# Rental Camera Gear Destroyed by the Solar Eclipse of 2017



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 2, 2017)

```
Lensrentals.com has posted a great article about the damage done to rented camera gear that occurred during the 2017 solar eclipse in North America. They did figure they’d get some damaged gear back, and they did, but the type of damage may surprise some.</p>
<p>First up, wrecked sensors. This is something you’d expect, as lots of people didn’t heed the bevy of warnings about using eclipse filters. The second type of damage that surprised us was melted aperture blades in lenses. Also showing damage, was built-in ND filters on some video cameras. So if you’re paying attention, ND filters aren’t protection from the sun, that’s why they <a href="http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera-directory/camera-dir-list/category/solar-eclipse-filter">make special filters for that</a>.</p>

<p>Be sure to <a href="http://www.pjtra.com/t/TUJGRktHSkJGRk5HSklCRkpOSkVN?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lensrentals.com%2Fblog%2F2017%2F09%2Frental-camera-gear-destroyed-by-the-solar-eclipse-of-2017%2F">head over to Lensrentals.com to read the full article</a> and check out the images of dead gear.</p>
<p>For anyone that is going to rent some gear for the eclipses in the future, please pay attention to the safety warnings, as it will save you a lot of money in the end.</p>
<p><em>**Yes, we realize that the eclipse doesn’t do the damage, it’s the sun. However, people don’t tend to point their cameras directly at the regular old sun without the moon in front of it.</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
<div style="font-size:0px;height:0px;line-height:0px;margin:0;padding:0;clear:both"></div>
```


----------



## masterpix (Sep 2, 2017)

The problem is that some filters, especially solar filters are mounted on the back of the lens. Therefore, letting the whole sunlight in the lens itself, for example:

http://agenaastro.com/daystar-camera-quark-canon-lenses-prominence-dsztcp.html

Which is good for observing the sun, but not sure that the lens will be that happy with it.


----------



## Jopa (Sep 2, 2017)

I was in a similar situation on 21st, but luckily no camera or lens got hurt . Had no chance to buy a solar filter and thought about skipping shooting the eclipse at all. Instead wanted to take kids pics in the morning with my 5dsr & 200/2, which also didn't work well so I ended up bringing the camera to work. Later when everybody went outside starring at the Sun I thought what the heck, it happens only once in a while, I need to take a picture! Dialed all settings manually, pointed the camera to the sun - it couldn't focus of course... switched to MF, set to infinity and snapped a few pics. Nothing special, but better than nothing, will keep as memories.


----------



## LDS (Sep 2, 2017)

masterpix said:


> The problem is that some filters, especially solar filters are mounted on the back of the lens. Therefore, letting the whole sunlight in the lens itself, for example:
> 
> http://agenaastro.com/daystar-camera-quark-canon-lenses-prominence-dsztcp.html
> 
> Which is good for observing the sun, but not sure that the lens will be that happy with it.



This kind of filters are usually used in a two stage filtering setup, one before the lens, one after. These are very 'narrowband' filters letting only a few wavelengths pass, and are usually used on specific equipment designed for solar observations. Adapting them on a camera may be risky.

Unless one knows what he's doing, my advice is to stay away from this kind of gear.


----------



## LDS (Sep 2, 2017)

Jopa said:


> I need to take a picture! Dialed all settings manually, pointed the camera to the sun - it couldn't focus of course... switched to MF, set to infinity and snapped a few pics. Nothing special, but better than nothing, will keep as memories.



Let's repeat it again: the totality is fully safe without filters. You'll need to remove them anyway because it is much fainter. Full Sun or any partial phase are dangerous without filters.


----------



## Jopa (Sep 2, 2017)

LDS said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > I need to take a picture! Dialed all settings manually, pointed the camera to the sun - it couldn't focus of course... switched to MF, set to infinity and snapped a few pics. Nothing special, but better than nothing, will keep as memories.
> ...



In my area it was around 99% max coverage I believe (Franklin TN). 1/1000s @ f/2.8. Relatively bright, but doesn't seem like very different from taking a regular picture during the day, right? I didn't hold the camera towards the sun longer than 5 seconds. Didn't even try to take a picture when the sun was brighter. Since it's just 200mm - the eclipse turned out to be tiny, but thanks to high resolution of the 5dsr it's still usable.


----------



## Talys (Sep 2, 2017)

Jopa said:


> I was in a similar situation on 21st, but luckily no camera or lens got hurt . Had no chance to buy a solar filter and thought about skipping shooting the eclipse at all. Instead wanted to take kids pics in the morning with my 5dsr & 200/2, which also didn't work well so I ended up bringing the camera to work. Later when everybody went outside starring at the Sun I thought what the heck, it happens only once in a while, I need to take a picture! Dialed all settings manually, pointed the camera to the sun - it couldn't focus of course... switched to MF, set to infinity and snapped a few pics. Nothing special, but better than nothing, will keep as memories.



