Category Archives: Photography

Printing paper for the HP DesignJet 30/90/130 – Part II

Printing

Testing Hahnemühle matte and textured papers.


Hahnemuühle matte paper sample pack.

I set forth the background research done to find swellable papers for use in the HP DesignJet 30/90/130 printer here. The goal is to find archival non-HP branded paper replacements as HP paper in cut sheets becomes increasingly hard to find. The paper used must be compatible with dye based printers like the HP, which means it must absorb the inks into its surface and remain archival as regards freedom from fading.

In this article I’ll address results with eight different matte Hahnemühle papers. Glossy paper tests will be reported on in a third piece.

First, some preliminaries.

There is a host of variables when printing an image so whatever can be done to standardize these will help in meaningful critical assessment. Variables include:

  • A properly calibrated display to permit accurate soft proofing in Lightroom 4
  • A display which has been properly warmed up before use, to allow colors to stabilize
  • Constant temperature daylight consonant with the viewing environment
  • A reference print on HP paper for comparison, viewed in identical light
  • Prints which have had 24 hours to ‘dry’ to stabilize colors
  • The use of the correct paper profile from the manufacturer

I calibrate my displays with an EyeOne colorimeter and make sure they are on for at least 30 minutes before soft proofing on the screen. Images are viewed by noon daylight, the same light by which I calibrate my displays. All test prints have dried for 24 hours or more. Reference prints were first made on HP Premium Glossy using the appropriate HP paper profile. I never use aftermarket or continuous flow inks as life is too short to worry about their longevity all for the sake of insignificant savings.

When picking the appropriate Hahnemühle profile for use with each of their papers, things get a bit trickier, as not all of the papers in the sample paper pack have profiles available from Hahnemühle for the DJ 30/90/130 printers. These profiles are available:


Available Hahnemühle paper profiles.

All of these are for matte papers. I have yet to find any glossy paper profiles.

Downloading Hahnemühle paper profiles:

The profiles listed above include some from Hahnemühle’s current site and some which are no longer available but which I downloaded years ago.

The simplest way to install these is to download the file from my server by clicking on the ‘Download’ icon below. I have changed the ASCII names in the profiles from cryptic (as supplied) to English (as above), making recognition much easier when printing without having to refer to lookup tables. Other than the naming changes these profiles are stock.

You can download them by clicking below:


Click to download Hahnemühle paper profiles.

Here is where you want to move the downloaded files on your Mac, using Snow Leopard, Lion or Mountain Lion, using drag-and-drop:


Location of additional paper profiles in Snow Leopard and later.
Replace ‘Tigger’ with your username.

Here is how your Mac’s folder/directory should look after you have installed these using drag-and-drop on the location denoted by the red arrow. I do not know where they go in Windows, but the process is the same. Frankly, the very thought of printing using Windows makes a one way ticket to North Korea look like an attractive alternative. I also have other profiles in the folder shown above; take no notice of those for purposes of this article.


Profiles installed on the Mac.

If you cannot see the user directory – a truly moronic Apple ‘enhancement’ in Mountain Lion – go to Finder->Go and hold down the option key. The user Library directory will appear in the drop down Finder list. Click on it then continue navigation to the location shown.

Then go into the LR4 Print module, select the profile drop down list of profiles, click ‘Other….’ at the bottom and check all the profiles you want to see in future when accessing the drop down list, otherwise they will not appear.

Choosing the right paper profile:

If an exact match was not available, I studied the color and texture of the paper and used the profile for the closest match. For example, the Museum Etching paper (no profile available) is very similar in color and texture to the German Etching paper (profile available) so the German Etching profile was used for printing on Museum Etching paper.

Matte paper characteristics:

This table summarizes the characteristics of the eight matte paper samples included in the sampler pack, which comes with two of each, clearly labeled on the rear.


Hahnemühle paper characteristics – matte.

Making the prints:

I chose two images to make test prints for comparison with originals made on HP Glossy paper, the latter revealing the most detail and delivering the greatest dynamic range.

The first has both fine detail in the lettering and a broad color range, with dense blacks and pure whites. Further the neutral gray of the columns of the Ferry Building in the rear poses a stringent test for proper color rendering:


San Francisco trolley.

The second has a face I know well and very deep blacks, something the DesignJet 30/90/130 excel at rendering:


My son Winston.

In fairness, it’s hard to say whether I used the best profile for papers where none is available. But it’s the best I can do short of having a costly custom profile generated by a specialist with uncertain results.

Printer settings:

I previewed results using Soft Proofing in LR4’s Develop module, which allows both the print and the color of the paper to be previewed:


Soft proofing settings.

Note that you have to select the paper profile again when going into the Print module even if already selected in the Develop Soft Proofing step – it is not automatically conformed between the Develop and Print modules.

To apply a profile of choice, we want LR to manage colors, not the printer, so check you see this in the Print Settings dialog in the Print module:


Confirmation that LR is managing colors, not the DesignJet.

Here is how the Print module in LR appears prior to printing:


LR4 Print module settings.

Results:

Here are my subjective opinions based on the prints I made.

Color fidelity:

These were best:

  • Photo Rag Ultra Smooth
  • Photo Rag Bright White
  • German Etching
  • Museum Etching

These papers were incapable of rendering neutral greys in the building’s columns, having an easily noticed bluish cast:

  • Photo Rag Duo
  • Photo Rag
  • William Turner

This paper did a very poor job with a blue cast in the column, washed out yellows and over bright skin tones – there has to be a better profile available but I do not particularly like the very warm color of this paper so I will not be doing any further work on it:

  • Bamboo

Textures:

Three of these papers have very heavily textured surfaces:

  • German Etching – a parchment-like finish
  • William Turner – very coarse elongated stippling
  • Museum Etching – parchment like finish on a very heavy base

These sort of papers, all very warm colored, give a very dated looking image verging on the pretentious. German Etching, which has a faint parchment-like texture is at least bearable. The other two are really unsuitable for photographic prints unless you are trying to pass them off as some sort of high art. If you are into claiming limited edition status for your snaps and signing them in pencil like you are Seurat using conté crayon, these may be for you.

None of the textures on the others is objectionable, but the only truly white one is Photo Rag Bright White which also does an outstanding job of detail rendering, despite the light texture of the surface.

Ink absorption:

None of the papers emerged wet from the printer, suggesting the dyes inks are being well absorbed. The Photo Rag Duo was slightly damp to the touch, dry after an hour. This paper allows printing on both sides, and is the lightest tested, maybe accounting for this. I did not test double-sided printing.

Freedom from fading:

Based on color rendering, I have cut prints for three of the best papers – Photo Rag Ultra Smooth, Photo Rag Bright White and German Etching – in half. One is placed in a window with full sun exposure for 4 hours a day and daylight exposure for an additional 8 hours a day. This is in CA so lack of sunshine is not what you would call a risk factor. The other is kept in a cardboard box. I will report back in three months to state whether fading is noticeable.


High tech test bench. Direct sun arrives in one hour.
Photo Rag Ultra Smooth, Photo Rag Bright White and German Etching papers.

