It's a shame that Lens Rentals had to suffer such material loss, but that report is absolute gold-plated first-hand evidence for my perennial debates with other photographers who insist that they don't need Solar protection for eclipses.
"But I took a landscape shot at midday with the Sun in frame and it didn't melt my sensor". The difference being the length of exposure and the concentrations of energy.
Just to clarify, there’s no concentration of energy involved with the eclipse itself. The concentration involved is no different than setting a leaf on fire with a magnifying glass on a regular day.
The sun isn’t a garden hose. Putting something in front of it doesn’t make the edges more intense.
They have an in-house repair shop that dealt with most or all of it, and they charge the customer for the cost of the repair. From the comments the fact that they don't gouge on repairs is one reason some folks use them.
Yup, it all came down to how long the camera was pointed at the sun. I took a bunch of photos of the eclipse including this HDR shot with a Leica 280mm lens and Sony A7R with no filter whatsoever & without any damage to my lens or camera. The thing is, it took seconds to take and I made sure the camera was only pointed at the sun for brief moments:
hey astronomy was a wicked hard class and i still dont get it, so maybe this will be a very expensive lesson for them. sadly it probably wont be the right one but that is life. you know that there had to be a couple of smug asshats that were brought down a peg, thats pretty funny. I missed the eclipse.
At one point during the eclipse I used a pair of binoculars to project an image of the sun onto the ground. Of course, it was a double image, so to fix that I covered one of the eyepieces with my hand. It took about three seconds for the pain to register. Hard to say which hurt more: the small, first-degree burn on my palm or the rest of me from kicking myself afterwards.
I think my favorite part of this article is how the author is so understanding and positive about his users. I think if I had rented out cameras to people, told them not to point it at the eclipse, and then got a bunch of damaged cameras back, I'd be pissed. In fact, I might have choice words for those customers.
I think there's a lesson here in targeting inexperienced consumers. Perhaps a good preventative measure would have been handing out protective lenses before the eclipse so that customers would have really had to try to mess it up.
I'd argue this is slightly worse because the cameras have higher magnification lenses* vs our naked eye. This might be more akin to looking into a telescope with your eyes.
Edit: To elaborate - Higher magnification lenses (depending on the camera lens used of course)
Edit 1: - /u/corndoge Suggests that people may take this the wrong way. I mean to say in the amount of physical damage it's worse for camera's because of the extra (and typically higher magnification lens). I don't mean that a burnt camera is worse then a burnt eye - I'd rather anybody loose tons of $$$ for a camera then have eye damage.
I was recently party to a conversation where someone was saying that they couldn't find eclipse glasses in the store, so they had to "look through a Ritz cracker, like they said on the news". I figured they meant use it as a pinhole lens, but they continued saying that the sun was still pretty bright even using the cracker. I didn't want to blow up the spot by clarifying/correcting (and it's not like I could have prevented their eye damage after the fact), but I definitely got the sense they were looking directly through the holes in the cracker. This person is an educated white-collar professional.
I just googled for reports on the eclipse's aftermath the other day, and there seemed to be noting about widespread eye damage (or I did not search hard enough).
It was interesting how most of the post-eclipse reporting was hijacked by a certain politician not wearing his glasses (probably he only looked for a split second anyway). Anyway, this eclipsed (sorry) any reports about the actual event, which must have been one of the largest events in history based on the number of spectators (I saw estimates of 20 million people across the US).
Apples and oranges. Eyes are wet, lenses dry. Eyes would never catch fire. Boil maybe. The damage to eyes happens at far lower temps/times and, as many have found the hard way, it doesnt even hurt.
FWIW me and my coworkers looked at the eclipse with no protection (it was too foggy to use our pinhole cameras). I didn't develop any vision issues, and I don't think the others did either.
Interesting! My assumption is that this could not happen with a phone camera though, correct? Because then one would think just leaving one's phone face down on the table in sunlight would ruin it.
The sun would have to be dead center middle so it's probably unlikely. The lenses on the fancy cameras definitely make it a far worse problem for them vs our phone cameras though.
An iphone 6 camera only costs 5$ and is easy to replace(with a screw driver and spudger (maybe an igizmo) most hacker news people likely wouldn't have issues.), so it's not the end of the world (source:I repair phones)
The most common expert opinion seems to be that photographing the Sun with a smartphone camera won't damage it. Here's a NASA document on this: [1]
A Chicago Tribune story [2] cited the WSJ [3] saying that Apple said that eclipse photography would not hurt an iPhone.
Forbes says that recent generations of iPhone have sensors and lenses just big enough to cause damage if you point them at the Sun for more than a couple seconds, but that selfies that include the Sun are fine because the front camera and sensor are small [4].
