunately performance is measured by the things that go wrong most of the time (at least most of my clients seem to do this and most other places I have seen in the last 20 years as well).
Kudos to the dealers and people at the manufacturers that are doing a good job but there are still a lot of things that do not go right. There are dealers and people at the manufacturers that do not perform as should be expected.
Waving that away by pointing towards the ones that do a good job what do people have to think about that? Am I in luck when I find service that is acceptable? Could I at least expect a minimum level of service? Or should I be comfortable by getting bad service because somebody else somewhere else gets more than he should get?
It is a kind of mentality that prevents performance improvement going forward. How about it when governments would act like that.... sorry forgot... a lot of them do
These forums might not always seem to be fair but let it be a way in how people can help each other to separate the good from the bad and a way for dealers & manufacturers to weed out the bad stuff. If someone feels his reputation is at stake they are free to challenge that publicly as well.
Most people that frequent various forums get to know who is who and how meaningful the things
are they are stating or talking about.
In the end these forums are nothing more than a bowl of opinions with maybe some facts that cannot even be scientifically proven on which people might form their own opinion & decisions or.... not.
-
I agree with Thierry and Techtalk that there are people out there doing more than might be expected from them but things like this are not measured by the things that do go right. Unfortunately performance is measured by the things that go wrong most of the time (at least most of my clients seem to do this and most other places I have seen in the last 20 years as well).
Kudos to the dealers and people at the manufacturers that are doing a good job but there are still a lot of things that do not go right. There are dealers and people at the manufacturers that do not perform as should be expected.
Waving that away by pointing towards the ones that do a good job what do people have to think about that? Am I in luck when I find service that is acceptable? Could I at least expect a minimum level of service? Or should I be comfortable by getting bad service because somebody else somewhere else gets more than he should get?
It is a kind of mentality that prevents performance improvement going forward. How about it when governments would act like that.... sorry forgot... a lot of them do
These forums might not always seem to be fair but let it be a way in how people can help each other to separate the good from the bad and a way for dealers & manufacturers to weed out the bad stuff. If someone feels his reputation is at stake they are free to challenge that publicly as well.
Most people that frequent various forums get to know who is who and how meaningful the things
are they are stating or talking about.
In the end these forums are nothing more than a bowl of opinions with maybe some facts that cannot even be scientifically proven on which people might form their own opinion & decisions or.... not.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199497\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I negotiate every week of my life with agents, clients, production services and usually if there is an "issue" I try to find some common ground, or shared responsibility and have a good record of keeping things on track.
The times I see it fall apart is when one side digs there heels in the ground. They usually win on the day, but never long term.
To be fair none of us know if any claim made on the internet is completely grounded or correct, but in this instance if it was a single occurrence that only happened in this person's geographical area, then I'd say just pay for the fix.
What makes this different is the "real fix" means a 20k upgrade to a new back that has a better coated IR filter and that leads to the assumption that Hasselblad knows this is an issue.
Regardless of who's at fault, the thing I don't understand about this is why the maker of the back didn't take a shared responsibility view and just lower the price of an upgrade, or split the cost of the fix? To me that would have kept the client happy through good will?
These devices are complicated and I believe all the manufacturers are doing there best to make the best product possible. Still, the specialty cameras, mostly medium format seem to continually be in some form of growing pains, or development.
I've owned most of the professional digital cameras produced and all but 3; the original 1ds, the p30(non plus) and the p21+ have had major or minor issues and to quantify this major means a file is either destroyed or lost or the camera just doesn't work.
I've also had dealings with the dealers and manufactures and some have given it a great effort, some gave it lip service, but few did it on the same schedule or timeline that my clients expect me to perform under.
Yes there are good dealers, but even the best dealer in the world can't change the fact that with professional digital capture and post processing all of us are in some way beta testers and these forums attest to that.
I think these forums are valuable because they eventually get to the real bottom line and whether we like it or not, none of the manufacturers are going to bullet point the deficiencies of their product and in some instances never mention the issues unless they are out in public.