Feeding the paper through the DesignJet 90:

With the sole exception of the very light Photo Rag Duo, all of these papers are heavier than the 280/286gsm of the HP branded ones. Only one showed any signs of feed issues. The heaviest, Museum Etching at 350gsm, showed minor ink smudges on the lower print border, maybe ink remnants coming off the feed rollers which would be under more pressure than with the lighter papers. I would guess a proper cleaning of the rollers would cure this. All papers were front fed using the HP DJ’s paper tray with only one sheet loaded at a time. Accompanied by the usual clanking from the DesignJet, there were no feed issues.

Dry mounting, fading and why so thick?

I am somewhat mystified why these papers have to be so thick and heavy. While that makes them nice to handle with cotton gloves, any decent print will end up being mounted on board and matted, it’s thickness irrelevant. Even the very light Photo Rag Duo handles just fine.

Maybe it’s some sort of one-upmanship selling feature? Maybe it stops them cockling when ‘hinge mounted’ – a process adopted by some for display, using tacky fold over tabs for adhesion to the display surface. The usual reason given is impermanence when dry mounting is used. If anything the surface area open to attack by pollutants – assuming the use of acid free dry mounting tissue and mounting boards – is halved once dry mounted (meaning heated in a press with dry mounting tissue between the print and mounting board). I have monochrome prints I dry mounted forty years ago and HP DesignJet 90 color prints made 7 years ago, displayed in bright sun, and there is not a hint of yellowing or fading. Wilhelm, the alleged authority on fading (see below) repeats this anti-dry mounting rant in his book, while adding that there is zero empirical evidence for his statement. Frustrating.



Failed logic from Chapter 11 of Wilhelm’s book.

In conclusion, the thickness of these papers makes no sense to me. Further, I encourage you to dry mount your work for the best look, using acid free dry mounting tissue and acid free mounting board. Framing behind UV glass will maximize fade resistance. A properly mounted and framed print is the touchstone of the photographer’s craft.

Do not use aftermarket ink cartridge refills:

Here are data from Wilhelm Research. Self explanatory:

When Wilhelm (arguably the worst home page in web history) tested the HP Vivera dye inks with the HP DesignJet 130 and 90 in June/July, 2005, they used HP-branded papers only, so not of help for our purposes here. I also downloaded Wilhelm’s 600+ page research document and while Hahnemühle is mentioned a few times it is never referred to in connection with the use of HP Vivera dye inks. It is referred to in connection with HP Vivera pigment inks, where the fade life of many of their papers is identical to that of HP-branded pigment ink papers, for what it’s worth.

In Part III I will look at Hahnemühle’s glossy and satin papers sold in their sampler pack.

The problem with matte papers: Not one of these eight papers comes anywhere close to rendering the deep inky black that is par for the course with glossy paper. Nor are any capable of rendering the resolution of glossy, with the textured papers especially poor in this regard. The ‘pop’ which comes with the use of good gear is gone, replaced by Lomography definition. It’s not a subtle difference, it’s painfully obvious when the prints are held side by side. An excellent way, in other words, of turning your high resolution lens and sensor into mush. Photo Rag Bright White is the least bad, but in an A-B comparison it’s still pretty awful. Nor is color depth remotely comparable in any of these to the glossy reference print. My advice is to studiously avoid matte papers and to stick with glossy or, at a pinch, satin.

The results of fade tests appear here.

Printing paper for the HP DesignJet 30/90/130 – Part I

Printing

Swellable choices.

Paper in large cut sheets for the HP DesignJet 30/90/130 dye ink jet printers is becoming increasingly hard to find under the HP brand name. This is hardly surprising, coming from America’s worst run big business. What distinguishes this paper from most current offerings is that the surface swells to absorb the ink dyes used in these printers, in contrast to almost all current ink jet printers which use pigments deposited on the surface. Further, archival life (80 years) is guaranteed with HP’s Vivera dye inks. If you use pigment ink paper with the HP 30/90/130 printers there is no guarantee that the ink will either dry properly or deliver archival life.

As I do not want to buy paper in rolls and have to cut it up manually, a process comparable to a root canal once you get to deal with paper curl, I did some research on large cut sheet supplies from sources other than HP. I write ‘sources’ rather than ‘manufacturers’ as HP never made its printing paper, outsourcing the task like with everything else they ‘make’. The paper boxes state ‘Made in Switzerland’ but I have never been able to determine who the maker is

Moab‘s web site is confused about the meaning of Vivera inks. This has been a trade name which HP has used for both its archival dye and pigment inks. Thus Moab’s statement on its site that ‘Our papers all work with Vivera inks’ is not sufficiently specific to give comfort about use with the DJ 30/90/130 range.

Museo (Crane) specifically states that dye inks are not going to have archival lives used with their papers.

Ilford is hip to dye inks, offering those as a choice in both its regular and commercial sizes. However, the commercial papers come in rolls only and the only one in their regular range which is usable with dye inks is Galerie Prestige Mono Silk which is stated to be for black & white only. I (hardly ever) do black & white, so move on.

Hahnemühle offers hope. They claim to have been making paper since 1584. Hahnemühle is a German company with subsidiaries in England, France, America and China, so it’s unlikely they are the manufacturer of the HP-branded paper. Their largest cut sheets are 17″ x 22″ – a little under the 18″ x 24″ capacity of my DJ90 – but they specifically state that the following papers are suitable for use with dye inks, selling them in sample packs of eight, either matte or glossy:

Papers in the matte sample pack:

  • Bamboo 290gsm (0,1,2,3)
  • Photo Rag Duo/Book & Album (Sugar Cane) 220gsm – printable on both sides (0,1,2,3)
  • Photo Rag ultra smooth 305gsm (0,1,2,3)
  • Photo Rag 308gsm (also available in 188gsm and 500gsm) ** (0,1,2,3) (188gsm and 308gsm only; 500gsm comes in 24″ x 30″)
  • Photo Rag Bright White 310gsm ** (0,1,2,3)
  • German Etching textured 310gsm ** (0,1,2,3)
  • William Turner textured 310gsm (also available in 190gsm) ** (0,1,2,3)
  • Museum Etching textured 350gsm (0,1,2,3)

Papers in the glossy sample pack:

  • Fine Art Pearl 285 gsm (0,1,2,3)
  • Photo Rag Baryta 325gsm (0,1,2,3)
  • Photo Rag Satin 310gsm ** (0,1,2,3)
  • Photo Rag Pearl 320gsm (0,1,2,3)
  • Fine Art Baryta glossy 325 gsm – for black & white (0,1,2,3)
  • Baryta FB Glossy 350gsm (0,1,2,3)
  • Daguerre Canvas 410gsm (4)
  • Monet Canvas 410gsm (4)

** Denotes that an icc profile is available for download on the Hahnemüle site for the HP DesignJet 30/90/130 printers.

Notes:
0 – Available in 8.5″ x 11″
1 – Available in 11″ x 17″
2 – Available in 13″ x 19″
3 – Available in 17″ x 22″
4 – Available in 11.7″ x 16.5″

Each of these also comes in a variety of larger roll sizes. Weights are shown above as they are of concern. HP-branded Premium Plus Satin weighs in at 280gsm, Premium Plus Glossy at 286gsm. So there is an issue as to whether the HP will handle heavier papers loke those above, which will be thicker.