Me too. I used an old lens and old camera body to snap a few, using stacked ND filters and live view just to have some happy memories.

Everyone was sold out two weeks to the eclipse; for some reason, local camera shops didn't carry it at all (crazy, right?). I wasn't going to pay the price-gougers for a filter, though I would have been tempted if the coverage was close to totality where I live (about 87% here).

Supposed to be another one in 2020 in Eastern Canada. Maybe I will be more prepared then and make it out there to visit some family


----------



## slclick (Sep 2, 2017)

Ophthalmologists are buying new boats as well!


----------



## bholliman (Sep 2, 2017)

Jopa said:


> LDS said:
> 
> 
> > Jopa said:
> ...


Nice pic! This is comparable to the "diamond ring" just before and after totality, which is shot without a filter, so you were doing the right thing!


----------



## RGF (Sep 2, 2017)

wonder if lens rental is letting people off of the hook if they purchased insurance. This was not accidental damage but stupidity. Hard to buy insurance for your stupidity. In most cases that would be very expensive


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 2, 2017)

RGF said:


> wonder if lens rental is letting people off of the hook if they purchased insurance. This was not accidental damage but stupidity. Hard to buy insurance for your stupidity. In most cases that would be very expensive



Why would they? Like you say it was stupidity and the customers were warned about specific use. In the article it says the additional insurance doesn't cover misuse, so they should all expect big bills.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 2, 2017)

Fortunately, I had cloud cover to protect me from my own stupidity


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 2, 2017)

I purchased a Orion Glass Solar filter of the right size to fit on the front of my 100-400mm L a few months before the eclipse. I also had a backup piece of Baader Astrosolar film in case something went wrong with the first filter. I did not need it.

There were plenty of warnings, but there were some who claimed that the sun did not produce enough energy to damage a sensor. While the sensor damage and aperture damage are the most obvious, I'd say that the lenses are totaled, because the intense light can mess with the adhesives used to bond elements together, and that may turn dark with time.

As far as Insurance goes, no insurance is going to cover intentional damage or damage thru mishandling, those who damaged a camera or lens will have a very large bill. I doubt if they got any good images either.


----------



## Jopa (Sep 3, 2017)

bholliman said:


> Nice pic! This is comparable to the "diamond ring" just before and after totality, which is shot without a filter, so you were doing the right thing!



Thank you Brian, yours look really awesome! Where did you shoot it from?


----------



## RandomRazr (Sep 3, 2017)

I pointed my 5D IV with 24-70mm 2.8L lens at the sun for 4 seconds to snap a pic. did it hurt the camera? i dont see any issues :/


----------



## msatter (Sep 4, 2017)

Why didn't LR send with each camera/lens a eclipse sheet in that period. Cost are minimal and the receiver is pointed know that protection is needed.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 4, 2017)

One way of getting a rounded aperture


----------



## brad-man (Sep 4, 2017)

msatter said:


> Why didn't LR send with each camera/lens a eclipse sheet in that period. Cost are minimal and the receiver is pointed know that protection is needed.




From the Lensrental article: _"With all of our rentals leading up to this event, we warned everyone to view the event with appropriate eyewear and to attach a solar filter to the end of their lenses to protect the lens elements and camera sensor."_


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 4, 2017)

... and melt away those out of focus transition areas oh so dramatically.



Sporgon said:


> One way of getting a rounded aperture


----------



## Skywise (Sep 4, 2017)

RandomRazr said:


> I pointed my 5D IV with 24-70mm 2.8L lens at the sun for 4 seconds to snap a pic. did it hurt the camera? i dont see any issues :/



Same here - used a 70-300mm f5.6 on a 6D, hand held - waited until we had maximum totality for our area (90%) and then, using live view, quickly aimed and fired. We had partial cloud cover but the clouds were thin enough that the sun was visible and I took a few quick shots of that.

Were these users on a tripod and just constantly pointing at the sun?!


----------



## NancyP (Sep 5, 2017)

Because one of the fried lens irises belonged to a 600 f/4 L, I have to believe that they had it on a tripod. 

I had my 400 f/5.6L and 7D2 camera mounted on tripod, and used a home-made Baader solar film filter - worked quite well. I did set up and practice according to the comprehensive Canon articles, so I merely had to switch from C1 mode to C2 mode and take filter off, and vice versa. I took the advice of various web sites and didn't try for the "diamond ring" at the start of totality.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 5, 2017)

NancyP said:


> Because one of the fried lens irises belonged to a 600 f/4 L, I have to believe that they had it on a tripod.
> 
> I had my 400 f/5.6L and 7D2 camera mounted on tripod, and used a home-made Baader solar film filter - worked quite well. I did set up and practice according to the comprehensive Canon articles, so I merely had to switch from C1 mode to C2 mode and take filter off, and vice versa. I took the advice of various web sites and didn't try for the "diamond ring" at the start of totality.



