Fungus and mold

[Bobobird]

A big problem in temperate regions with high humidity. Very hard to get rid of and extremely expensive.

Most photographers in such areas store their stuff in electrically heated dry enclosures or use dry boxes stuffed with moisture absorbing packs.

Recently a new product hit the market that might be useful for protecting expensive photography equipment.

Check this out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eweIY28KUjc

[Manfred M]

Interesting idea and I do wonder how well it works. Unless the UV actually hits the fungal spores, it isn't going to have any impact. That suggests to me that anything that is not in the line of sight of the UV source will not see the steriization action at full intensity (if at all). This would mean some of the moulds could be killed but others will be left elsewhere in the camera body and can be spread by the mechanical actions that occur inside the camera body and through the pumping action of zoom lenses (and to a much lesser degree from the focusing action). DSLRs might fare a bit better than mirrorless cameras, if the sterilization is done with both mirror up and mirror down, as the UV will hit more areas in the camera body interior..

The other issue is the impact of the steriization process itself. UV breaks down the engineered resins used in modern camera bodies / interiors. I would hope that B+W did some careful testing here as resins that break down end up as a fine dust; not something photographers want floating around inside a camera body...

When it comes to lenses, most forms of glass block a significant amount of UV, especially the far UV that has higher energy levels and is more likely to kill the fungal spores. Surfaces near the exterior parts of the lens would benefit more than the elements buried deeper inside the lens body.

[xpatUSA]

No mention of the type of UV emitted. As we know from fancy water filters, the more ultra, the better.

Only a single LED? As Manfred has mentioned, how deadly is that, I wonder?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrav...traviolet_LEDs

Having to suffer American commercials daily, it tends to bother me if someone waves their hands around a lot.

[Manfred M]

No mention of the type of UV emitted. As we know from fancy water filters, the more ultra, the better.

Only a single LED? As Manfred has mentioned, how deadly is that, I wonder?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrav...traviolet_LEDs

Having to suffer American commercials daily, it tends to bother me if someone waves their hands around a lot.

Any "hard" UV devices I've seen have the UV source inside a clear quartz housing to maximize UV transmission. Knowing how UV tends to yellow plastics and yellow is used to filter out UV wavelengths, I really do wonder how effective these UV LEDs are over the long term.

[rpcrowe]

Just for fun - I looked up the item on amazon.com and on B&H from New York City. Unavailable at either source. Available on eBay from Hong Kong (although B+W is a German company) at between $109 and $119 USD depending on the mount...

[Manfred M]

Good catch Richard. B+W are a wholly owned subsidiary of the fabled German optical company Schneider-Kreuznach.

A quick look at their website shows no such product.

https://schneiderkreuznach.com/en/photo-optics


It looks to me like a cheap Chinese ripoff that uses a well known brand as cover.

[rpcrowe]

Good catch Richard. B+W are a wholly owned subsidiary of the fabled German optical company Schneider-Kreuznach.

A quick look at their website shows no such product.

https://schneiderkreuznach.com/en/photo-optics


It looks to me like a cheap Chinese ripoff that uses a well known brand as cover.

There are some pretty decent Chinese Knock Offs but, others are really trash!

I recently purchased an eBay Arca Compatible L Bracket for my Sony A6400. This "FUGASUN" (Honest to God, that's the name it carries) bracket seems every bit as well built as the RRS or Kirk L Brackets that I have previously purchased for my Canon DSLR cameras at about 1/10 the price of the RRS or Kirk models...

[Bobobird]

I am in HK at this time and did take a look at the thing in one of the local shops.

High quality metal construction. High quality boxing. Says "Made in Germany" both on the box and the UV unit itself.

HIgh quality printed manual. Read the manual and nothing appears off.

With Chinese knock-offs, one sign is the relatively poor printing of the manual and there are invariably spelling or grammar mistakes - none found.

Something does not appear right though - there no standards compliance notices anywhere. Also nothing said about the warranty, registration, repair and return etc.

[Shadowman]

If you look further you'll see that this video was published Jan. 2017, so if it hasn't hit the market by now its probably not that popular. The creator of the video has an email address listed and his last reply to comments was a week ago claiming sales were still going strong.

B U S I N E S S :
admin@johnsison.com

[xpatUSA]

Something does not appear right though - there no standards compliance notices anywhere. Also nothing said about the warranty, registration, repair and return etc.

Hmmm ... Made in Germany but no CE mark!?

Did that manual mention the wavelength and power, do you recall?

Please pardon my cynicism, no disrespect intended.

I am reminded somewhat of the many LED products over here from a far-off land, which promise to fix all manner of skin ailments/blemishes by shining visible red light on the skin when it actually takes about 9,000um to penetrate to any depth and a fair amount of power to do anything when it gets there.

[Bobobird]

I took a shot of the manual with the phone but with the way uploading of images is like now, I will just type out the introduction.

"UV-PRO is a unit with a Deep Ultraviolet Light Emitting Diode (DUV-LED), which emits rays with wavelengths shorter than 300nm (UVC). UVC protects lenses and cameras from getting mouldy by killing bacteria on the coating by destroying their DNA & RNA thus permanently halting the reproduction."

and.. spotted one error(?) - the manual used "molding" and "mouldy" interchangeably.