I find it interesting that as end users or consumers we hold different companies to different standards. Nobody would accept that their Toyota camary needed the windshield replaced because it permanently fogged and few would accept the only real fix would be to move to a Lexus, though most Camarys sell for less than a top end digital back.
I also find it interesting that most of the manufacturers never want to hear a negative about the product they represent, but off line most will mention the issues with the competitions product, or more telling online will respond to another makers problem with "our camera doesn't need a _________ for that type of shot".
I know a handful of photographers that have some type of sponsorship from the manufacturers and none of them will ever publicly mention an issue, though in private have a list as long as your arm.
To be truthful, all of these companies tend to leap frog each other in one way or the other and at some point all seem to have new issues come up just about the time the competition fixes their previous problems so usually the guy in the back now goes to the front.
Right now of the 4 makers of digital backs, 3 have their software in major re release,and 1 is just getting their software stable after 18 months of more than major reworking and reorganization.
3 makers have new cameras, all waiting on lenses and accessories and the rumors of new cameras, lenses, chips, formats, dimensions would fill two dozen forums.
The positive side of this is the industry is moving forward, the negative is if history is to be believed some of this new product will go through some teething pains.
JR
-
Thanks to Techtalk, James, Brent and all reply for my question.
Now problem solve. My friend discussed his problem with local repair shop.
The repair guys took filter out and clean it.
Now it works like new. Clean and clear.
It seems cleaning IR filter is not as complicated as we thought.
He paid $65 for cleaning.
Very happy now.
kitty
-
I will never cease to be amazed by the irrational ideas and assumptions that some otherwise intelligent people are willing to believe and repeat to others as if it is fact. In some cases it is because they are uninterested in doing even a little research and/or they hear or read nonsense that they want to believe.
There is nothing inherent in any type of glass that will make it more or less susceptible to fungus growth. There is nothing a manufacturer can do to prevent the occurrence on any optical surface that is exposed to the environment. Certain types of microscope and sporting optics are sealed against air and moisture, often with nitrogen inside, to minimize the risk of contamination. This not possible with optics that must move in a way that requires displacement of air, as nearly all camera lenses do, and impossible with an IR filter on a digital back.
Fungus growth on optics is something that I've seen on a wide variety of camera lenses, some viewfinders and prisms and never on a digital back, though none are immune to the possibility. It only requires the right environment, exposure to the right type of spores and time to grow undisturbed with something to feed on over that time period. Fungi are living cells that require an environment that will support them including organic matter for nourishment. It is not the glass itself that provides the needed environment, but microscopic organic material from the environment that is deposited and builds up, allowing spores in the air to attach and grow. Moisture is also needed to sustain life in the cells, which is why humid environments are ideal.
The owners and users of vulnerable equipment can take proper care and precautions to reduce the risk of fungal growth... or not. The use of desiccants to absorb moisture and storing equipment in a safe environment can certainly help. Cleaning the surface of lenses and sensors occasionally, to remove the invisible environmental films that build up, would also be a sound practice.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198910\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I hardly have any fungus with any of my equipment, because I have a special dry cabinet storage. HOWEVER, my Hasselblad back developed fungus on the IR filter after 8 months in strictly studio shoot! Hasselblad sent it back to Denmark and returned clean. Around 6 months later, decided to sell the back to upgrade, I had the CCD clean and serviced so come with warranty. A buyer purchased it, and of course, 2 months later, fungus came back, shy of outside the expiration of the warranty. Hasselblad offered to service the IR filter. Buyer lived in TX. People owning Phase/Leaf apparantly do not have this problem and I wonder about how your theory fits here. My Nikon camera and lenses go through fall more abuses (photojournalist) and NO fungus.
Thought I throw in my end of experiences.
-
I hardly have any fungus with any of my equipment, because I have a special dry cabinet storage. HOWEVER, my Hasselblad back developed fungus on the IR filter after 8 months in strictly studio shoot! Hasselblad sent it back to Denmark and returned clean. Around 6 months later, decided to sell the back to upgrade, I had the CCD clean and serviced so come with warranty. A buyer purchased it, and of course, 2 months later, fungus came back, shy of outside the expiration of the warranty. Hasselblad offered to service the IR filter. Buyer lived in TX. People owning Phase/Leaf apparantly do not have this problem and I wonder about how your theory fits here. My Nikon camera and lenses go through fall more abuses (photojournalist) and NO fungus.
