The Solar Eclipse of 2017 Destroyed Lots of Rental Camera Gear (petapixel.com) 140
Despite numerous warnings sent out to renters, a number of LensRental's camera equipment came back damaged and destroyed from the solar eclipse of 2017. PetaPixel provides pictures in a report that shows some of the damage. One photo, for example, "shows a Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 lens that had its aperture blades partially melted by the sun during the eclipse," while another shows a Canon 7D Mark II shutter being burned so bad that "the heat went past it and damaged the sensor behind it as well." LensRentals, one of the leading camera rental companies, writes about the destruction in a blog post on their website: The most common problem we've encountered with damage done by the eclipse was sensors being destroyed by the heat. We warned everyone in a blog post to buy a solar filter for your lens, and also sent out mass emails and fliers explaining what you need to adequately protect the equipment. But not everyone follows the rules, and as a result, we have quite a few destroyed sensors. To my personal surprise, this damage was far more visually apparent than I even expected, and the photos below really make it visible.
The images above are likely created because people were shooting in Live View mode, allowing them to compose the image using the back of their screen, instead of risking damage to their eyes by looking through the viewfinder. However, those who didn't use live view (and hopefully guess and checked instead of staring through the viewfinder), were more likely to face damage to their camera's mirror. While this damage was far rarer, we did get one particular camera with a damaged mirror box caused by the sun.
The images above are likely created because people were shooting in Live View mode, allowing them to compose the image using the back of their screen, instead of risking damage to their eyes by looking through the viewfinder. However, those who didn't use live view (and hopefully guess and checked instead of staring through the viewfinder), were more likely to face damage to their camera's mirror. While this damage was far rarer, we did get one particular camera with a damaged mirror box caused by the sun.
People's eyes (Score:2)
This is an incredibly good example of what happens to your EYES if you look up at the eclipse without protection.
That $11.5K lens, though. OUCH.
No it is not (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, this whole mania about not looking at the sun ever is absurd. People do it all the time between eclipses with no lasting damage.
Secondly, this is NOT an example of what happens to your eyes looking at the sun, unless you are looking at the sun through several layered magnifying glasses - which is essentially what a telephoto lens is.
Now what you don't want to do is stare at it for longer than a second or so, but brief glances are OK. However you'll not be able to see a partial eclipse that way, the rest of the sun is too bright - so you really need glasses just to see anything.
Similarly for camera gear, if you pre-focus, quickly move the camera to the sun, shoot, then turn it away - there's no lasting camera damage. However what you really REALLY do not want to do is to be looking through an optical viewfinder when that happens, there even a second can hurt your eyes. But live view with an LCD viewfinder is fine.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, this whole mania about not looking at the sun ever is absurd.
No-one said anything about not looking at the Sun ever.
People do it all the time between eclipses with no lasting damage.
Looking at an eclipsed Sun - even for the same amount of time (which is "very little") that you could stare at an uneclipsed Sun without incurring damage - is still more dangerous.
Re: (Score:3)
No. It opens the chance of you staring at an uneclipsed sun without squinting, but in and of itself it is not more dangerous.
The reason people are warned not to look at an eclipse isn't because it's more dangerous, it's because people forget to look away.
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying that walking across a motorway opens the chance of being hit by a car, but in and of itself it's not more dangerous than walking across an empty field.
The reason people are warned not to look at an eclipse isn't because it's more dangerous, it's because people [don't receive the usual physiological stimulus] to look away.
...which is exactly what makes it more dangerous. I don't get why people keep insisting on playing semantic games for the sake of being contrary.
Re: (Score:1)
Hardly semantic games. Your assertion:
Looking at an eclipsed Sun - even for the same amount of time (which is "very little") that you could stare at an uneclipsed Sun without incurring damage - is still more dangerous.
is just plain wrong. In fact. NASA's guidelines acknowledge that there is a minute or so of full eclipse in which it is entirely safe to stare with naked eyes. (Problem is, how do you know when to stop looking?)
It is the time you spend looking at the partially eclipsed sun that counts, not the degree of eclipse.
Re: (Score:2)
Doh... I did mean to say partially eclipsed. Oops. A partially eclipsed Sun is still technically "eclipsed," but... yeah, not as clear as it was meant to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Forgetting has got nothing to do with it.
It's dark during the eclipse. Thus, pupils of one's eyes are dilated wide.
Thus, way more solar radiation enters the eye than when looking at the Sun in normal conditions.
Yes it is (Score:5, Informative)
It is exactly an example of what happens to your eyes when looking at the sun.