Hahnemühle (“Ha-ne-mule-er”) still offers downloads of paper profiles for use with the HP DJ 30/90/130 printers and I explain how to install these for Lightroom 2 and 3 users in a five-year old piece here written in anticipation of the day when HP-branded dye ink jet paper would no longer be available. That day is close.

For Lightroom 4 users I will include a downloadable file of paper profiles, in the follow up piece, for a handful of Hahnemühle papers, once I have tested these, together with instructions as to where you need to copy these to so that they show up properly in both the Develop/Soft Proofing and in the Printing modules of Lightroom 4. The enhanced soft proofing (screen preview of the print) capabilities of LR4 really make upgrading a lot of sense if you are still on an older version of LR. The soft proofing in LR4 not only simulates the colors of your finished prints, it also simulates the white color of the paper you tell LR to soft proof to! And the differences are quite easily visible on the display.

Archival HP DJ 30/90/130 profiles appear here on their site. I will include all of these – and more from my archive – in the two follow up articles to this piece.

B&H lists a sample pack including all of the above papers for a modest sum and I have one of each of matte and glossy on order:

I’ll report back after having run some tests. There will be two subsequent pieces – the first dealing with Hahnemühle non-glossy paper surfaces (Matte and Textured), which I suspect most readers here use. The second will deal with glossy Hahnemühle papers (Satin and Glossy), glossy being the surface I use most of the time as it delivers the highest dynamic range and detail.

Matte/textured paper tests appear here.

Glossy paper tests appear here.

Fade tests will be published three months hence when I have the results.

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A1 Nikon – update

Nikon lenses

A qualified recommendation.

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A1 Nikon – update

Background:

See my earlier Sigma 35/1.4 review comments based on the faulty first sample of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A1 for Nikon bodies.

For the street snapper using an FF sensor body (me!), arguably no lens is more important than the 35mm. Trained in the classic Leica rangefinder tradition the 35mm was the lens I most often used in the days of film. When Leica’s bodies fell behind I moved on, first to a Canon 5D, then to a Nikon D700, and now a D3x. Thus it’s worth sweating the details in getting the best 35mm optic, especially if low light use is contemplated.

I would preface what follows with the fact that I am brand agnostic – camera and lens. Whatever works. Until now I have used only Nikkors on my bodies because I know little of aftermarket lenses and the price differentials are mostly immaterial for a long-term user.

After I complained to Sigma USA about the faulty loaner, they loaned me a brand new copy of Sigma’s 35/1.4 lens to try. They volunteered this. I did not ask. After some quick snaps at home of my long-suffering test target, Bert the Border Terrier, all seemed well, so I hit the streets. I did give him a cookie first, though.

The first lens I had borrowed from BorrowLenses.com had a random AF error, sometimes front- sometimes back-focusing. Heck, sometimes it was right, too! And when it was right it was beyond compare. So trying again with another sample was worth the effort.

I had explained to Sigma that I would be more than pleased to buy the loaned lens given its stellar performance, provided AF worked every time. f/1.4 is nice, but I already own the f/2 pre-Ai MF Nikkor, so spending all that money for one more stop and unreliable AF does not solve.

Results:

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A1 Nikon – update
“What are you looking for?” At f/1.4.

Well, things worked out great and the second loaner was perfect in every regard. I ordinarily use point/lock focus/recompose with AF lenses, as it’s fast and consonant with my snapping theme which is mostly street work. Further I do not need focus tracking as my subjects are not moving fast and I certainly do not trust 51-point autofocus to decide where my key area of sharp focus resides. How on earth can it know? At very short subject-to-lens distances I will compose first, then change from the central focus point to one over the subject, thus obviating the change in subject distance occasioned by the ‘recompose’ step. However, I generally dislike using the adjusters on the Nikon’s back as they are slow and clunky. By the time I have dialed in the focus rectangle of choice the subject has moved on, as often as not.

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A1 Nikon – update
Triple Rock bar, Berkeley. At f/2.

So good is the AF in this sample that my D3x body needed no AF fine tuning and that is just as well, for the APS-C sensor D2x in my other Nikon body provides no such capability and it’s nice to be able to use the Sigma on it with confidence. Sigma’s promised USB attachment which may make AF fine tuning possible in the lens might address issues for bodies without the fine tune capability, but that will have to wait determination until the device becomes available. One thing it will do is make it possible to do firmware upgrades as these come along, as possibly required by new bodies down the road.

Why buy it?

It bears repeating that there is very little point in buying this lens if most of your snaps are not taken at f/1.4, f/2 or f/2.8. There are any number of excellent Nikkors in both MF and AF guises which perform every bit as well from f/4 down and weigh a fraction of the Sigma. They are also far more compact. Indeed, so large is the lens hood Sigma provides with their optic that I do not use it as it simply sticks out too far, and I find I am constantly whacking it against something with the camera over my shoulder. I just opt for a protective (67mm) UV filter and have at it. The lens is very heavy and you are not going to enjoy carrying much more than one big body with this lens and maybe a medium telephoto like the 85/1.8. Much more than that and you will be hurting before long. Pain is not conducive to happy picture taking. Even on the heavy and large Nikon D2x and D3x bodies I use, the lens makes the combination top heavy and the kit will not stand upright on these cameras’ broad bases, preferring to tip forward. However the large size and excellent ergonomics more than counter this front heavy design.

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A1 Nikon – update
Saloon. At f/8.

AF versus MF. No test charts, honest!

I tested the lens on a tripod at typical snapping distances of 5 and 10 feet at f/1.4, taking sets of three snaps:

  • Lens set at infinity, using AF
  • Lens set at the closest focus distance, using AF
  • Lens set on MF, using the focus confirmation light in the finder of the D3x

I did this both by daylight and by incandescent light at f/1.4.

The first two were always perfectly focused. The third was seldom correct, reflecting the too-broad range of the focus confirmation LED in the Nikon. AF beats MF every time at f/1.4. If your eyesight, like mine, is not the greatest, you propose to use f/1.4 and you find you opt for LED confirmation MF rather than screen MF, then this finding should give you pause in deciding whether an MF f/1.4 lens (Zeiss/Cosina, Nikon MF, Samyang) is for you. The AF choices – Nikon G or Sigma – appear the best option in this case. There are alternative focusing screens for certain Nikon bodies which might help, but I have no data. I got like AF results on both FF (D3x) and APS-C (D2x) sensor bodies.

For a whole bunch of AF examples at f/1.4, look here – I do not photograph test charts. These were taken under incandescent and fluorescent light. More wide aperture snaps accompany the article you are reading.

Buying the lens:


The owner and the loaner. Two 35mm f/1.4 Sigma lenses in Nikon mount.

I had made it clear to Sigma USA that I was a buyer, not a hack reviewer trolling for clicks and freebies, I told them I was pleased with the loaner and asked to buy it. But no. They wanted the loaner back. When I complained that made no sense they offered to sell me a new one from their stock, and I quote from their email:

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A1 Nikon – update

The writer meant ‘courtesy’ but ‘curiosity’ seems equally appropriate.