Thought I throw in my end of experiences.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199997\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Appreciate your experience, but your statement that Phase/Leaf owners do not have the problem is based on a limitation of your experience.
As I have said before, I can assure you and everyone else that fungus is not a Hassleblad issue. I have customers who have owned non-Hasselblad digital backs that have most certainly had experience with fungus.
Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
-
Sorry that I have not had time to post more on this. Juggling work and family obligations is taking priority now. I'll have to get back to this topic over the weekend.
In the interim, some reading for you... Mould (Fungus) in Optics Link (http://www.iceh.org.uk/files/techforv2020/06.asp)
Excerpt from above link:
Although moulds grow in almost every environmental condition on the planet, most prefer temperatures of 20-30°C and relative humidity in excess of 90%. Moulds can germinate from nutrients stored in the spore, but, for growth, they need an additional source of nutrients such as protein, carbohydrate and cellulose. The mould network produces a microclimate close to the supporting surface which can trap dust particles containing nutrients, and can maintain the conditions of temperature and humidity needed for growth. In conditions of high humidity and moisture, many of the nutrients come directly from water vapour in the air.
According to the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO Publication 9022-11:1994), moulds cannot grow on the glass optical surfaces of lenses, prisms, mirrors or filters without access to other sources of nutrient - such as textile fibres and dust, grease and fingerprints, or varnish. This usually comes from the edges of the optical surface, from contamination left in the joint between the lens and the mounting cell during cleaning, or from varnish or other material in the mounting cell.
From Carl Zeiss... Fungus on Lenses Link (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Contents-Frame/29CD78D56723DA79C12571180042DF52)
-
I hardly have any fungus with any of my equipment, because I have a special dry cabinet storage. HOWEVER, my Hasselblad back developed fungus on the IR filter after 8 months in strictly studio shoot! Hasselblad sent it back to Denmark and returned clean. Around 6 months later, decided to sell the back to upgrade, I had the CCD clean and serviced so come with warranty. A buyer purchased it, and of course, 2 months later, fungus came back, shy of outside the expiration of the warranty. Hasselblad offered to service the IR filter. Buyer lived in TX. People owning Phase/Leaf apparantly do not have this problem and I wonder about how your theory fits here. My Nikon camera and lenses go through fall more abuses (photojournalist) and NO fungus.
Thought I throw in my end of experiences.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=199997\")
If only Hasselblad equipment is susceptible to fungus, why do you have "a special dry cabinet storage"?
If you think that your Nikon equipment is not vulnerable to fungus and you live in a humid climate (and I'm guessing that you do), I wish you good luck with that.
[a href=\"http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JTcO]CMOS Fungus Link[/url]
SLR Sensor Fungus (http://www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/discuss/72157604712577076/)
-
Kitty:
I am glad you have found a solution to your situation. These web forums are a great equaliser now days when a dealer such as the one you first encountered tries to extremely overcharge for a service item. As a Hasselblad dealer they should have had known that this was listed as a fixed price service item on the Hasselblad web-site. Their actions were just simply not acceptable.
James:
I completely agree with you. How the manufactures of this gear deal with problems that can , and do occur with their products has a much greater influence in the market place then they would ever imagine. Sometimes one seriously has to wonder if they understand the present marketplace in which we are trying to make a living with their products.
In my case I have a good dealer. A photographer who still shoots and knows what it is to be a photographer / small business. Trust me. That makes a huge difference.
During my repair I had a loner back for the entire time of 6 weeks. The IR glass was changed along with the CCD being cleaned and the back completely calibrated for about $400.00. So I have no complaints. Next time I will get the multishot piezo re-calibrated, and maybe get a H3D11 MS to play with.
