Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse • Hacker News Board

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#101

Post by SirZimzim » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 9:24 PM UTC

gist wrote: post #79

nxc18 wrote: post #42

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 w…

> and then got a bunch of damaged cameras back, I'd be pissed It might not be good business to express that in a blog post

Yeah, got to remain positive and cheery and use it as a positive "learning experience".

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#102

Post by cookiecaper » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 9:33 PM UTC

matthewrudy wrote: post #68

fencepost wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How do you fix a burnt cmos sensor? I feel like canon would charge you near enough the full replacement price.

I'm only a reluctant amateur photographer, but my understanding is that damaged sensors cannot be repaired, and that manufacturers will quote repair costs totalling or exceeding the cost of an entirely new camera.

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#103

Post by jessaustin » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 9:44 PM UTC

monocasa wrote: post #67

olegkikin wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would he be angry? The customers are paying for the damage.

There's still a potential opportunity cost from temporarily not having those damaged items in stock.

IANAPhotographer, but many other rental businesses (cars, boats, bicycles, etc.) make lots of money on overcharging for repair/theft. It wouldn't shock me to learn that camera rentals are the same.

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#104

Post by yeukhon » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 9:51 PM UTC

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.

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#105

Post by giobox » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 10:04 PM UTC

chrissnell wrote: post #72

matthewrudy wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you fix a burnt cmos sensor? I feel like canon would charge you near enough the full replacement price.

I wish the blog post had talked more about that. I'm curious about their repair process. What capabilities do they have in house? Can they replace a broken sensor?

They blog a lot about their repairs process in general. It's primarily mechanical damage to lenses they appear to normally deal in - the focusing rings, aperture mechanisms or realigning optical elements dislodged by drops and so on. An embedded CCD/CMOS sensor is probably a full logic board replacement I'd assume, as opposed to some kind of sensor only replacement, given it's almost always soldered on.

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#106

Post by Stratoscope » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 10:18 PM UTC

romanhn wrote: post #38

patcheudor wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: https://www.flickr.com/photos/patcheudor/35886777354/ I'm assuming th…

Off topic, but I think here's another image of the same airplane, also taken in Idaho: https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/6v62nl/plane_cros...

That turned out to be a fake.

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/6v6y1k/

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#107

Post by quickthrower2 » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 10:28 PM UTC

klipt wrote: post #51

lisper wrote: post #44

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.

Should have covered the intake side.

Even so the whole idea of naked binoculars pointing at the sun sounds dangerous.

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#108

Post by mindslight » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 10:28 PM UTC

stestagg wrote: post #98

mindslight wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pre…

This is amazing!, while I would never advise this as an option, it probably would be fine

Erm, your comment makes me think you didn't quite get what I was saying.

Using the holes in a Ritz cracker as a pinhole lens to focus the sun on a sheet of paper seems eminently fine, as you're only subtracting sun from the case of looking at the paper outside (as opposed to using a glass lens to image the sun, which gathers light from more angles and concentrates it). It seems like poorer optical quality given its thickness, but could be handy if you don't have access to a piece of paper and a staple, or if you're a clickbait journalist trying to entertain a dying audience.

Looking through the hole is idiotic. It'll cut down on some of the light sure, but nowhere near the attenuation required - a quick search shows a #13 welding shade lets through about 10^-5 of the light.

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#109

Post by mickronome » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 10:29 PM UTC

SirZimzim wrote: post #101

gist wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and then got a bunch of damaged cameras back, I'd be pissed It might not be good business to express that in a blog post

Yeah, got to remain positive and cheery and use it as a positive "learning experience".

It could also be that these people renting out camera equipment are guaranteed to have seen much worse damage, expected worse damage - and that in this instance - the customers appears to have taken responsibility for the damage to an unusual extent.

There's certainly enough positive surprises in the above to warrant an upbeat post, one that can also be used to educate about how camera systems can be damaged, and the limits of their insurance.

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#110

Post by quickthrower2 » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 10:30 PM UTC

SirZimzim wrote: post #101

gist wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and then got a bunch of damaged cameras back, I'd be pissed It might not be good business to express that in a blog post

Yeah, got to remain positive and cheery and use it as a positive "learning experience".

Ha ha I was thinking the same thing. Wouldn't surprise me if they had some of the article written / drafted in advance. Excellent PR and free advertising.