Anyone who doesn't take their glasses off and look at the total eclipse for a moment when the sun is completely covered, is missing out. It's a beautiful sight.
Caution is needed of course. Get ready to put those glasses back on any moment now!
Incredible hues and glow and the surrounding twilight. Can't see any of that with glasses on. At totality, sneak a peek with your naked eyes, it's fine.
Same for camera equipment, it's the setting up and pointing the camera at sun before the eclipse that does the damage. Keep lens cap on until last moment, then take off, and nothing will happen to camera. I've done it at two eclipse festivals, no clouds, didn't even use ND filter! Cameras and eyes fine.
I got lucky while testing my camera, which is mounted at prime focus in a refractor scope. I had it in Live View which meant the mirror was up, and I removed the solar filter for just a second.
The camera said "error", turned off, I replaced the solar filter, and it was fine. Much longer, and I'd have had a burn. The telescope really collects and concentrates a ton of light.
I can almost feel the LensRental writer's pain of having to write this article without calling a bunch of dumbaxxes dumbaxxes because they are their customers. sigh
Does the eclipse make the sun stronger or something? I've pointed my camera at the sun for all day long taking timelapses and nothing bad happened to it. I guess maybe you need a really hardcore zoom lens to get damage like that...
On the day of this event I was at the hospital and everyone just used X-ray films. They work well enough. I also did try a pair of sunglasses, and I could last maybe for a second or two. I am not sure if my eye sights have been damaged since then. I hope not... I repeated a few times but all done around 1pm-ish in NY, so not at peak. It was more like looking directly at the sun during noon everyday.
I was shooting with a d800 200mm lens, no filter. There is no visible sensor damage, both when examining images and the sensor itself. I have to check out the lens. I left it on the sun for a good 20 minutes in live view but there doesn't seem to be any damage. Thoughts?
A lot of phone cameras seem to have come through (apparently) unscathed. Both pictures and video. Too small a collector/concentrator, or enough shaking because hand-held to keep the focal point moving?
The amusing bit is at the end, where the author tacitly admits that their add-on camera insurance is somewhat crap. Someone who damaged a rental camera by pointing it at the eclipse would, ironically, have been better off if they then proceeded to "accidentally" drop the camera from a height onto concrete:
Unfortunately, these types of damage are considered neglect, as warnings were given out to customers before the solar eclipse. Our LensCap insurance plan, which can be added to rentals for a small nominal fee, does not protect from neglect but is an excellent tool for those who are worried about their rental and want to protect themselves from any accidental damage.
Intentionally using gear inappropriately in ways that are highly likely to result in damage isn't what insurance is for. Reasonable guidelines around what insurance will cover keeps it cheaper for everyone.
A camera is repairable, so it's not like they throw out the entire "broken" item. Dropping the camera would have just created a second problem.
It's an interesting line, between accident and neglect. Reading the article, my initial reaction was that it is ridiculous for their insurance to not cover this damage. But yet in general I do enjoy the non-diligent actually retaining some moral hazard. This "absent agency" problem is usually addressed with a deductible, but that still doesn't fully price in the cost of easily-prevented damage.
Recently renting a box truck and not wanting to be on the hook for a $150k piece of capital equipment, I got the damage waiver. But I had wished for a cheaper policy that would have excluded damage from low drive-throughs and parking garages, which presumably makes up the majority of their claims. Alas.
[+] [-] dingaling|8 years ago|reply
"But I took a landscape shot at midday with the Sun in frame and it didn't melt my sensor". The difference being the length of exposure and the concentrations of energy.
[+] [-] heartbreak|8 years ago|reply
The sun isn’t a garden hose. Putting something in front of it doesn’t make the edges more intense.
[+] [-] fencepost|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patcheudor|8 years ago|reply
https://www.flickr.com/photos/patcheudor/35886777354/
I'm assuming the damage Lens Rentals saw was from people who were trying to do time-lapse.
[+] [-] csomar|8 years ago|reply
I thought the renters would be paying for it?
[+] [-] monochromatic|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oliwarner|8 years ago|reply
So yes, somebody owes LR a considerable amount of money for repairing or replacing that £11,000 600mm lens.
The admin of dealing with this crap is built into the rental price. A well looked after lens doesn't depreciate fast.
[+] [-] wlesieutre|8 years ago|reply
Unfortunately for the lens, the 600mm lens's drop-in filter slot is behind the iris. So the camera was fine, the lens not so much.
http://shuttermuse.com/canon-drop-in-filter-guide/
[+] [-] triggermuch|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lisper|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] klipt|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nxc18|8 years ago|reply
I think there's a lesson here in targeting inexperienced consumers. Perhaps a good preventative measure would have been handing out protective lenses before the eclipse so that customers would have really had to try to mess it up.