Am I happy that my $ 55 000.00 back needs to go away every year or so to fix such a stupid thing? Absolutely not. However a now $ 28 000.00 upgrade is beyond me and with the last repair
we have found a solution I can live with.
TechTalk:
Yes all glass, or even anything is susceptable to fungus at sometime. However as Thierry explained from Sinar's experience perhaps some IR Glass filters are more prone to this other
items may be. Perhaps it is the IR filter and not the glass that is fungus prone? You can quote all the published bits you can find on fungus but that does not change what is happening in the real world.
The back is in the same conditions as 10 lens that vary from a 50s Xenotars to new Blad glass yet the only thing that grows fungus is the back's IR glass, and not on the top surface. Makes you wonder what is in that IR glass filter.
I have looked at these dry boxes. However I do not think they would solve my situation for several reasons. Apparently they take some time to fully clear after being opened. The only locally available says 24 hrs in it's book. So this is really for longer term storage between shoots.
Another big consideration is that this fungus does not appear slowly. This last time I cleaned the back at the start of a shoot and there was no fungus. After seven days on a locked down still life set I removed the back and there it was. In my work situation the camera can be locked down on a live set for 7 to 10 days. Once the focus & movements are set and we start shooting it does not move till the post work is finished. It was hot in the studio with lights and such, but not the steamy Amazon.
So you can see there is no real way to avoid this fungus with this particular IR glass filter. The glass can not be changed to the new glass. You just have to live with the fact it will happen. Then you hope you have a good dealer to help.
As I said before, Hasselblad has moved to solve the situation with a new glass. However the new glass can not be fitted to older backs. The only question is how they and their dealers will deal with each fungus situation as it shows up.
Cheers
Brent Daniels
-
TechTalk:
The back is in the same conditions as 10 lens that vary from a 50s Xenotars to new Blad glass yet the only thing that grows fungus is the back's IR glass, and not on the top surface. Makes you wonder what is in that IR glass filter.
So you can see there is no real way to avoid this fungus with this particular IR glass filter.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=200050\")
"Makes you wonder what is in that IR glass filter." No. It makes me wonder about the random quality of nature. Every lens that I've seen over the years that had a fungus growth had the fungus appear on just one side of one element. Why not the other elements in the same lens? Why not other lenses in the same owner's collection? Why will you see fungi growing on the side of one tree and not the very same kind of trees around it? Nature has a way of sustaining life in species, while restraining over population. In the case of fungus, while billions of spores will be present in a given area, nearly all lay dormant and a very few germinate. Once they do start to grow, however, they are very difficult to completely destroy and will often reappear in the same place.
"So you can see there is no real way to avoid this fungus with this particular IR glass filter." No. I see that "It is hard to remove mould spores completely once they have become established, and optical instruments that have been affected by mould should be cleaned regularly to prevent regrowth." [a href=\"http://www.iceh.org.uk/files/techforv2020/06.asp]Mould in Optics Link[/url]
-
I will never cease to be amazed by the irrational ideas and assumptions that some otherwise intelligent people are willing to believe and repeat to others as if it is fact. In some cases it is because they are uninterested in doing even a little research and/or they hear or read nonsense that they want to believe.
There is nothing inherent in any type of glass that will make it more or less susceptible to fungus growth. There is nothing a manufacturer can do to prevent the occurrence on any optical surface that is exposed to the environment. Certain types of microscope and sporting optics are sealed against air and moisture, often with nitrogen inside, to minimize the risk of contamination. This not possible with optics that must move in a way that requires displacement of air, as nearly all camera lenses do, and impossible with an IR filter on a digital back.
Fungus growth on optics is something that I've seen on a wide variety of camera lenses, some viewfinders and prisms and never on a digital back, though none are immune to the possibility. It only requires the right environment, exposure to the right type of spores and time to grow undisturbed with something to feed on over that time period. Fungi are living cells that require an environment that will support them including organic matter for nourishment. It is not the glass itself that provides the needed environment, but microscopic organic material from the environment that is deposited and builds up, allowing spores in the air to attach and grow. Moisture is also needed to sustain life in the cells, which is why humid environments are ideal.