It isn't the size of the lens which matters, it's the f-ratio. The ratio of the lens aperture (diameter) to the focal length. While a larger diameter collects more light, a longer focal length focuses that light into a larger image. So regardless of lens size, if they have the same f-ratio then the intensity of the light at the focal plane is the same when pointed at the same light source.
The human eye has a f-ratio of about f/2.1 (night-adapted) to f/8.3 (daylight) [petapixel.com]. While the 600mm telephoto gathers a lot more light than your eye, it also focuses the light into a much larger image of the sun, so the energy per mm^2 of sensor isn't as high as you'd think given the large lens diameter. F-ratio goes as the diameter of the lens, while amount of light gathered goes as the area of the lens, or diameter^2. So comparing the 600mm f/4.0 telephoto to your eye at f/8.0, the telephoto's light has only 4x as much energy per mm^2 of sensor as per mm^2 of retina. Consequently, it would only take 4x as long to cause similar damage to your eye than it would take with the 600mm telephoto. Probably a lot less time since biology tends to be much more sensitive to temperature than metal and silicon circuitry.
Not it is not (Score:3)
Although an interesting thought experiment about the light collected by an eye vs a lens, you are not factoring in a massive difference - the eye is filled with fluid, while the chamber of a camera is not.
That keeps the temperature regulated, in a way a camera simply does not do...
In fact if you read about HOW eyes are actually damaged by looking at the sun without magnifying elements for too long, heat is not a factor [gizmodo.com] at all - so how can it possibly compare to the damage done by a camera lens which is enti
Re: (Score:2)
Enough people got blind or damaged the eyes enough to wear a yellow arm binder with 3 black dots.
Why do you insist that looking into an solar eclipse is safe, when it clearly is not?
Re: (Score:2)
Put yourself into the bare feet of our ancestors yomping around on the savannah. One of them glances up at the sun in response to, say, the cry of a predatory bird. Eye full of sun ; looks
Re:Yes it is (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not just irradiance (W/m2) that counts for retinal damage for two reasons. 1. Removal of heat is much more efficient from a small spot than from a big spot (3D versus 2D heat transfer). 2. Involuntary drift of the eye spreads out the dose if the spot size is small. (Try fixing your gaze at a spot for 10 seconds - you can't).
Some of the camera damage was in the aperure blades. Those were not in the image plane of the lens (similar to your irises). Those get quite a bit more dose if there is a big-diameter lens in front of them.
Disclosure: years ago, I reasoned that you wouldn't get blind from looking into the sun for 0.3 seconds, with binoculars, based on your irradiance argument. And tested it. Well, I didn't get permanent eye damage, but the after-image was 8x bigger in diameter than that of the sun with the naked eye and lasted for a day - rather disturbing. That was before I learned about the mechanisms of laser-induced damage.
Binoculars towards Icarus (Score:1)
more importantly -- What is the backstory to this experiment?
This really might fall in the "Y
No it is not (Score:3, Informative)
A recent article in Chemical and Engineering News discussed just this. The damage comes from over-production of all-trans retinal. Normally, 11-cis retinal is converted to all-trans, which is then converted to retinol, and back, eventually, to 11-cis retinal. It is along this pathway that an signal is generated that says "I got light". Too much light results in an over-abundance of all-trans retinal, which in the presence of yet more light absorbs additional light to eventually produce an excited triplet st
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody in their right minds would try to shoot the sun at f/4, though. They'd crank it all the way down to f/44. Which is fine until the camera stupidly opens the lens up all the way to focus...
... and that's when it catches fire. :-)
Re:No it is not (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, this whole mania about not looking at the sun ever is absurd. People do it all the time between eclipses with no lasting damage.
People do it all the time, and then look away immediately because it causes their eyes to water and then hurt. The problem during an eclipse is that the amount of sunlight hitting your retina is still up in the range where it can cause damage, but not in the range where you'll notice immediately. It's a similar issue to sunburn on cloudy days: because less IR is hitting your skin, you don't realise that you're still absorbing a lot of UV and so end up burning even when you don't feel that warm. You've evolved a set of danger reflexes for things that damaged a large proportion of your potential ancestors, not for the rarer events.
Did you try it? (Score:2, Informative)
The problem during an eclipse is that the amount of sunlight hitting your retina is still up in the range where it can cause damage, but not in the range where you'll notice immediately.
Oh really - did you try this during an actual eclipse?
Because even up to 99% obscured, there was still too much light to look at the sun directly without wanting to look away again right away. The light took on an eerie quality to be sure, but was not substantially dimmed until the actual full eclipse. Images I took about a
Re: (Score:2)
When I was 6 (Score:2)
Re: When I was 6 (Score:1)
But Momma! That's where the fun is!
