# Will the Solar Eclipse damage my camera?



## moushu (Mar 19, 2015)

Eagerly awaiting the eclipse tomorrow morning, but then just had a thought - obviously we don't point our eyes at eclipses do we, kids - but is there any chance that pointing a camera with telephoto lens could damage the camera, for instance the sensor?
Need an answer in the next 14 hours 
8)


----------



## sunnyVan (Mar 19, 2015)

No.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 19, 2015)

sunnyVan said:


> No.


??? - great advice, not.

If you point a camera and lens directly at the sun without the appropriate astronomy filter (ND and Polarizers will not work), you are very likely to harm the sensor and your eyes. This is the danger of asking for advice on the Internet.

Enjoy the eclipse - safely 8)


----------



## Kathode-Ray (Mar 19, 2015)

Probably not the sensor. That's because exposure time will be really short, and the sensor is 'protected' by the mirror and shutter.

It can cause other types of damage however, see here for an example: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/Flare.aspx

Ray


----------



## sunnyVan (Mar 19, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> sunnyVan said:
> 
> 
> > No.
> ...



Not trying to argue with you since you're a respected member here. But what's your conclusion based on? Harming the eyes, yes. But harming the camera? How so? In what way? Again I'm only trying to learn.


----------



## LDS (Mar 19, 2015)

Kathode-Ray said:


> Probably not the sensor. That's because exposure time will be really short, and the sensor is 'protected' by the mirror and shutter.



Even the mirror and the lens itself could be damaged by the heat generated by keeping the camera aimed at the sun for long enough. Did you ever tried to burn a leaf with a lens when you were a children? There's a lot also of invisible light (UV and IR) coming directly from the Sun.

Solar photography must be only attempted using specific filters removing UV and IR radiation while decreasing visible light. Filter needs to be in front of the lens.

The sensor could be somewhat protected by the shutter and diaphragm (unless someone uses live view...), but I won't risk an expensive one to save on a proper filter.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 19, 2015)

Don't do it. Its possible that you might get away with it as long as you keep the lens cover in place for all but a couple of seconds.

The Mirror coating itself can be damaged due to the magnification of the lens and increased intensity of light. In the event that your shutter stays open due to a wrong setting, then the sensor is gone.

Its also possible that just pointing a telephoto lens mounted to the camera will damage or ruin the AF sensor....


Canon warns of damage to the shutter curtains if the mirror is locked up, they might protect the sensor, but be destroyed while doing so. 

Do not use live view or try to take a video without a proper filter either, or its good by sensor.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 19, 2015)

Take a large magnifying glass and focus the white down to a dot about a twentieth as wide as the magnifying glass. Now focus that dot on your hand. Do you feel the pain and smell the burning flesh? That's what you are doing to your camera when you point it at the sun...... It is not a good idea.

What you want to do is to get an astronomy filter of at least 5 stops, but you want an air gap and air circulation between the filter and the lens or the heat from the filter will cook your lens.

OR.......

Take a piece of paper, poke a hole through it, let it focus on another sheet of paper ( you just made a pinhole lens), and use your camera to take pictures of the image on the second sheet of paper....


----------



## DominoDude (Mar 19, 2015)

I completely agree with the sane and sensible part of the crowd in here. But for those insisting that it's ok to shoot into the sun unfiltered: Go ahead! Canon could need a boost in their sales...


----------



## sunnyVan (Mar 19, 2015)

I'm trying to understand what I'm missing here. Eclipse, from what I understand, means you don't see the full sun. You see a shadow created by the moon. The sun is as intense as it always is, not more or less during eclipse. 

The eclipse shots in my mind are usually a bright circle that got bitten out. Do you need a long exposure for that? If you're trying to photograph the sun's surface for the Sun spots, that's a different story. 

Please correct me if I am wrong as I always want to learn. But show me the logics.


----------



## emko (Mar 19, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Take a large magnifying glass and focus the white down to a dot about a twentieth as wide as the magnifying glass. Now focus that dot on your hand. Do you feel the pain and smell the burning flesh? That's what you are doing to your camera when you point it at the sun...... It is not a good idea.
> 
> What you want to do is to get an astronomy filter of at least 5 stops, but you want an air gap and air circulation between the filter and the lens or the heat from the filter will cook your lens.
> 
> ...



didn't know this, i shoot lots of landscapes at sunset/sunrise am i damaging the camera?


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 19, 2015)

emko said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Take a large magnifying glass and focus the white down to a dot about a twentieth as wide as the magnifying glass. Now focus that dot on your hand. Do you feel the pain and smell the burning flesh? That's what you are doing to your camera when you point it at the sun...... It is not a good idea.
> ...


at sunrise and at sunset the light goes through a lot more atmosphere and is nowhere near as bad.... But the sun in the sky is another thing entirely.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 19, 2015)

emko said:


> didn't know this, i shoot lots of landscapes at sunset/sunrise am i damaging the camera?