[+] [-] olegkikin|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gist|8 years ago|reply
It might not be good business to express that in a blog post
[+] [-] ars|8 years ago|reply
Then clearly this is the wrong business for you.
Dealing with stupid customers simply comes with the territory.
[+] [-] jmiserez|8 years ago|reply
It hurts just thinking about it, yet some people don’t seem to really believe the warnings.
[+] [-] penagwin|8 years ago|reply
Edit: To elaborate - Higher magnification lenses (depending on the camera lens used of course)
Edit 1: - /u/corndoge Suggests that people may take this the wrong way. I mean to say in the amount of physical damage it's worse for camera's because of the extra (and typically higher magnification lens). I don't mean that a burnt camera is worse then a burnt eye - I'd rather anybody loose tons of $$$ for a camera then have eye damage.
[+] [-] mindslight|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] f_allwein|8 years ago|reply
It was interesting how most of the post-eclipse reporting was hijacked by a certain politician not wearing his glasses (probably he only looked for a split second anyway). Anyway, this eclipsed (sorry) any reports about the actual event, which must have been one of the largest events in history based on the number of spectators (I saw estimates of 20 million people across the US).
[+] [-] sandworm101|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdavis703|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonknee|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sapienthomo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grepthisab|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] penagwin|8 years ago|reply
An iphone 6 camera only costs 5$ and is easy to replace(with a screw driver and spudger (maybe an igizmo) most hacker news people likely wouldn't have issues.), so it's not the end of the world (source:I repair phones)
[+] [-] tzs|8 years ago|reply
A Chicago Tribune story [2] cited the WSJ [3] saying that Apple said that eclipse photography would not hurt an iPhone.
Forbes says that recent generations of iPhone have sensors and lenses just big enough to cause damage if you point them at the Sun for more than a couple seconds, but that selfies that include the Sun are fine because the front camera and sensor are small [4].
[1] https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/Photographi...
[2] http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/originals/ct-bsi-eclip...
[3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/yes-your-iphone-can-photograph-...
[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykarcz/2017/08/18/dont-le...
[+] [-] lostlogin|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exodust|8 years ago|reply
Caution is needed of course. Get ready to put those glasses back on any moment now!
Incredible hues and glow and the surrounding twilight. Can't see any of that with glasses on. At totality, sneak a peek with your naked eyes, it's fine.
Same for camera equipment, it's the setting up and pointing the camera at sun before the eclipse that does the damage. Keep lens cap on until last moment, then take off, and nothing will happen to camera. I've done it at two eclipse festivals, no clouds, didn't even use ND filter! Cameras and eyes fine.
[+] [-] dboreham|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dekhn|8 years ago|reply
The camera said "error", turned off, I replaced the solar filter, and it was fine. Much longer, and I'd have had a burn. The telescope really collects and concentrates a ton of light.
[+] [-] lostlogin|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] banned1|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] odbol_|8 years ago|reply
P.S. Here's the video pointing at the sun all day long: https://youtu.be/HgbG--t3Bd8
[+] [-] yeukhon|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IgorPartola|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nazz|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] basicplus2|8 years ago|reply
multilayered lenses can be destroyed as the expand and contract and heat is emminated from the join and also
Any lense with coatings to correct for chromatic abberation, the coatings get destroyed on the surface of the lenses just by being pointed at the sun.
[+] [-] pasbesoin|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jtl999|8 years ago|reply
https://imgur.com/a/OmPQP
Taken in rural Oregon (just two shots I selected at random for this post)
[+] [-] justin66|8 years ago|reply
Unfortunately, these types of damage are considered neglect, as warnings were given out to customers before the solar eclipse. Our LensCap insurance plan, which can be added to rentals for a small nominal fee, does not protect from neglect but is an excellent tool for those who are worried about their rental and want to protect themselves from any accidental damage.
(but perhaps not really - there are enough wiggle words in that policy that I wonder if they ever pay out on expensive damage at all: https://help.lensrentals.com/26475-damage-lenscap-protection... )
[+] [-] ryanwaggoner|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mindslight|8 years ago|reply
It's an interesting line, between accident and neglect. Reading the article, my initial reaction was that it is ridiculous for their insurance to not cover this damage. But yet in general I do enjoy the non-diligent actually retaining some moral hazard. This "absent agency" problem is usually addressed with a deductible, but that still doesn't fully price in the cost of easily-prevented damage.
Recently renting a box truck and not wanting to be on the hook for a $150k piece of capital equipment, I got the damage waiver. But I had wished for a cheaper policy that would have excluded damage from low drive-throughs and parking garages, which presumably makes up the majority of their claims. Alas.
[+] [-] nateroling|8 years ago|reply
They also don’t cover damage from Color Runs, and they’re upfront about that too.
[+] [-] tedunangst|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noja|8 years ago|reply