Bottom line? The loaner I received was pre-screened. Rational extrapolation? I would guess that all review samples are cherry picked before being sent for review.

Well, this raises some questions as you only screen review samples if you are worried about your QC, but I reckoned I might as well make the process a ‘win-win’, so I replied thus:

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A1 Nikon – update

The one I eventually bought was every bit as good as it should be. It, too, was cherry picked, as the above emails disclose. Here is the serial number of the one I bought:

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A1 Nikon – update
The lens I purchased.

Off-center focusing:

The Nikon D3/D3x/D3s/D700/D800/D800e/D4 all share the same AF module, the Multi-CAM 3500FX. Many users of the D800/800e have reported focus problems when using other than the center focus rectangle for AF. I tested this at 5′ distance and f/1.4 with the Sigma on my D3x focusing by using the extreme left and then right AF sensors at f/1.4. Focus was perfect for each, so it may be a D800/800e build or Nikon QC issue which is involved here. Once again, this is based on a sample of one, so treat this information with a pinch of salt.

What I saw:

Based on the two samples from Sigma and the loaner from Borrowlenses.com, this is the highest resolution 35mm lens, at wide apertures, I have used. It is also the bulkiest and heaviest. The Sigma easily out-resolves the 35/1.4 Nikkor G which BorrowLenses.com loaned me when I returned the first faulty Sigma, and is equal to or better at f/2 than the 35mm f/2 Asph Summicron for the Leica M which I owned for many years before giving up on Leica’s dated bodies. It also renders out of focus areas better at f/2 than the Asph Summicron, which tends to harshness. There’s more to life than raw resolution and the Sigma does not disappoint when it comes to color rendering where it easily matches the best I have owned from Nikon and Leica.

Images downloaded into Lightroom pop on the display. Colors have a natural quality commonly seen when Leica or older MF single-coated Nikkors are used.

And while pixel peeping will show that f/2 is better than f/1.4, f/1.4 is fully usable at all times and I find that I never hesitate to go full bore, gaining shorter shutter speeds in the process. F/1.4 with a fast shutter speed and no blur beats the alternative. As f/1.4 means backgrounds will be blurred, it bears adding that the out-of-focus bits are pleasantly rendered by this optic. You do not need a single test chart to tell you all of this. Just use your eyes.

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A1 Nikon – update
Ethnic pride in North Beach. At f/2.

Sample variations:

  • The first loaner from Borrowlenses.com had perfect focus collar resistance but the AF was faulty. When focused correctly resolution was the best I had ever seen at f/1.4 to f/4, equalled by some other makers’ lenses at smaller apertures. Serial number 50004444.
  • The second loaner, from Sigma USA, had a slightly too stiff focus collar, perfect AF and resolution to match the first loaner above. AF nailed focus every time. S/N 50004693.
  • The one I eventually purchased from Sigma USA had perfect focus collar resistance, perfect AF and resolution to match the above two. An occasional squeak can be heard from the AF mechanism, audible to the operator only. I expect it will go away with use. S/N 50022095.

So there are sample-to-sample variations but the one constant was the high resolution of all three samples. Let’s be fair. Even Leica, Nikon and Canon have sample-to-sample variations in their premium lenses. Just check Roger Cicala’s blog to confirm this.

Other considerations:

What else is there not to like? The lens is a tad sensitive to flare when the light source is really bright and close to the axis. I suppose using the hood might help here but that’s not something I am willing to do. So, maybe not a fair test, but one consonant with my working method.


Flare central – what happens with the sun in the frame or just outside it.

The focus collar turns the way most lenses do, other than Nikkors that is. (Only Zeiss seems to go to the trouble of conforming the rotation direction on its Nikon versions). However, as I use AF with the Sigma all the time – and the AF is faster than that in the competing 35/1.4 Nikkor-G – it makes no practical difference. The focus collar on my loaner from Sigma was stiffer than on the first, the one on the purchased copy is just right.

I also dislike not having a physical aperture ring on the lens but that is the way of the world. That’s a Nikon issue, not a Sigma issue. You have to use the control dial(s) on the body to change apertures and may have to touch the shutter release first if the LCD display has gone to sleep to check your setting, otherwise no amount of control dial twiddling will change aperture. But the stellar performance of this optic makes this a light cross to bear.

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A1 Nikon – update
North Beach paint job. At f/2.

Best of all, paired with a high pixel count full frame sensor like those found in the D3x, D600 and D800 bodies from Nikon and in the Canon D1x, 1Ds/III, 5D/II and 5D/III, there is high excess detail in files which allows for selective cropping when you could not get as close as you would have liked to your subject. I have cropped to one quarter of the frame and made 24″ prints and the results are stunning. No other word for it. That makes for a very capable body-lens combination and increasingly finds me leaving the medium telephoto at home.

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A1 Nikon – update
Warmth. At f/2.8. Cropped from one quarter of the D3x 24mp frame.
This prints beautifully at 18″ x 24″.

Qualified recommendation:

The circuitous purchase route I took and the fact that my lens was pre-screened by Sigma USA’s tech people makes it impossible to give a blanket recommendation for this lens. Yes, good ones are as good as it gets. Both the loaner, also pre-screened, and the one I finally purchased direct from Sigma are outstanding. But buy ‘off the shelf’ from B&H or Amazon or whoever, and you may still find you are in a lottery. This may mean returning one or two before lucking out, and a growing body of AF issues is now being reported on chat boards. These also seem to be a problem with Sigma’s 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 lenses with samples requiring substantial focus tuning adjustments. In fairness, chat boards tend to be like hospitals. Only the sick have an axe to grind there. Also, bear in mind that the issue with my first loaner was not one of micro-focus adjustment. The AF was faulty. Period.

All manufacturers will make occasional duds. It’s a toss-up whether Sigma’s QC beats that of the opposition. Only industry insiders know. At this time there is no statistical basis for concluding whether Sigma’s quality control is improved from the bad old days or not. Nor do we know how it compares to the QC at Leica/Zeiss/Canon/Nikon et al. What is troubling is that, as both the Sigma and the 80% costlier Nikon 35/1.4 lenses state ‘Made in Japan’, I struggle to understand how Sigma manages to sell its lens for so much less without some cost cutting along the line. The math does not solve. Would I pay $1,100, $1,200 or even more with assurance that my lens has been subject to rigorous QC or pre-screening? Yes. This optic is easily worth that amount, especially when compared to the competition from Nikon and Zeiss, the latter MF only.

One other unknown must be considered. Nikon lenses are famously long lived. Any number of 40+ year old pre-Ai MF Nikkors I own testify to that fact. Will AF lenses last as long, given the complexities of motors and gears and electronics? Has Sigma cut cost saving corners compared with Nikon in making this optic? I do not know. Only time will tell. Still, if one gets three years of hard use from the lens (which is the Sigma USA warranty period to the original purchaser from an authorized US dealer for its DG non-EX lenses, like this one) then it probably does not matter. Sell at the end of the warranty period and replace if it’s a concern.