I know the shop owner quite well so just called him to ask about "popularity". He said product has not been in HK for long but has been selling well. But then HK is a really humid place in spring so that is not surprising.

[xpatUSA]

I took a shot of the manual with the phone but with the way uploading of images is like now, I will just type out the introduction.

"UV-PRO is a unit with a Deep Ultraviolet Light Emitting Diode (DUV-LED), which emits rays with wavelengths shorter than 300nm (UVC). UVC protects lenses and cameras from getting mouldy by killing bacteria on the coating by destroying their DNA & RNA thus permanently halting the reproduction."

and.. spotted one error(?) - the manual used "molding" and "mouldy" interchangeably.

I know the shop owner quite well so just called him to ask about "popularity". He said product has not been in HK for long but has been selling well. But then HK is a really humid place in spring so that is not surprising.

Thanks for the extra info, BoBo.

From the Wiki:

UVC

100–280nm,

energy 4.43–12.4 (0.710–1.987)

Short-wave, germicidal, completely absorbed by the ozone layer and atmosphere: hard UV

Pardon the screwy Wiki text formatting!

From the same source, looks like leaving lenses in the sun might need hours to do anything (my guess).

Looks like "mold" is an alternative spelling, possibly American - knowing their habit of leaving "u"s out of words, viz. "color, labor, etc." ...

[Bobobird]

Yes but using proper and usa'ised spelling in a document is somewhat unusual.

[Manfred M]

A couple of things strike me as a bit strange, based on what you have written. The typos can and do occur (German proof-readers are often no better than Chinese ones). The lack of the CE certification suggests that this product will not be marketed in EU countries (which in general don't have a significant mould issue).

What does strike me as strange is that this is a consumer product and for the most part, other than the filter line, this is not a business that Schneider / B+W are targeting. They are a company that primarily targets the commercial, high end professional market, especially the movie business and the medium format large format still camera business. They are also very much a player in the industrial market.

A purely consumer-oriented product seems rather out of place for the company.

[Bobobird]

Mould etc is a real issue in places like HK and there are shops that sell nothing but special de-humidifying cabinets for photo equipment. People with better means turn a room or some storage space into a custom safe area. The walls in apartments here do actually get wet to the touch during the high periods so every means is used to keep expensive stuff safe.

For that reason I never leave stuff here and travel with my big lens/cameras and other equipment but that is really inconvenient. Since I visit here 2-3 times a year, it is possible to keep a duplicate set of stuff but I cannot in good sense keep my place here operating electrical equipment year round. What if...

I do have a custom mildly heated/dehumidified cupboard here that holds stuff so a product like this is not much use but I can see its value for people without the space or with a large collection especially for lens collectors.

[xpatUSA]

Yes but using proper and usa'ised spelling in a document is somewhat unusual.

... Aha, at the Same Time - I see what you mean!

[Bobobird]

Back to Manfred's earlier point about deep in the lens.

That is the reason why many of us carry around a small keychain led light to inspect any lens we get whether new or used. The more vintage the lens the more rigorous the inspections.

[rpcrowe]

Correct me if I am wrong... I am under the impression (right or wrong) that the cement used in older lenses was either animal or plant based and therefore became a breeding area for fungi - especially under moist warm conditions.

I am also under the impression that the cement used in modern lenses is mineral based and does not act as much as a breeding ground for fungi as the older cement did.

This of course doesn't mean that we can discount fungi in modern lenses, just that the older lenses were more susceptible to fungus growth.

One thing that I am certain about is that the leather cases in which older cameras and lenses were stored can enhance the growth of fungi.

I have a leather case for my vintage Meyer Optik Orestor 135mm lens that definitely had some fungus growing on it. Luckily, the fungi did not attack the lens. I removed the fungus with a 3% Hydrogen Peroxide solution and placed the lens case in the hot bright California sun for a couple of days. I will keep it stored in a plastic bag in case I want to sell the lens in the future, However, I will not store the lens in that case...

[Manfred M]

Correct me if I am wrong... I am under the impression (right or wrong) that the cement used in older lenses was either animal or plant based and therefore became a breeding area for fungi - especially under moist warm conditions.

A very long time ago (pre-WW II) Canada Balsam was the adhesive of choice for bonding optical glass elements together. Various engineered resin adhesives were used as they became available and had improved properties versus the older adhesives. I suspect UV cured epoxies are likely the adhesive of choice these days.

Moulds will grow on many things but in general they need food. Contaminants enter the lens during when the lens is zoomed or focused, so contaminants like pollen will adhere to the mechanical and optical components of the lens. Spores also enter that way. Add humid and warm conditions that are found in the tropics and problems can and do occur.

[GrahamS]

Killing off fungal spores is all good and well (if it is done at all) but the problem of the dead fungal material then remains. This provides a good breeding ground for fresh spores as it acts like a sponge. It is imperative to remove any fungal material from a lens that has become infected. Some strains of fungus etch the coating or even the glass surface. In such cases, short of replacing the affected element, nothing can be done. In most cases the fungal material can be polished off of the surface of the optic using techniques that take considerable skill, time and practise to master.

Methinks I smell snake oil here......