The owners and users of vulnerable equipment can take proper care and precautions to reduce the risk of fungal growth... or not. The use of desiccants to absorb moisture and storing equipment in a safe environment can certainly help. Cleaning the surface of lenses and sensors occasionally, to remove the invisible environmental films that build up, would also be a sound practice.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198910\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I had a new 8 month old V96c with fungus. It was clean courtesy of Hasselblad. The back used 100% in studio and kept with the rest of my anti-fungus sensitive dry cabinet! 6 month thereafter, I had the CCD clean because I sold my back to a friend in CA. BUT 2 month after my friend rang me and said there's fungus. Had that clean again under the same Hasselblad service/warranty from the last clean! These fungus were growing underneath the IR filter and is sealed so hard to get to!?! I'm a photojournalist and my Nikon and lenses go thru more abuse than my V96c back and NEVER fungus. Even my Hasselblad gears for 20 years, none ever had fungus and they too went through jungles and tropical shoots. I haven't heard fungus from those owning Phase and Leaf and that gets me worry about the Hasselblad backs! In any event, I though I submit my experience against your wisdom of fungus as if those investing in a 16mp, 22mp or 39mp are so stupid enough as to not to look after that expensive investment. PS: Both my Rodenstock HR 28 lens and Digitar 35mm XL also not have fungus, which I got the same time as my V96c.
All the best.
-
I had a new 8 month old V96c with fungus. It was clean courtesy of Hasselblad. The back used 100% in studio and kept with the rest of my anti-fungus sensitive dry cabinet! 6 month thereafter, I had the CCD clean because I sold my back to a friend in CA. BUT 2 month after my friend rang me and said there's fungus. Had that clean again under the same Hasselblad service/warranty from the last clean! These fungus were growing underneath the IR filter and is sealed so hard to get to!?! I'm a photojournalist and my Nikon and lenses go thru more abuse than my V96c back and NEVER fungus. Even my Hasselblad gears for 20 years, none ever had fungus and they too went through jungles and tropical shoots. I haven't heard fungus from those owning Phase and Leaf and that gets me worry about the Hasselblad backs! In any event, I though I submit my experience against your wisdom of fungus as if those investing in a 16mp, 22mp or 39mp are so stupid enough as to not to look after that expensive investment. PS: Both my Rodenstock HR 28 lens and Digitar 35mm XL also not have fungus, which I got the same time as my V96c.
All the best.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200147\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In a city where I worked in my younger days, I parked in the same parking lot, five days per week for ten years. During the first eight years, I had an old (but well loved) car and parked there without incident.
Then I bought a shiny new car. During the next twelve months, the new car was dented twice and I’m talking about big dents from being hit by another car--not little door dings. I also had a rear taillight broken that year. During year two, an entire side of the car was sideswiped from one end to the other. All of this happened in the same parking lot!
During the entire ten years that I parked there, I never witnessed or was aware of damage to any other cars parked there. Eight years of parking my old (but well loved) car there and never a scratch, dent or ding. All of the above is true, by the way--just in case anyone thought I was making up a story to make a point.
So you can see that clearly, logically and based on real-world experience my new car displayed an obvious issue that caused it to be a target for damage in an environment where other cars were not affected. I replaced that car at the end of two years with a different model. Over the several years since, in telling my tale of trouble with that car to others that had later versions of the same make and model, they would express relief that this never happened to them. I can therefore conclude that the defect which caused it to be the target of abuse was corrected in later models.
-
In a city where I worked in my younger days, I parked in the same parking lot, five days per week for ten years. During the first eight years, I had an old (but well loved) car and parked there without incident.
Then I bought a shiny new car. During the next twelve months, the new car was dented twice and I’m talking about big dents from being hit by another car--not little door dings. I also had a rear taillight broken that year. During year two, an entire side of the car was sideswiped from one end to the other. All of this happened in the same parking lot!