Conclusion:

I recommend you buy this lens if it meets your low light needs. You may have to try more than one sample if your first is a bad one. While I was unlucky with my first sample, there is no statistical basis for making any conclusive statements about Sigma’s quality control. A sample of three is not meaningful. One day we will probably see statistically meaningful results from the likes of Roger Cicala at LensRentals.com. Roger tests dozens of samples of each lens and can meaningfully address sample variation. But Roger, please make these tests include finder controlled AF, not LiveView. That’s why you use f/1.4 – street snaps in poor light. LiveView is not a concept here nor are tripods involved.

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A1 Nikon – update
Blinds. In the tradition of Eugène Atget. At f/8.

USB dongle:

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A1 Nikon – update
10 pins on the CPU.

Sigma has promised to sell a USB attachment which will allow firmware updates – and maybe other adjustments? – to the lens. As you can see, the lens has 10 contacts on the CPU compared to a maximum of 8 on Nikkors, suggesting the other two are needed for this device.

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 review
Sigma’s rumored USB dongle.

Serial number:

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A1 Nikon – update
This is the s/n on the Sigma USA loaner I had to return.

The serial number on the Sigma is very hard to make out. It’s screen printed in faint type atop the lens, diagonally up and to the right of the (useless) distance indicator window. My previous loaner was 5000444 – that was the one with the faulty AF.

Both the above lens serial number images were made with the excellent Lumin app on the iPhone 5.

Comparison with the ancient Nikkor MF pre-Ai 35mm f/2 Nikkor-O:

The Nikkor is over 40 years old so this is a brutal comparison.

In each case I use the lens correction profile I have made using Adobe’s Lens Profile Creator application. It’s more necessary at large apertures in the case of the Sigma where significant vignetting (corner shading) at f/1.4 and f/2 is removed. You can expect Adobe to come out with their own version of this profile soon. I also apply Sharpening=66 for the Nikon D3x, which is what I find to be optimal to overcome the anti-aliasing filter located in front of the 24MP sensor in the camera.

Center performance of the Sigma is clearly better in 5 foot wide prints at all apertures down to f/4. The resolution of the Sigma is truly outstanding from f/2 down. Will the Nikkor yield good 5′ prints at f/2 in the center? Absolutely. Will the Sigma appear sharper? Yes. Enough that you will notice on critical inspection.

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A1 Nikon – update
Boozers. At f/4.

Edge performance is a different story. The Sigma is greatly superior at all apertures, but especially in the range f/2 though f/8. There is no comparison. The Nikkor is a fine lens but it shows its age here. For the street snapper edges do not matter much. For the landscape artist there’s a big difference. The Sigma is in a different league.

The old Nikkor is marginally less prone to flare into a light source.

Color rendering for both lenses is outstanding. The Sigma is multi-coated, the Nikkor single-coated. Whatever.

Comparison with the current Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AF-S G:

The Nikkor AF-S G is outperformed by the Sigma at center and edge through and including f/2.8. After that I cannot tell the difference. The Nikkor’s AF is slower but no big deal. The current Nikkor f/1.4 is equal to the old MF Nikkor f/2 in the center at all apertures but clearly superior at the edges at all apertures.

The current Nikkor is marginally less prone to flare into a light source and vignettes less, before correction, at f/1.4 and f/2.

The Nikkor is lighter – nice. The Nikkor costs 78% more than the Sigma in the US, ex-tax. Not nice. Used Nikkors are coming to market at $1250, probably as word gets out about the Sigma.

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A1 Nikon – update
Lunch. At f/1.4.

Adobe’s lens correction profile:

The just announced Beta version of Lightroom 4.4 now includes an Adobe profile for the Sigma.


Lens correction profiles added in LR 4.4 Beta.

I have tested the Adobe profile against mine and there is no detectable difference at any aperture between the two. If you are using my profile there is no need to rush into the Beta 4.4 update of Lightroom. Let it mature and migrate when Adobe says it’s final. If you want to be sure Lightroom is using Adobe’s profile, do erase mine if you have it installed, as it otherwise takes precedence over Adobe’s.

Full disclosure: For reasons I do not understand, Sigma sold me the lens at a discounted price. I did not ask. They volunteered the discount out of the blue, even though I told them my income from photography is zero and that I am an amateur. While the discount I received was not monetarily significant to me, I reciprocated by sending them two nice 18″ x 24″ prints taken with the lens.

The Leica M

Cameras

Better. With snaps from those bad old film days.

The Leica M
Kensington Gardens. Leica M3, 50mm DR Summicron, TriX.

Long term users of Leica rangefinder bodies, meaning chaps like me who go back to when the M2 and M3 were the current models and have 30+ years of these under their belt, would make a strong case that the 1950s Leica M2 was the best ever from what was then the house of Ernst Leitz, Wetzlar. The reasons are many. A body screwed, not riveted, together. A rangefinder which did not flare out into the sun. A viewfinder which had but three frame lines and no clutter, all you needed for the ‘around the world’ kit of 35, 50 and 90mm lenses. And bulletproof reliability thanks to German craftsmen untouched by the production line and the need to make quarterly earnings estimates. A workforce which paid tribute to the power of apprenticeship and on-the-job training by some of the best craftsmen in the world. To get a sense of what it took to make that wonderful range-viewfinder, click here.

The Leica M
Leica M2 and a 35mm lens. The ultimate film-era street snapper.

The M4 retained the build quality, if you could cope with the plastic-tipped advance lever, frame selector and delayed action control, but compromised the finder with unnecessary frame clutter for the 135mm lens. This clutter would only grow in future versions. The M5 was a disaster with a cockamamie CdS TTL meter which popped out of the base of the innards and would be crushed if you forgot and retracted your 50mm Elmar into the body. But, worst of all, it didn’t look like an M. It appeared to come more from Tokyo than Wetzlar.

The Leica M
Plain dumb. The Leica M5.

After that things got progressively worse. The M6, which I owned for a few years, had a ghastly, compromised rangefinder, unusable into the sun. The finder was even more cluttered, squeezing in an additional frame for the 75mm lens. It substituted robust LEDs for the M5’s fragile match-needle meter and a silicon cell which had better color response, but the good bits ended there. You could only meter with the camera to the eye, which sort of destroyed the whole Leica stealth concept and the quality was rapidly going downhill with rivets where screws used to be and Portugese workers trying to make like Germans. Not possible. The shutter lost that magic sound and the whole thing was just …. ugh! I dumped mine and returned to my M2 and two M3s.

The Leica M
Victoria’s Secret. Leica M2, 21mm Elmarit, Kodak Gold 100.

