The camera blower has become a constant fixture in many photographers lives. These small, lightweight devices make it easy to blow dust and debris off cameras, lenses and other gear.

They typically cost between $9 and $15 and up until now, the Giottos AA1900 Large Rocket Blaster has been my favorite. Not any more – enter the Zeeion™ Blower from Visible Dust. The new king of rocket blowers.

The Zeeion™ Blower is an anti-static blower. The theory is that when you use a traditional blower, you increase static because most of these devices are made of rubber. Visible Dust’s blower stops the dust from re-attaching to the surface by neutralizing the static charges.

The Zeeion™ Blower also has a one way valve that prevents dust intake. Again, if you use a traditional blower, once you squeeze it to force all the air out, it has to refill with air when you stop squeezing. The Zeeion™ Blower ships with a valve that prevents this from happening in the same way. The air is filtered coming back in.

Finally – the Zeeion™ Blower is protected by filters at both ends that prevent foreign matter intake.

Does it work? As far as I can tell – yes. I don’t have any scientific gear that would help me verify how many dust particles are landing on my lenses or sensor, but I can say that it makes me feel better to be operating with all this cool technology.

Visible Dust is either VERY good at marketing or their stuff works, because many professionals that I know use it. I use their sensor cleaning materials too. Unfortunately, it’s all very expensive.

The retail price of the Zeeion™ Blower is $37.33 US plus shipping. As far as I can tell, that makes it the most expensive blower in the world.

Okay – now go ahead and laugh. But I actually like this thing.

For more information visit http://www.visibledust.com.

Join the conversation! 36 Comments

  1. Received my Zeeion Blower a week ago. Used it on my wife’s D40. Air blast is about the force the Rocket blower, from what I can tell. I’ll take VisibleDust’s word on the technology. I too have always been pleased with their products.

  2. Received my Zeeion Blower a week ago. Used it on my wife’s D40. Air blast is about the force the Rocket blower, from what I can tell. I’ll take VisibleDust’s word on the technology. I too have always been pleased with their products.

  3. Scott:

    Thanks for the tip. And there goes another $46. :)

    By the way, Adorama sells it for $46 with no shipping. A bit better deal for U.S. residents.

  4. Scott:

    Thanks for the tip. And there goes another $46. :)

    By the way, Adorama sells it for $46 with no shipping. A bit better deal for U.S. residents.

  5. I too have the Giottos Super Rocket-air Blower. They have two new models, the Q-Ball Air Blower with tripod base and the Co-Co Air Blower with suction cup. But I think this new Zeeion Blower might be the new purchase for me.

  6. I too have the Giottos Super Rocket-air Blower. They have two new models, the Q-Ball Air Blower with tripod base and the Co-Co Air Blower with suction cup. But I think this new Zeeion Blower might be the new purchase for me.

  7. I like the colour, so I’d probably buy one too.

  8. I like the colour, so I’d probably buy one too.

  9. Hang on, how does the Zeeion refill with air? You mean it goes in through the top? I have a blower and air goes in through a valve at the top – which means dust still can get in, just not back from the front. The static stuff sounds like marketing to me.

    The only problem I have with my blower is that the nozzle is plastic and separate from the bulb. If I squeeze too vigourously (and we know we all have), I end up ejecting the hard plastic nozzle at great force into whatever delicate thing I was blowing. Fortunately, I haven’t done this to my sensor, but I have shot it into the front of my lenses and filters. :0

    Looks like the Zeeion has a similar plastic nozzle.

  10. Hang on, how does the Zeeion refill with air? You mean it goes in through the top? I have a blower and air goes in through a valve at the top – which means dust still can get in, just not back from the front. The static stuff sounds like marketing to me.

    The only problem I have with my blower is that the nozzle is plastic and separate from the bulb. If I squeeze too vigourously (and we know we all have), I end up ejecting the hard plastic nozzle at great force into whatever delicate thing I was blowing. Fortunately, I haven’t done this to my sensor, but I have shot it into the front of my lenses and filters. :0

    Looks like the Zeeion has a similar plastic nozzle.

  11. Scott, you like it simply because it IS the world’s most expensive! ;)

    anyway this looks pretty neat, but I do love my rocketblaster! and the name and look, however when it dies (doubtful) I’ll upgrade.

  12. Scott, you like it simply because it IS the world’s most expensive! ;)

    anyway this looks pretty neat, but I do love my rocketblaster! and the name and look, however when it dies (doubtful) I’ll upgrade.

  13. Too bad Scott you didn’t have this blower when you shot Cranes in the mist. Just think how much better it would have been:-)
    Stuff like this won’t make your photography better. It’ll just make the Chinese richer.