Re: (Score:2)
It's all fun and game 'til someone loses an eye.
Re: (Score:2)
If your SLR camera allows you to stop down the lens before you press the shutter button, you can use that feature to safely use the viewfinder while photographing an eclipse. Typically, the procedure goes like this: set the ISO sensitivity as low as possible (50). Set the shutter speed as high as possible (1/8000). Focus for infinity. Stop down the lens as far as possible (f/22). Point away from the sun and put your eye to the finder. Find the sun through the finder, immediately press the shutter release, a
Re: (Score:2)
I brought solar filter material for the 1999 eclipse, and keep it, it's mountings (some for cameras, some welder's goggles uprated to solar-capable, some sheet material taped onto an interchangeable filter square, and one "lunar stop" for a 150mm telescope, with solar filter film attached) and a roll of gaffer tape in a satchel that has got rolled out every eclipse since. Inspect before use (a pinhole might develop ; spiders like the bag in years it's not used) but otherwise observing
Re:No it is not (Score:5, Informative)
You're mad that what he said is accurate? You have an interest in people being deprived of knowledge? You're threatened by the spread of useful information?
I think I'd rather you go stare into the sun.
Re: (Score:3)
Typical AC, too stupid to figure out how to log in, and too stupid to figure out what is safe and what is not...
I have watched many solar eclipses over the years, as well as looked up at the sun countless times when hiking, all without damage because I knew what was safe.
I realize that you being in your moms basement 24x7 gives you little real-world experience with the burning orb overhead, but that doesn't excuse you for being so full or warrantless hatred for people who get out more than you.
Re:No it is not (Score:4, Interesting)
There are 2 major risks that I'm aware of...
1) You use a counterfeit filter that filters out the visible spectrum, but not enough of the UV or IR. This removes the blink/look away reflex, but still causes damage.
2) You look through anything magnified without proper solar shielding during totality and don't stop looking before it ends. So, that 1 second of magnified sun causes permanent damage before you can look away.
There have also been people who consciously "override" their reflex because they want to see it; or who look, look away, and then look back right away. However, my understanding is that this is very rare, and there have only been a few people who have ever been reported having this issue.
From NPR [npr.org]: "I've seen a couple of patients over the years where, you know, you've got very distinct crescent-shaped scars from looking at a solar eclipse," says Chou.
Re: (Score:3)
That $11.5K lens, though. OUCH.
They can repair the lens for far less than that.
I decided to read the blog post and discovered the guy wasn't really complaining about this. He states this is something they were expecting would happen - "Things happen, and that’s why we have a repair department".
Of course at the end he makes it clear the customers who damaged the equipment are going to be paying for the repairs, which is entirely reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was weird that they advised customers to buy solar filters for the event. If you're renting the camera or lens, why would you buy a solar filter? After you return the camera, what would you do with it?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I agree - but the same would probably be true if the rental place bought a bunch of solar filters and then rented them out. After this one event, there wouldn't be much demand for them. Maybe they could've "rented" them out for the (wholesale) cost of buying them.
Having said that - I might see if I can pick one up on the cheap, post-eclipse, and add it to my filter set. I saw some cool "eclipse" photos of the ISS transiting the sun... solar transits might be a fun sort of shot to work on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And your eyes are not invaluable!
A tale of dumb vs. smart Americans... (Score:2)
Dumb Americans used their eyes and/or cameras to view the eclipse.
Smart Americans used certified eclipse glasses and/or rental cameras to view the eclipse.
Re: (Score:1)
Brilliant Europeans let the Americans take the risk and just watched it online or on the news.
Re: (Score:1)
Brilliant Europeans let the Americans take the risk and just watched it online or on the news.
Those 4th of July fireworks must be breathtaking on a TV screen.
Re:A tale of dumb vs. smart Americans... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Those 4th of July fireworks must be breathtaking on a TV screen."
If you have seen one firework, you have seen them all
Re: (Score:2)
If you have seen one firework, you have seen them all
You could say the same thing about eclipses. Why bother watching if it's just video of it on a screen?
Re: (Score:2)
They sure are more breathtaking than what you can (legally) see live in California, Arizona, New Mexico...
Re: (Score:2)
Sure! He said it's ok to look at the sun so what harm could it to to a camera?
Cheap imported cameras are the problem. (Score:2)
Destroyed Lots of Rental Camera Gear? (Score:3)
From TFA:
"Thankfully, there were relatively few items that were returned to LensRentals with this type of damage"
Re: (Score:3)
They rented out almost all of their telephoto lenses and had six damaged by the sun.
