Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

Post by monochromatic » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 3:30 PM UTC

csomar wrote: post #9

dingaling wrote: post #6

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.

> And of the things returned, we were equally impressed with our customer-base, and their guilt and owning up to the damage. I thought the renters would be paying for it?

Post by justicezyx » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 3:33 PM UTC

penagwin wrote: post #12

penagwin wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Could somebody tell me why this comment is being downvoted? I didn't feel like I was being rude (I'm sorry if I was), and I'm pretty sure it's a correct statement. Our eyes have lenses but as /u/jmiserez said the lenses in the cameras lenses magnify it far more. It'd be like us looking into a telescope looking at the sun (Obviously depends on which camera lens you use). Edit: I edited the main comment to explain that…

Post by corndoge » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 3:35 PM UTC

penagwin wrote: post #12

penagwin wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Could somebody tell me why this comment is being downvoted? I didn't feel like I was being rude (I'm sorry if I was), and I'm pretty sure it's a correct statement. Our eyes have lenses but as /u/jmiserez said the lenses in the cameras lenses magnify it far more. It'd be like us looking into a telescope looking at the sun (Obviously depends on which camera lens you use). Edit: I edited the main comment to explain that…

Post by jmiserez » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 3:37 PM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #14

jmiserez wrote: post #2

Now imagine that kind of damage being done to your eyes. It hurts just thinking about it, yet some people don’t seem to really believe the warnings.

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.

Post by praneshp » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 3:40 PM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #14

jmiserez wrote: post #2

Now imagine that kind of damage being done to your eyes. It hurts just thinking about it, yet some people don’t seem to really believe the warnings.

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.