  14. I lost my rocket blower recently (no, I didn’t have it confiscated by TSA like some people). I have been looking for a replacement though certainly wasn’t looking for something this pricey.
    Will take a look over here in the UK.

  15. I lost my rocket blower recently (no, I didn’t have it confiscated by TSA like some people). I have been looking for a replacement though certainly wasn’t looking for something this pricey.
    Will take a look over here in the UK.

  16. Sorry Scott, but this is not even close to being the most expensive. Look up the battery powered (remember still portable) FireFly nrdfirefly.com. It goes for a mere $199.95, seriously. This one looks much more realistically priced, but I am skeptical like mrkgoo these passive ionizers have been proven to be worthless – this one might be different though. Hey, please be on the podcast (TWIP) I hear you on MacBreak (even though I use PC’s) and miss your input on TWIP.

  17. Sorry Scott, but this is not even close to being the most expensive. Look up the battery powered (remember still portable) FireFly nrdfirefly.com. It goes for a mere $199.95, seriously. This one looks much more realistically priced, but I am skeptical like mrkgoo these passive ionizers have been proven to be worthless – this one might be different though. Hey, please be on the podcast (TWIP) I hear you on MacBreak (even though I use PC’s) and miss your input on TWIP.

  18. BTW. Before I use the Rocket Blower, I bombard the sensor with Alpha particles from the polonium-210 strip on a Staticmaster brush by removing the polonium module from the brush and simply holding the polonium module in the lens mount for a few seconds.

    After using this static neutralizing technique for a couple years now, it does seem to me that it is easer to get rid of sensor dust with the air blast from the Rocket blower using this technique than using the Rocket blower by itself.

    The Zeeion Blower should enhance my polonium-210 trick and maybe even make it unnecessary.

  19. BTW. Before I use the Rocket Blower, I bombard the sensor with Alpha particles from the polonium-210 strip on a Staticmaster brush by removing the polonium module from the brush and simply holding the polonium module in the lens mount for a few seconds.

    After using this static neutralizing technique for a couple years now, it does seem to me that it is easer to get rid of sensor dust with the air blast from the Rocket blower using this technique than using the Rocket blower by itself.

    The Zeeion Blower should enhance my polonium-210 trick and maybe even make it unnecessary.

  20. The one-way valve would do nothing to stop dust from entering the blower; it is still pulling dust in on the back side, so while you may not be recycling dust directly, you are still going to pull in dust.

    I would worry about introducing a specific charge into the camera. I know that at least my camera has a high pass filter in front of the sensor that changes the surface charge to help remove dust before cleaning, and building up a charge on any electronic device is not a good idea.

    The only thing that looks good here is the filter in the front end to block bigger pieces of dust.

  21. The one-way valve would do nothing to stop dust from entering the blower; it is still pulling dust in on the back side, so while you may not be recycling dust directly, you are still going to pull in dust.

    I would worry about introducing a specific charge into the camera. I know that at least my camera has a high pass filter in front of the sensor that changes the surface charge to help remove dust before cleaning, and building up a charge on any electronic device is not a good idea.

    The only thing that looks good here is the filter in the front end to block bigger pieces of dust.

  22. “$37.33 US plus shipping. As far as I can tell, that makes it the most expensive blower in the world.”

    Reeeeeally?!?

    There is a joke here about expensive blowing that I’m not going to make in hopes that this comment makes it past moderation.

  23. Mrkgoo did you visit their site and study the diagram? Got any evidence to support your conclusion that the static discharge theory is false?

    I’d really rather people provide facts rather than conclusion. If their story is bogus – I’d sure like to know about it and if I can be convinced I’ll report it.

  24. Mrkgoo did you visit their site and study the diagram? Got any evidence to support your conclusion that the static discharge theory is false?

    I’d really rather people provide facts rather than conclusion. If their story is bogus – I’d sure like to know about it and if I can be convinced I’ll report it.

  25. I have (now). Admittedly, the one-way valve built into the back-end of the nozzle is nice, because it prevents air from blowing back through the nozzle during release, minimising dust from entering that way (note: dust entering this way does not need to get in the bulb to be re-expelled – it only needs to reenter the nozzle). Even in other blowers that have valves at the back, however, do not take much air in from the front, as the openings are typically narrower there.

    Anyway, I have no real facts to back up my claim about the static side. Reading the site, it just SOUNDS like marketing speak. It doesn’t sound scientific at all. It claims:

    “Unlike ordinary blowers made from regular rubber that increase static charges, the ZEEION™ blower allows an opposite charges of an air molecules to be blown at dust and sensor surface, therefore neutralizing the static charges for an easier and more efficient dust removal system.”