The M7 finally added aperture priority automation but little else and quality did not improve while the price skyrocketed. Finder clutter was now maxed out, like in the 0.72x M6 variant, spanning the range from 28mm through 135mm in pairs. It’s successor, the MP, was an attempt to milk ‘retro’ with the original metal film advance lever from the M2/M3 and a unthinking return of the film rewind knob – one of the worst designs ever, small and painful – where every body since the M4 had a fold out crank which worked well. Indeed, I fitted aftermarket cranks to my M2 and two M3s to make the film rewinding process less reminiscent of Torquemada’s ministrations.The M7 and MP were grounds for despair that it was all over for the House of Leitz, and those extolling the virtues of the M7 have likely not used a well tuned M2 or M3. Then, just when everyone thought Leica would go under after several ownership changes, they discovered the digital sensor ten years after the rest of the world. So where do they go for the sensor? Why, Kodak of course. And which do they use? A crippled APS-C abomination which immediately throws out most of what is good and great about the Leica brand. The lens. The magenta distortion was thrown in free, ineffectually corrected by Leica doling out correction filters to those affected. At least they were free. Sort of like Porsche forgetting the steering wheel and offering one at no charge to all affected ….

The Leica M
Leica M8. A dud to match the M5.

Leica (Ernst Leitz had sold out years ago, so no more ‘Leitz’) tried to make amends with the full frame M9, after years of proclaiming it couldn’t be done in an M body, just in time to introduce a camera with an already obsolete sensor from a soon-to-be bankrupt Kodak. (DxO labs, who know about these things just concluded about the M9’s sensor in uncompromising terms: “In fact, with a DxOMark Overall Score of 68, or 69 for the Leica M9, M9-P and ME Type 220, these cameras offer the worst image quality DxOMark have tested on a full frame sensor, with the exception of the 10-year-old Canon EOS 1Ds. The full review is here). The system of marginal miniature correction lenses in front of the sensor is very smart, it has to be admitted, if designed by Rube Goldberg. These correctly direct oblique light rays so that they strike the sensor at a preferred angle. The new M body is now up to $7,000, meaning only three types of buyers can afford it:

  • Banksters and hedgies (these were doctors and lawyers in the ’50s)
  • The insecure with more money than sense (see above)
  • A few great photographers who can make an M sing

The Leica M
Main Street, South Uist, Outer Hebrides, Scotland. M3, 90mm Elmar, TriX.

It’s fair to say that since that M6 of the 1970s, Leica’s rangefinder bodies have sadly trailed their lenses by a considerable margin. And what lenses! You can read about the driving genius behind their optical mastery, Walter Mandler, here. While QC was not what it should be as the company’s meagre capital base dwindled in the 1980s, its latest recapitalization a few years back has seen the company spring back to life. Hedgies are now everywhere, which cannot hurt demand, and their lenses remain optically, if not technologically, the standard against which all others are measured. “As good as a Summicron” is a label every lens manufacturer in the world aspires to. I write ‘not technologically’ because Leica does not make one RF auto-focus optic in M mount (despite pioneering the first AF system, the Correfot, with Honeywell and producing many world class AF lenses for their medium format S2 SLR body) which rules them out for sports snappers. Arguably, no bad thing. How many more images does the world need of ‘athletes’ powered by Bayer, Hoechst and Pfizer, after all?

The Leica M
35mm Asph Summicron. As good as it gets.

So while AF will likely not darken the doors of the Leica M user any time soon, the new Leica M (that’s all, just M, not M10) really shows that they are progressing rapidly to a full EVF mirrorless full frame body. And you really want full frame because fast wides are what the Leica is all about and APS-C chucks out half the goodness and all of the width. Leica has two other Leica M-style bodies on the market. A ‘bargain’ ME which is nothing more than a rebranded M9 with that tired old Kodak sensor at $6,000. And the beyond foolish $8,000 Monochrom for people who like to pay more and not be able to make color pictures. Best of all, the M comes in a silver chrome option which is how Leicas should be. The amateur looks enhance the user’s stealth rating.


Paris Métro. The colors of France. As befits the most beautiful city in the world, the French
take particular care to see that their subway system is well maintained and clean.
Leica M3, 50mm DR Summicron, Kodachrome.

The Leica M adds one feature which has nothing to do with the rangefinder ethos. A movie mode. You are seriously going to make movies with this body when you can get a better, dedicated movie camera for less? I don’t think so. Live view and movies are not consonant with the Leica M ethos. Still, movie mode/live view add little bulk and you do not have to use either. Think of the M as a viewfinder camera also able to take long lenses with the clip on EVF at a pinch. If most of your work is at 90mm or shorter, then you are missing little.

The Leica M
Marion Campbell spinning Harris Tweed yarn, Harris, Scotland. Leica M3, 35mm Summicron, TriX.

And the ability to use the clip-on EVF made for the overpriced $2,000 Leica X2 point-and-shoot is the signal feature added. It’s named the ‘Visoflex EVF2’. The name derives from the mirror box attachments Leica sold back in the film days which made your M into an SLR. Sort of. You had great bulk and weight, poor responsiveness, awful ergonomics for hand-held use, a restricted lens range, no aperture automation and a myriad of adapters and coupling rings. Focussing on the plain groundglass screen which lacked a fresnel lens was iffy at best, with many opting for aftermarket screens you could actually see in less than noon California sun. It never worked anywhere near as well as an SLR, and I made sure I proved that by owning a Visoflex I, a Visoflex II and a Visoflex III. All just awful. There’s Leica fever for you.


St. James’s Park, London. Leica M3, 50mm Elmar, Kodachrome.

The new Visoflex attachment is notable not so much for what it does – lots of MFT bodies and even Leica’s APS-C X2 offer like gadgets – but for what it promises. And that promise is of an integrated, compact EVF built into the next M’s body. No more flaky optical finder frames, no more marginally accurate rangefinder patch (consistently nailing focus with a 50mm atf/1.4 or a 90mm at f/2 is at or beyond the technical limits of the antiquated prism-and-mirror based rangefinder, a trivial process for any modern DSLR), no more clip-on gadgets, but rather an EVF with focus peaking (the sharp bits go red) and center magnification to make MF simple and accurate. The old Visoflex (and it should fit the M!) is a comical comparison to the new Visoflex EVF-2 when you look at capability and bulk:

The Leica M
The new Visoflex, with a Leica R lens fitted.

The Leica M
Visoflex 2. Good luck seeing the image with the lens stopped down.

The Visoflex EVF-2 comes in black only, needlessly emblazoned ‘LEICA’ in huge white letters on the front, at $460. You can buy the Olympus VF-2 in black or chrome for $250, get the same 1.4MP definition and flip up capability for waist level use. Leica has confirmed it works. The LCDs in both are made by Epson. Alternatively, the even cheaper Olympus VF-3 at $180, reduced to 920,000 dots but seemingly well regarded, may work as well. I’m not sure. The big wheel is the diopter adjuster.

The Leica M
Olympus VF-3.

The new Visoflex, and the eventually integrated EVF in the next M which is surely coming, offers the ability to use not only every Leica M mount lens ever made with full focus range and accurate framing, but also just about every SLR lens ever made, whether Leica R (we are talking some awfully good lenses here, also damned by Leica’s inept SLRs – yup, I owned a bunch of those, too), Nikkor, Pentax, Canon, etc. as well as almost every screw mount Leica lens ever made. Nirvana for lens buffs! This new Visoflex should offer constant brightness regardless of how much the lens is stopped down (just like a Panasonic with adapted MF lenses), aperture priority exposure automation and, best of all, an optional 5x-10x selectively magnified center patch for critical focusing, a function activated by a discreet front panel switch with a horizontal control wheel on the back changing magnification. How fast the whole thing is has yet to be determined. Panasonic, which lead the way in EVF DSLRs has proved that an EVF can work superbly, as my G1 and G3 Panny bodies testify.