During the entire ten years that I parked there, I never witnessed or was aware of damage to any other cars parked there. Eight years of parking my old (but well loved) car there and never a scratch, dent or ding. All of the above is true, by the way--just in case anyone thought I was making up a story to make a point.
So you can see that clearly, logically and based on real-world experience my new car displayed an obvious issue that caused it to be a target for damage in an environment where other cars were not affected. I replaced that car at the end of two years with a different model. Over the several years since, in telling my tale of trouble with that car to others that had later versions of the same make and model, they would express relief that this never happened to them. I can therefore conclude that the defect which caused it to be the target of abuse was corrected in later models.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=200164\")
Not that I own a MFDB and live in Northern CA,The humidity is 44% currently, in the house.I went here to look at Denmarks humidity...
[a href=\"http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/06170.html]http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/06170.html[/url]
It's 82%.PERFECT for fungus.AND, HOT and COLD = condensation.Last I checked.
If this condition ,FUNGUS, happened in the first year of service.HASSY should eat it and replace the glass on the sensor for FREE ! IMHO.
I have never had a camera get ANY fungus on it..!Plane old Kingsford Charcoal in a shoe box in your camera cab.Works well for just storing your gear in too. changed every month of course.
-
If this condition ,FUNGUS, happened in the first year of service.HASSY should eat it and replace the glass on the sensor for FREE ! IMHO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200172\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why should any manufacturer do that? Manufacturers make products. Nature makes fungus spores and the environment that sustains them.
What is it that makes the first responsible for the second?
-
Why should any manufacturer do that? Manufacturers make products. Nature makes fungus spores and the environment that sustains them.
What is it that makes the first responsible for the second?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200173\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Look at the humidity at the manufacturing point.It's 88% as I type.It seems others have has problems with the same thing.I really don't know who would be at at fault.BUT at 88% humidity it SEEMS to be a factory prob.Controlled conditions at the assembly point should no prob, for a factory assembling such a high priced product.
-
TechTalk
What does your car being dinged or not being dinged have to do with fungus on the IR glass of a MFDB? Absolutely nothing. Maybe it was just random? Maybe someone knew it was your new car?
What does fungus on any other type of glass such as lens have to do with this very specific issue? Not much except it is glass. The question is why is the IR glass on MFDB prone to this problem? Most likely it is due to the make up of the IR glass, and the heating & cooling that it goes through as compared to lens glass.
Theirry from Sinar stated that Sinar had a fungus problem with a specific design of IR glass. Sinar switches from this particular glass, and bingo no more problems.
Hasselblad had no such know problems up till the full 645 22 mpx chip's glass. Then the problems started to show up in certain conditions. I however do not know if they switched IR glass design or supplier. With a new design that uses a lens type multicoating the issue may be once again gone.
This does not seem to be a pattern that is controlled only by shifting moons & car vandals. It is also an issue that should not be beyond the wiz bang engineers of the manufactures.
Brent Daniels
-
I don't know the truth. But if fungus on IR is the product problem.
Hasselblad should recall all the backs and replace free of charge even out of 1 year warranty.
This camera is not cheap.
We are lucky that we found cheap solution.
-
peteh:
In Hasselblad's defence I should state that in the first instance of this fungus issue, which occurred within one year, the repair was done under warranty. Zero charge and a same model loner back given to me for the entire time the back was visiting Denmark. One could not ask for better service than that.
The second time the back was out of warranty. I was provided a loner back free of charge. There was no shipping charges and there was an added benefit of a CCD cleaning and back calibration. Yes there was a small charge, but nothing substantial. So I can have no complaints with that at all.
Hopefully next time they will try to entice me to upgrade by letting me play with the H3DII 39MS for 6 weeks. Hint! Hint!
With both services I believe the IR glass was replaced and not just cleaned. The newer glass design can not be fitted so we live with the situation as best possible.
These backs are built under strict conditions. Especially the CCD and IR glass portions which I think are done in a clean room situation. However I doubt the IR glass manufacturer has such control.
Cheers
Brent Daniels
-
peteh:
In Hasselblad's defence I should state that in the first instance of this fungus issue, which occurred within one year, the repair was done under warranty. Zero charge and a same model loner back given to me for the entire time the back was visiting Denmark. One could not ask for better service than that.