How well do these home-modifications work? I've seen articles saying that cheap UV filters degrade IQ visibly due to waviness, etc. How much of a risk is this for solar filters?


----------



## Duckman (Sep 5, 2017)

I rented a 7Dii for the eclipse. Eclipse warning flyers were included with the camera. There was also an additional email sent out to notify that any insurance purchased would NOT cover negligent eclipse damage. 
-J


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 5, 2017)

Random Orbits said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > Because one of the fried lens irises belonged to a 600 f/4 L, I have to believe that they had it on a tripod.
> ...



Baader Astrosolar Film from Germany is the gold standard, used for telescopes and lenses around the world. The issues you are referring to are likely for low quality film.
The film comes with instructions and a template for making your own filter. You save money by doing it yourself without sacrificing quality. The other high quality film is sold by 1000 Oaks. Its a less expensive film, but works.

I purchased a Orion Glass filter, but should have just used the Baader Film. I bought some for a backup bet never used it.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 5, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Baader Astrosolar Film from Germany is the gold standard, used for telescopes and lenses around the world. The issues you are referring to are likely for low quality film.
> The film comes with instructions and a template for making your own filter. You save money by doing it yourself without sacrificing quality. The other high quality film is sold by 1000 Oaks. Its a less expensive film, but works.
> 
> I purchased a Orion Glass filter, but should have just used the Baader Film. I bought some for a backup bet never used it.



Is it a matter of preference or a diameter (size) issue for preferring the Baadar film over the glass filter? I'd used a firecrest screw on solar glass filter onto a 100-400 IS II with a 2x for the recent solar eclipse, but I'm hoping for a better shot in 2024.


----------



## lion rock (Sep 6, 2017)

I practiced twice on two different days before the actual eclipse. Yes, I had the proper eclipse filters on each lens.
On those two occasions, I set up two cameras on a mounting plate so both cameras point to the same vertical angle. Each test was about 10 minutes in length, trying with different aperture and shutter speed.
During these tests, I found that the cameras got quite warm from the strong sunlight. On the eve of the eclipse, I cut out two holes (spaced the same distance as the cameras) in a cardboard to fit over the lens to shield the cameras from direct sunlight. It kept the camera cool for the 90 minutes I was shooting. I could imagine that the cameras would get quite uncomfortably warm if exposed to the sun for that extended time.
Strong sunlight is enough to heat dark pavement to over 100 degrees, and concentrate sunlight from a 77 mm lens aperture would undoubtedly create a molten hole inside the camera.
Just wish that people would have some common sense about it.
-r


----------



## LDS (Sep 6, 2017)

Random Orbits said:


> How well do these home-modifications work? I've seen articles saying that cheap UV filters degrade IQ visibly due to waviness, etc. How much of a risk is this for solar filters?



Glass filters requires perfect glass and two perfect, parallel surfaces + the coatings. That makes them expensive, especially as they grow in size. Cheap UV filters often are low quality exactly because of poor glass and uneven surfaces. Cheap solar filters may be the same.

Astrosolar uses a very thin film which causes negligible diffraction (that's why there's no need to make if perfectly flat, and it *must* be left without stresses), is coated on both surfaces and it's fully safe but cheap enough even for large ones.

People using it are fully satisfied about its performance. I used them to take photos of the two transits of Venus and some large spot groups, and I have nothing to complain.

The ultimate filters are the interference ones - they deliver outstanding images in a narrow interval of wavelengths - but they are expensive, require a complex setup, and are IMHO better used on specific telescopes than photo lens, for several reasons, and by an experienced user.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 7, 2017)

I used an inexpensive Daystar universal solar filter i bought for about $25. It's just a Mylar film filter in a cardboard holder. I bought it from B&H a few days before the eclipse. By then all of the glass filters had sold out and I wasn't too keen on paying several hundred dollars for a filter anyway. I was only going to use it once for half an hour. I tested it on the 7D2 first and it seemed to work fine. 

I attached it to the hood of my 100-400L II with gaffer tape. My reasoning for that being all I had to do was remove the hood for totality. I got a bit of flare for the last two diamond ring shots but I was auto bracketing and those were overexposed and not really usable regardless of the flare. I may have gotten the flare even if I had the hood attached. I couldn't get the film to lay perfectly flat but that didn't appear to distort the photo's. I'd do it that way again although I'm not sure I would bother photographing the partial phase again. Although Thousand Oaks sells film filters in larger sizes there but was just no way I was pointing my 600 f4 directly at the sun no matter what filter I had on it. 

I was pretty careful. Had a white towel over the lens and body and only swung the camera up briefly to shoot a bracketed sequence and then lowered it again. The film definitely softened up a bit when it was aimed at the sun during the early partial phases. I was a bit worried I have to admit but everything seemed to work out fine. At least so far. If my cameras brick-up in the next few weeks I guess I'll know why. 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1319799-REG/daystar_filters_ulf90_90mm_universal_lens_filter.html


----------