Plus the new M offers a 24mp sensor, CMOS for the first time, which early reviews suggest is a significant step up from the one in the M9, especially at higher ISO settings, the M9’s sensor being bottom decile in that regard. It’s not made by the spin-out Kodak business used for the M8, M9, MM and ME, but rather by a specialty Belgian manufacturer named CMOSIS. Let’s hope they stay in business.

The Leica M
London gent, Green Park. Leica M3, 35mm Summaron, TriX.

There’s a lot to like here, except for the $6,000 + lens price tag. The 35mm lens is the perfect match for the Leica street snapper. Small, fast, light, not too long and not too wide. The rational buyer’s M would likely sport a 35mm f/2 Zeiss optic because it’s rumored to be every bit as good as the $3,000 Summicron at one-third the price. Likewise, Cosina makes a range of M mount lenses which have a great reputation, their 35/2.5 Color Skopar selling for just $410 new. Cosina – the same Cosina which makes Zeiss branded lenses – will sell you a 35/1.4 Nokton for a bargain $630 with a choice of single or multi-coating, which compares nicely with the $5,000 Leica is demanding for its equally fast Summilux. 90% of the performance for 10% of the cost.

The Leica M
Zeiss Biogon. Yes, Leica quality at 70% off, and in silver at that.

The new M owner is also spoiled for used lens choices, with any number of 35mm Summicrons and Summarons available for a fraction of the cost of a new Asph Summicron in any condition desired. Having used early Summicrons and both f/3.5 and f/2.8 Summarons, I can vouch for these optics unreservedly.

Bottom line? Price of entry with an excellent 35mm lens totals under $7,000. Buy a new Summicron and you are close to $10,000, the cost of a good used car. A new Nikon D4 body runs $6,000 for comparison, though most would agree it’s a far tougher beast and hardly comparable in terms of versatility and speed, where it leaves the M in the dust. But’s that’s comparing chalk with cheese. A Leica is not an alternative to a modern DSLR, it’s an adjunct.


Pall Mall, London. Leica M6, 90mm Apo Summicron-M, Kodachrome.

You can download my free book of Leica pictures here, all snapped on my M3 mostly using a 35mm f/2.8 Summaron or, heavens forbid, buy it here for a pittance, which will make me exactly the same sum but will give you something permanent. It’s all black and white because that’s what almost everyone used in the 1970s and, furthermore, I couldn’t afford color in any case. This was in the days of TriX and D76 and Agfa Brovira and smelly chemicals but the results seemed to come out OK, especially once digitized with a Nikon scanner. I was lucky to be able to scan the original negatives some thirty years after they were taken.

No modern Leica can hold a candle to a cheap, modern DSLR at one third the price. A Nikon D600 or Canon 6D is a far more versatile instrument than the essentially single-purpose M. The M is for stealthy street snapping, something the DSLR can do pretty well if pushed. I do fine with a bulky Nikon D3x and despite all the codswallop about it being ‘threatening’ I have found it to be quite unobtrusive in practice. The DSLR can do lots of other things better and faster than any M body. However, until you have used Leica and its natural – if dated – optical viewfinder with a 28mm to 90mm lens and enjoyed its stealthy nature, you have no frame of reference from which to criticize. The price? Give up some other vice and it’s yours in a year. Whether you really want to carry $10,000 on your shoulder in the rougher parts of town is a trickier question.

Of course, should my ship come in, the first thing that happens to my M is that it’s off to the engraver’s to be corrected, and that gauche red dot removed:

The Leica M
Leica M10.

Note that the new M, which really should be named the M10, no longer has the middle window between the viewfinder and rangefinder. The purpose of that was to illuminate the frames in the finder. That is now done electronically and you can even switch the color from white to red – a solution looking for a problem.

The Leica M
Holocaust Museum, Paris. Leica M3, 35mm Summaron, TriX.

Though a self-admitted Leica fan who gets free testers from Leica, Jonathan Slack has a useful review of the new Leica M with comparison notes on the M9, especially informative when it comes to shutter release feel and shutter sound. You can read his piece here.

Alternatives for the stealthy street snapper:

The only other full frame compact snapper currently out there is the Sony RX1. It comes with a fixed 35mm f/2 Zess lens and the mind-numbing price of $3,000, capitalizing on the Leica’s premium pricing. It has yet to be seen if Sony’s AF is up to the task, and the camera would have to be fitted with a proper optical finder at modest additional cost to be useful on the street in fast paced situations. The inclusion of AF rather puts the Leica to shame by comparison.

Far more interesting is the newly announced Fuji X100S, though unfortunately it’s APS-C not FF. Once again the lens is a 35mm FFE (23mm) and f/2. Ideal. Early reviews suggest that Fuji has fixed the frustratingly long list of design bugs which made me pass on the X100. Most importantly there’s a claimed significant increase in AF speed and the innovative integrated hybrid optical/electronic finder is retained. The lens is not interchangeable but the price is very reasonable at $1,300 for a compact point-and-shoot with quality optics and (maybe) newly found responsiveness. If this body had a full frame sensor there would be very little point in spending many times the asking price on any Leica.

The Leica M
Wedding, Parc Monceau, Paris. Leica M3, 35mm Summaron, TriX.

If anyone can come up with a full frame camera with specs to match the X100S I would think it has to be Fuji. They are the most innovative camera maker in the market, they make Hasselblads so they know all about quality optics and large sensors, and they seem to be tapping a rich vein among gear aficionados. I would think that Leica is looking over its shoulder daily hoping that the M-killing Fuji is not about to hit dealers’ shelves. At $2,000 I would buy one sight unseen.

The Leica M
Those Canadians …. Leica M2, 90mm Apo Summicron-M, Kodak Gold 100.

Technical note: The film images illustrating this piece were variously scanned on Nikon Coolscan 2000 and 8000 and Canon Canoscan 4000US film scanners, then minimally processed in Lightroom 4.

Sensor cleaning

Technique

Has to be done.

Why bother cleaning your sensor? If you produce more than one picture in a blue moon your choice is simple. You can retouch dust blobs in your images in your favorite photo-processing application, once per image, or you can clean the sensor once and do a minimum of retouching until it is time for another cleaning. Determining whether to clean your sensor manually is a function of how many pictures you publish and of what your time is worth.


At Crissy field, San Francisco. No blobs in this sky. The benefits of a clean sensor.

While my Nikon D700 had a ‘sensor cleaner’ built in – an ineffectual mechanism which applies ultrasonic waves to the cover glass over the sensor, a process which could not wipe dried snot off a sheet of ice – it really was not much better than the sensors in the D3x and D2x when it comes to keeping them dust free. Neither of those bodies has a sensor cleaner. For a more technical reading check here for confirmation of the general uselessness of in-camera sensor cleaning systems.