    Firstly, the wording is rather poor. “Allows an opposite charges of an air molecules”? Secondly, they have not presented any evidence that dust and sensors are “positively” charged to be able to be neutralised, or that it is even beneficial to do so. Ok, so I’m not up on my static electricity-ology, so it actually may all be true, but without at least demonstrating that this is a problem that needs to be solved, or that this even has a real world effect, I remain sceptical that this is necessary.

    One could even make the counter claim that excessive blowing form such a device can cause your sensor to become negatively charged, causing attraction of positive particles.

    I still stand by the fact that they look nice.

  26. I have (now). Admittedly, the one-way valve built into the back-end of the nozzle is nice, because it prevents air from blowing back through the nozzle during release, minimising dust from entering that way (note: dust entering this way does not need to get in the bulb to be re-expelled – it only needs to reenter the nozzle). Even in other blowers that have valves at the back, however, do not take much air in from the front, as the openings are typically narrower there.

    Anyway, I have no real facts to back up my claim about the static side. Reading the site, it just SOUNDS like marketing speak. It doesn’t sound scientific at all. It claims:

    “Unlike ordinary blowers made from regular rubber that increase static charges, the ZEEION™ blower allows an opposite charges of an air molecules to be blown at dust and sensor surface, therefore neutralizing the static charges for an easier and more efficient dust removal system.”

    Firstly, the wording is rather poor. “Allows an opposite charges of an air molecules”? Secondly, they have not presented any evidence that dust and sensors are “positively” charged to be able to be neutralised, or that it is even beneficial to do so. Ok, so I’m not up on my static electricity-ology, so it actually may all be true, but without at least demonstrating that this is a problem that needs to be solved, or that this even has a real world effect, I remain sceptical that this is necessary.

    One could even make the counter claim that excessive blowing form such a device can cause your sensor to become negatively charged, causing attraction of positive particles.

    I still stand by the fact that they look nice.

  27. I believe it to be highly unlikely that a company with such a good reputation would risk tarnishing that reputation with total bogus claims.

    Technical information is often simplified and examples, such as “air molecules”, using colloquial speech are used when the detailed explanation requires use of terms that the general population would likely not be familiar with.

    Personally, I would be interested in reading an explanation of the technology of the Zeeion Blower and hope VisibleDust can make this info available while still protecting any trade secrets.

  28. I believe it to be highly unlikely that a company with such a good reputation would risk tarnishing that reputation with total bogus claims.

    Technical information is often simplified and examples, such as “air molecules”, using colloquial speech are used when the detailed explanation requires use of terms that the general population would likely not be familiar with.

    Personally, I would be interested in reading an explanation of the technology of the Zeeion Blower and hope VisibleDust can make this info available while still protecting any trade secrets.

  29. I agree. It’s just the wording is less than flattering for their cause. They should explain, even in simple terms, what the issue is and how this benefits a little better. I’m not saying they should break it down and explain charged nitrogen gas particles, but just simply that dust sticks to a sensor due to static charge. The description and diagram they have on the website just screams ‘informercial’ to me.

    I understand there are other anti-static blowers on the market so this is not a totally new concept.

  30. I agree. It’s just the wording is less than flattering for their cause. They should explain, even in simple terms, what the issue is and how this benefits a little better. I’m not saying they should break it down and explain charged nitrogen gas particles, but just simply that dust sticks to a sensor due to static charge. The description and diagram they have on the website just screams ‘informercial’ to me.

    I understand there are other anti-static blowers on the market so this is not a totally new concept.

  31. “…It’ll just make the Chinese richer.”
    umm…. sorry, but Visible Dust is a Canadian company!

    I can’t speak for their blowers – but I have one of their sensor brushes and find it works extremely well. I use a no-name large blower bulb and first try to remove any sensor dust with that, before resorting to the brush. but I’ve always had 100% success with their brush, never had to resort to more drastic wet cleaning methods.

  32. “…It’ll just make the Chinese richer.”
    umm…. sorry, but Visible Dust is a Canadian company!

    I can’t speak for their blowers – but I have one of their sensor brushes and find it works extremely well. I use a no-name large blower bulb and first try to remove any sensor dust with that, before resorting to the brush. but I’ve always had 100% success with their brush, never had to resort to more drastic wet cleaning methods.

  33. @Petri HAHAHAHAHA

    @Brett You are assuming an absence of Chinese Canadians.

  34. @Petri HAHAHAHAHA

    @Brett You are assuming an absence of Chinese Canadians.

  35. David I said it was the most expensive I’ve seen – not the most expensive.

  36. David I said it was the most expensive I’ve seen – not the most expensive.

Comments are closed.

About scottbourne

Founder of Photofocus.com. Retired traveling and unhooking from the Internet.

Category

Reviews

Tags