That's not a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
I read the LensRental article (but not the PetaPixel one, so maybe I don't need to be ostracised from /.) and they were pleasantly surprised to only have 6 items of damaged equipment, vs a pre-event guess of 18.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Several of my coworkers who lived in the path of eclipse had their cameras mounted on telescopes without solar filters. The best picture they took was Jupiter shining brightly to one side of the eclipse.
That must have been some radical fisheye they had mounted, because Jupiter is roughly opposite the sun right now. The bright star near the sun would have been Venus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That must have been some radical fisheye they had mounted, because Jupiter is roughly opposite the sun right now. The bright star near the sun would have been Venus.
Four planets were visible during the eclipse [earthsky.org] (in order of brightness): Venus, Jupiter, Mars and Mercury.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it even possible to get a decent (zoomed)picture without using a solar filter? Even if the shutter/sensor didn't get damaged?
Only at totality. Even at 99.99% it would show up as a bright blob without a filter. I took a ton of shots that day with solar filter on my DSLR and a few without it on my phone just to see how they would turn out (phone cameras were not at risk due to the relatively wide lenses they use vs a DSLR with a 500mm zoom). The phone pics, even right before totality, just look like I took a picture of the sun on a random day.
If you planned ahead a good solar filter could be had for about $50. I just attached $1
Re: (Score:2)
Is it even possible to get a decent (zoomed)picture without using a solar filter? Even if the shutter/sensor didn't get damaged?
Yes, during and very near totality. You can't get a usable shot during totality with a solar filter, as I'm sure many found out.
But you need to protect the lens until that time, either by using a solar filter, or by not pointing the camera towards the sun until totality starts. And you still want a filter, just not one that strong.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Get a lens that stops down to f/22. Attach two 2X telextenders to the lens. You now have an effective aperture of f/88. Set the ISO speed to 50 (or lower if possible), the shutter speed to 1/8000 or faster. Any visible part of the sun's disk should now be within the dynamic range of the sensor, although not by much.
Other techniques could be used to cut down the amount of light entering the lens, such as covering the front of the lens with a sheet of aluminum foil with a pinhole in it. The success of th
Re: (Score:2)
I always found that tele-extenders were little more than soft-focus filters.
200mm Nikkor @ f22 with NDx8 + linear polariser on slide film. I should dig it out of the collection one of these days.
But how many were damaged? (Score:2)
I am an avid photographer myself and I wouldn't dream of these kind of stupidities.
Yet I can very much understand technically challenged people not understanding the consequences of their decisions.
On the other hand, they did understand there was a need for specialist equipment that even on rent won't be cheap, and now they are told their insurance doesn't cover it.
At the end of the blog with scary pictures Zach Sutton writes he was surprise how few equipment was actually damaged yet he als
Re: (Score:2)
One thing I don't understand is how someone can be an avid-enough photographer to want to use pro equipment for photographing an eclipse, yet not avid enough to either already understand the need for a proper solar filter or be motivated to do the research into how to get good eclipse shots.
But perhaps these were simply people with more money than sense, as the saying goes.
Re: (Score:2)
Marvin put it very succinctly : "It gives me a headache to think down to that level."
Re: (Score:2)
"The Solar Eclipse of 2017 Destroyed ... " (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The USERS are the people who destroyed the equipment.
And yet on any other day the users don't seem to destroy the equipment. It's like there was some mitigating event that people weren't prepared for.
In other news, all the home owners in Texas destroyed their own houses because they didn't have them built just right to withstand the right amount of water.
Re: (Score:1)
No, the calendar destroyed all those homes in Texas, by being the day of the storm.
Re: (Score:1)
And yet on any other day the users don't seem to destroy the equipment. It's like there was some mitigating event that people weren't prepared for.
In other news, all the home owners in Texas destroyed their own houses because they didn't have them built just right to withstand the right amount of water.
Really? That's what you're going with?
As even TFS you didn't read pointed out, the rental business went to enormous lengths to tell people how not to rack up repair charges by damaging equipment while shooting the sun. The eclipse, unlike a hurricane, came and went without a CHANGE of destroying any of that equipment until a human being set it up and pointed it directly at the sun without taking the precautions they were repeatedly told to take. As for people who choose to build a house in a regular flo
Re: (Score:2)
As even TFS you didn't read pointed out, the rental business went to enormous lengths to tell people how not to rack up repair charges by damaging equipment while shooting the sun.
You mean TFS that referenced TFA that told people about using solar filters, which subsequently said that the most expensive of the damage came from someone who did actually use a solar filter?
That thing I didn't read?
Nice try though.