Stop the lens down, take a snap and sooner or later you will see blobs in large expanses of continuous tone – skies are especially sensitive to this. And releases of oil from the camera’s internal mechanisms onto the sensor will only be spread with the ultrasonic treatment. What’s that? You think your precious Leica does not leak oil? Have you checked the road outside your house recently? Every machine which uses oil leaks it.

Forget blower brushes. These are an excellent way of blasting grit around the mirror box right onto those oily bits and represent an effective way of making matters much worse. Vacuum is the answer, not a hurricane, but sticking the hose from your Dyson or Hoover inside your silly-priced Leica M Monochrom is likely going to suck out the sensor and any dirt with it …. no more dirt, but a trip back to the Fatherland.

What is called for is wet cleaning. Well, moist cleaning.

One thing should be clear – you are not cleaning the light sensitive pixels in your sensor. Every sensor of any design, whether it has an anti-aliasing filter (most) or not (Leica M8, Leica M9, Nikon D7100, Nikon D800E, etc.) has a sheet of protective glass between the pixels and the lens. That is what you are cleaning. It’s not that fragile. We will be using isopropyl alcohol (poisonous to drink) at $3 for a pint, enough for about a thousand cleanings. UK and Benelux readers are recommended to use unflavored vodka, the higher proof the better, as they can take a shot when contemplating the grey skies outside when the process is done. Of course, they will run out of cleaning solution much faster.

You can pay your camera’s manufacturer $$$ to do this task, lose the use of your camera, expose it to the tender mercies of UPS (twice) and still have no guarantee the job will be done right. That’s if you ever get your camera back. You can buy a sensor cleaning kit for some $50 which comes with twelve swabs and magic cleaning solution, which has to be God’s way of telling you you have more money than sense, especially when you use up six of the swabs first time out.

Or you can use Dr. P’s low risk, fast and free method and have the job done in 20 minutes, tops.

You need to concoct a tool which prevents the application of excess force to the sensor glass. No, not that rusty old file from the cardboard box in the basement. Not that the sensor glass protective plate is that fragile, but the cack-handed amongst us can be guaranteed to overdo it. Behold Dr. P’s force-buffered, auto adjusting sensor cleaner.

It’s comprised of two pieces of a regular business card just under 1″ wide (for full frame; make it narrower for APS-C or MFT). The end consists of a multiple-folded piece of lens cleaning tissue, attached at the base to the business card with Scotch tape. Do not use Kleenex – loaded with perfumes and grease and abrasive as heck, it’s a sure way to ensure that you will be sending the camera for service.

First, take a picture of a distant plain object like the sky at the smallest aperture of the widest lens you own. That will bring any sensor dirt into sharp focus.

Next step is to get the swab moist, not wet. Soak a piece of clean, laundered handkerchief in 91% isopropyl alcohol from the drug store, then dab the swab in the handkerchief until you can both see it’s moist and smell the alcohol on it. Do not dunk the swab directly into the alcohol. Moist and wet are diverse concepts. We want moist. Fold up the mirror in your DSLR, remove the lens, insert the swab and swipe across the width of the sensor, flip the swab and repeat. You are pressing hard enough to see the business card bend, not break. If you press too hard the business card will simply break (hence the reference to ‘force buffering!’), limiting the force you can apply.

Wait five seconds for the alcohol to evaporate, down with the mirror, then on with the lens and take another picture. If you need more than five seconds to see the evaporation completed, your swab is too wet. (Readers in England are recommended to use a white wall at home for the picture as it will almost certainly be raining outside).

Now load both snaps into something like Lightroom which will permit before:after comparisons and take a look. If there’s still some dirt there, repeat. There generally is.


You think that sensor glass is fragile? Here’s how Nikon cleans it.

My D3x was simply filthy and needed five or six passes. More crud than crooks in Congress. Better to do these passes one at a time than go into an abrasive frenzy while your swab dries and becomes a fibrous hell. The less you clean, the better. It’s called wear.

To find dirt quickly and to also make it more visible, watch this excellent video.

Here’s the result – Before and After – from identical sections of D3x files, greatly enlarged:

Why does dirt build up on sensors? I discount the oft quoted reason that dirt gets in when lenses are changed, unless you are doing this in dust storms in some hell hole south of the Mason-Dixon during tornado season. I have had dirt build-up even when the lens has not been changed – Canon 5D, Nikon D700, D2x, D3x – makes no difference. It certainly is not squeezing in via the lens mount. The particles are too large. Some lenses – the Canon 24-105 L is one of the worst – act like a dust pump when zoomed, blasting environmental dirt into the mirror box through the zoom mechanism. Don’t believe me – take the lens off, and zoom it holding it to your face. Feel the rush of air? Lousy design, improperly vented.

Other causes seem to be sloppy manufacturing processes. Recent reports of the Nikon D600 show dirt build-up with no lens changes, getting worse and worse during the first five thousand or so exposures. Clearly bits of loose material, and excess lubricants left over from the manufacturing stage are being freed up with use and the typically negatively charged sensor is attracting them in the electrostatic hell between lens and sensor. Witness the fact that D600s lose this problem once well run in and cleaned a few times. Motto: Fire off a few thousand ‘wall shots’ at home before using your new D600. Great. Advice to manufacturers: Stop poncing about with inept ultrasonic vibrators and positively charge the protective glass plate instead.

The Panasonic G1 and G3? Never had a problem in years of use and some 20,000 exposures. The sensors in neither have ever been cleaned and realize that these files are enlarged four times as much as files from a full frame sensor, so dirt really shows. I have changed lenses on these bodies with no special precautions on the street many times. Maybe Canon and Nikon could learn something from the fellows at Panny? And guess what? The Pannys have no flapping mirror doing anything up to 10 gyrations a second and flinging oil and detritus around.

It’s not like Nikon et al are new to screwing up with lubricants. Ask any owner of the 55mm f/2.8 Ai-S Micro-Nikkor, made during a long production run from 1979-2006, if he or she has had problems with gobs of oil appearing on the aperture blades. Yup, wrong choice of type and/or quantity of lubricant.

Here’s Nikon’s pathetic D600 sensor advisory, written by some schmuck liability lawyer who wouldn’t know integrity if it whacked him in the chops and whose job it is to help his employer lie and cheat:


“Natural accumulation of dust”, uh huh. “Blower bulb”, please.
.

Here’s the top secret internal memo from the head of engineering to the C Suite:

“Dudes, we messed up royally. The damned accountants cut so many QC steps from our manufacturing to enhance margins that we had to let our Betty go. She was the babe who mopped up all the excess oil inside our gear before we sold it to pikers. Look, no way we can ‘fess up to this. The liability costs would kill us. We all know these bodies are not really meant to do 8fps but it sure makes for good advertising copy. Let’s just keep a low profile and maybe only one or two come back for cleaning and we can simply say it was operator error. No risk from amateurs and we have the ‘reviewer’ set in our pockets.”


Two beauties against a clean sky.

First and last images – Nikon D3x, 35/1.4 Sigma.