The second time the back was out of warranty. I was provided a loner back free of charge. There was no shipping charges and there was an added benefit of a CCD cleaning and back calibration. Yes there was a small charge, but nothing substantial. So I can have no complaints with that at all.
Hopefully next time they will try to entice me to upgrade by letting me play with the H3DII 39MS for 6 weeks. Hint! Hint!
With both services I believe the IR glass was replaced and not just cleaned. The newer glass design can not be fitted so we live with the situation as best possible.
These backs are built under strict conditions. Especially the CCD and IR glass portions which I think are done in a clean room situation. However I doubt the IR glass manufacturer has such control.
Cheers
Brent Daniels
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200207\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
IMHO ,QC all the way down the line or UP the line. HASSY sounds like a good Co. One could go to the Moon and get on for free and possibly FUNGUS FREE.
I just, from reading all the posts in the first topic that, SOMETHING was wrong in their chain of building the camera and or back. NO offense intended.
-
TechTalk
What does your car being dinged or not being dinged have to do with fungus on the IR glass of a MFDB? Absolutely nothing. Maybe it was just random? Maybe someone knew it was your new car?
What does fungus on any other type of glass such as lens have to do with this very specific issue? Not much except it is glass. The question is why is the IR glass on MFDB prone to this problem? Most likely it is due to the make up of the IR glass, and the heating & cooling that it goes through as compared to lens glass.
Theirry from Sinar stated that Sinar had a fungus problem with a specific design of IR glass. Sinar switches from this particular glass, and bingo no more problems.
Hasselblad had no such know problems up till the full 645 22 mpx chip's glass. Then the problems started to show up in certain conditions. I however do not know if they switched IR glass design or supplier. With a new design that uses a lens type multicoating the issue may be once again gone.
This does not seem to be a pattern that is controlled only by shifting moons & car vandals. It is also an issue that should not be beyond the wiz bang engineers of the manufactures.
Brent Daniels
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200202\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah yes. The random, unpredictable nature of life. You could be right. Maybe that car damage was just a set of random and coincidental occurrences. I'm sorry I brought it up now.
Maybe the optics with fungus problems, that I've seen over the past few decades, were the result of a complex combination of random circumstances triggered by some specific conditions.
The questions that would be really interesting to ask and answer would be:
- How does a fungus spore attach to a surface?
- What is needed for a fungus spore to germinate and grow?
- What is required to sustain growth?
- Why do attempts to eradicate an established colony generally fail in the long term, resulting in eventual regeneration?
- What is known about fungus growth on optics?
- Is there a consensus of expert opinion on what optical materials may or may not contribute to creating favorable conditions for fungus growth?
- Are all optical surfaces vulnerable? Are some more vulnerable than others?
Let us know if you have any answers.
I'll add my own observations when I get up the energy, mood and time. Too many things that I consider more important than this right now.
Have fun.
-
I know I am answering a 4 years old question, but when I looked for a solution a few days ago, google found this thread. Maybe the next person who will have the problem in 4 years will find this thread as well and will be happy to find an answer...
The problem I had was that the IR glass window on the sensor of a H3D was covered with peculiar gunk which indeed looked like fungus. Using sensor cleaning fluid on it would not remove it.
The correct solution is, of course, to send the back to Hasselblad in Sweden. They will exchange the IR window and recalibrate the back for a reasonable fee. I will probably do that eventually (there is dust on the other side of the glass as well). But if you live far away from Sweden, having the back correctly cleaned will take a long time. People may have an important shoot and want to try a temporary fix and send the back after the important shoot.
The gunk was very easy to clean with distilled water. Cleaning fluid or alcohol would not remove anything, but a wet wipe worked wonders. I was really surprised how much better plain distilled water worked. Just wet a tissue or two with water and wet the window with the tissue until the gunk dissolves, then wipe the gunk off with another clean, dry tissue. Be a bit careful so as not to drag residue and scratch the glass, of course.