Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

lensrentals.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 158 posts

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#111

Post by xsmasher »

Gracana wrote: post #92
heartbreak wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The concentration involved is no different than setting a leaf on fire with a magnifying glass on a regular day. That's what they're saying. Zooming in on the sun vs the sun happening to be in-frame.

Are you saying zooming in on the sun makes damage more likely?

Wouldn't zooming in spread the sun's energy across more of the sensor? Same energy, larger area = less intensity.

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#112

Post by mindslight »

justin66 wrote: post #85
mindslight wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" p…

> 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. That's the irony about insurance that I was pointing out. The much worse situation would have been covered.

Erm, do you mean "worse" as in more money to repair a dropped camera (new body, realigning lenses, etc), or worse if there were two separate problems? In the second case, I'm guessing the repair technician would say "In addition to being dropped, the image sensor is also burnt", and the camera shop would say "okay, looks like you burnt the sensor with the eclipse, and then most likely dropped the camera on purpose", and would cover nothing.

In general, insurance relies heavily on intent. Intentionally breaking the camera on the ground would not be covered. Gross negligence (like ignoring the warning of the camera shop and proceeding to burn the sensor) is interesting because to the person doing it it feels like an accident, yet to most everyone else it feels like they didn't try hard enough not to.

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#114

Post by Buge »

jonknee wrote: post #30
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…

You can torch your sensor in seconds: https://youtu.be/2TO_yZDxryQ

I wonder if that guy damaged his lens while making that. That lens looks similar to one of the damaged ones in the article.

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#115

Post by Laforet »

IgorPartola wrote: post #70

I wonder, did they include a solar filter with all their rentals? If not, I wonder if that would have saved everyone some trouble.

Probably not, they are expensive, fragile and have very limited utility outside a major eclipse event.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1335775-REG/formatt_h...

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#116

Post by dboreham »

Stratoscope wrote: post #106
romanhn wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

I was in North Eastern Idaho and there is a similar looking contrail visible in my wide angle shots at totality so if the point of image capture happened to be just right it would be possible to have it in the frame with the sun.

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#117

Post by grahn »

xsmasher wrote: post #111
Gracana wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The concentration involved is no different than setting a leaf on fire with a magnifying glass on a regular day. That's what they're saying. Zooming in on the sun vs the sun happening to be in-frame.

Are you saying zooming in on the sun makes damage more likely? Wouldn't zooming in spread the sun's energy across more of the sensor? Same energy, larger area = less intensity.

The irradiance is determined by the aperture, which is measured relative to the focal length. So with e.g. f/2 you get the same heating of a given area of the sensor regardless of the focal length (i.e. "zoom").

Put differently, longer lenses typically also have bigger absolute apertures, collecting incident light from a larger cross-section. This compensates for the fact that a given solid angle of incident light is spread over a larger area of the sensor.

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#118

Post by nolok »

mikeash wrote: post #96
heartbreak wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There kind of is, because it's darker when the sun is partially covered, so you'll use a larger aperture or longer exposure than you would normally. This is also why it's more dangerous to look at the sun during an eclipse than it is normally: your iris opens wider during an eclipse because it's not as bright.

I think you misunderstood his point, which was: there is no more energy coming from the sun at any given point during the eclipse than in a clear day. The sun isn't "sending" more energy on the path that aren't blocked, nor is the energy blocked going around the obstacle and concentrating on the areas still visibles.

The reason for the damage is entirely due to the receiver behaving/being differently, be it your eyes or your camera, because they get tricked into thinking it's dark and they act like it, being much more receptive and then overwhelmed.

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#119

Post by dboreham »

Laforet wrote: post #115
IgorPartola wrote: post #70

I wonder, did they include a solar filter with all their rentals? If not, I wonder if that would have saved everyone some trouble.

Probably not, they are expensive, fragile and have very limited utility outside a major eclipse event. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1335775-REG/formatt_h...

Luckily I bought mine from Amazon and due to the ISO certification debacle they refunded my money and allowed me to keep it.
Post reply on HN