Can someone please explain to me how a partially o (Score:1)
Not only brighter but how the obstruction makes more light reach the viewer?
My setup worked just fine. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a typo for 500mm? Refractive designs for 50mm lenses are simple and cheap enough that there isn't much call for a reflective one.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a typo for 500mm? Refractive designs for 50mm lenses are simple and cheap enough that there isn't much call for a reflective one.
Yep, should have been 500mm. Fingers working faster than the brain again. :)
What is the percentage of busted eyes? (Score:2)
From 8/21/2017 solar eclipse? ;)
Are smartphone cameras somehow immune? (Score:2)
Shot tons of photos with OnePlus, nothing bad happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Takes more than an eclipse to fry a potato.
Oh well! (Score:1)
Re:And who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. Why did people take pictures of it at all? If you want pictures, go to a space/astronomy/NASA site after the eclipse and download to your heart's content.
It is the same mentality as those who film a sporting event with their smartphone. Why? It will be broadcast, in better definition and commentary, and they can watch the re-broadcast when they get home.
Monkey see monkey do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't cancel your order, did you? You can still use the solar filter during all the rest of the time that's not an eclipse and photograph sunspots or other transits. Plus, you'll have it for the next eclipse.
Looks like there will be a Venus transit in December of this year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a Mercury transit, but something is coming up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And who cares? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to TomH123's comment, another difference is that a lot of the photos people take on vacation are of themselves. I don't think people were renting cameras to take selfies of themselves with the eclipse.
Although a Google search shows some hits. And quite a few people saying not to do it. Interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
My favourite is the thousands of camera flashes you see going off at stadium sports events, because your flash works over 50-100 feet and doesn't just give you an underexposed photo with a really nice shot of the back of someone's head in the foreground.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, using a flash at sporting events, concerts, and other brightly illuminated events isn't a bad strategy for point-and-shoot cameras. The fact that the flash doesn't illuminate the subject is irrelevant; the flash sync speed of the shutter is just about what you want for proper exposure anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Gonna call bullshit on that one. I can find a dozen articles that will confirm you should turn your flash off (and anything that is making aperture/exposure decisions based on the flash is going to be underexposed). Feel free to post one article to the contrary.
Re: (Score:1)
As a professional photographer, I agree. Flash is useless at sporting events and performances. Hell, it's mostly useless everywhere else. Anything you could possibly need it for can be corrected in post if you shoot in a RAW format.
I can't tell you how many people I've taken aside at such events and shown them (because they don't know) how to turn off the flash on the $2000 camera that they only play with for an hour every 6 months.
The reaction is always "WOW, that DOES look a lot better!"
Re: (Score:2)
There were some old simple cameras with no metering where that was true. My old Instamatic from the 1960s was an example; it used a different (longer) shutter speed if the flash was active. That seems counterintuitive now, but it was necessary for flash bulbs because they did not emit all their light nearly instantaneously like a Xenon flash tube does.
(Cameras with focal plane shutters, like SLRs have (digital or not), still need a relatively slow shutter speed for flash. The reason is that at higher speeds
100 Monkeys (Score:1)
I posit however that the Monkey SeeDo is valuable to humans as a ritual. The value of the Monkey SeeDo is that hominids participating is that they possess a memetic locus around which to establish communication, which is ultimately about distributing reso
Re: (Score:1)
Wow. You must be fun at parties.
And also: I pity your spouse. And your children. But I doubt you have either of those, thankfully.
Re: (Score:3)
1. Yes, LensRentals rents out cameras and lenses. For special one-time needs, it's better to spend $400 to rent a super-duper lens for a week than to buy it for $4000. Also, some people will rent equipment prior to buying it, to cover the possibility that the equipment isn't satisfactory for their purposes.
2. The experience of an eclipse differs from sunset or cloudy overcast. While in the partial phase, it gets dark while shadows are still distinct. It's a rare event, and the combination of rarity and the
Re: (Score:3)
These are the same fuckwits who take pictures of their FUCKING FOOD and their dogs wearing tiny sweaters or moose antlers or little red noses, which I'm sure those animals HATE and sharing them with their so-called "friends," who are also morons, evidently because they don't immediately unfriend the jackasses who do this shit, and move on with their lives.
So I prevented harm to myself and my precious cameras by NOT pointing them at or near a giant ball of fire in the sky.
So, erm, what do you take photographs of? Or do you prevent harm to your precious cameras by keeping them safely in a closed, locked box at the bottom of wardrobe in the bricked off spare room in the basement of your secret bunker?
Re: (Score:2)
You can see sunrise AND sunset? So your basement has windows to the east AND west?
Man, that's what I call living!