Do you use a telephoto lens and look directly at the sun? Do you take a video or use live view?

A telephoto lens concentrates the light greatly, depending on the focal length, which is a big concern. A wide angle lens is going to do the opposite. 

There is a big difference. Look at the sun thru a telephoto lens, and you are in danger of serious eye damage.


----------



## tolusina (Mar 19, 2015)

There will be at least 100,000 photos of the eclipse posted to FB immediately, some during, some will even be good. It's a cliche shot already and it hasn't even happened yet.

Don't risk your gear, just enjoy the show.


----------



## DJD (Mar 19, 2015)

How does all this collective wisdom about eclipse photography apply to taking sunset or sunrise photos? 
Inquiring minds...


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 20, 2015)

DJD said:


> How does all this collective wisdom about eclipse photography apply to taking sunset or sunrise photos?
> Inquiring minds...



Point the camera at the sun up high in the sky and you get four or five (or more) more stops of light than with the sun at the horizon...

People tend to use long lenses during an eclipse and wide lenses at sunset...... One is intensifying the light, the other dispersing it....

Put the two factors together and you are getting up to a hundred times the light intensity shooting a partial eclipse with a long lens as shooting a sunset with a wide angle lens....

And BTW, in the world of astronomy, solar filters block over 99 percent of the light...... peek here for advice from those who do look at the sun....
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/observing-news/how-to-look-at-the-sun/


----------



## anthonyd (Mar 20, 2015)

There is a lot of truth in the statements that are against you shooting the eclipse, but some level of exaggeration too.

I've never shot an eclipse, but I shot the Venus transit in June 2012, at around 6:30pm. I was using a 70-200 at 200 and I didn't have an astronomy filter, I only had a polarizer and an ND4 which I stacked and then used f/32 and 1/8000sec. Nothing burned, nothing got damaged, but the pictures were too bright, so you can't see Venus in front of the sun (interestingly, you can see it in the ghosting). That's attached picture number one.

Then I've taken the second picture, much closer to sunset, also at 200mm with no filters whatsoever, at f/4.0 and 1/4000sec. This one was followed by another bunch of pretty much the same shot, trying to get the seagulls at a nice angle wrt the sun. Nothing burned up this time either.

The flaw in the analogy with the magnifying lens is the size of the dot. If you get the "dot" to be 35mm, it won't be all that hot.

Use common sense. If you point a super-tele at the sun at noon or something, then there is a very good chance that your equipment will get damaged, if you use a 200mm or less you'll probably be fine (but don't send me the bill if things break ).

I will +1 the opinion that the eclipse is a cliche that is not even worth shooting though, unless maybe if you have something longer than 1000mm, in which case I'd put a welding glass in front of it!


----------



## pj1974 (Mar 20, 2015)

emko said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Take a large magnifying glass and focus the white down to a dot about a twentieth as wide as the magnifying glass. Now focus that dot on your hand. Do you feel the pain and smell the burning flesh? That's what you are doing to your camera when you point it at the sun...... It is not a good idea.
> ...



Great post, Don.

I live in Australia, and have taken many photos of the sun in the frame – at ‘wider angles’, but I am extremely careful not to hold and point a telephoto lens into the sun for more than a split second. I have developed a technique of ‘zooming into the sun’ – which is safest… (basically manually focussing on another object in the extreme distance) – them moving lens near to (but not ‘on’) the setting sun, and very quickly composing using a sideways glance / alignment at the same time.

Over 10 years ago, a friend of mine (one of the mod’s on another online photography forum) posted a photo of a camera he left on a couch. The afternoon sun swung round and ended up almost cooking his camera interior. Thankfully the angle was ‘just off’ – so it wasn’t his sensor, but the ‘harmless internal plastic wall’ of his DSLR that was fried. (He posted a close up of the melted plastic ‘line’ which the setting sun ‘scored’ across his DSLR interior). Thankfully no functional issue / damage apart from that. It was a lens at about 100mm from memory.

That has always given me a good reason not to either ‘look’ into the sun, nor have my camera zoomed in (with, or without live view) to view the sun, either the setting sun or an eclipse! I have a retinal condition which slightly affects my eyesight (nothing to do with ‘burned retina’ nor retinal detachment, or macular degeneration) etc – so I’m very conscious of the preciousness of sight / vision.

Stay safe… for your own (eyes!) and your camera’s (lens and/or sensors) sake.

Paul


----------



## moushu (Mar 20, 2015)

Glad I asked! 8)
I'll be driving into work during the transit, so that should be, er, different.

*sticks camera into a lead-lined box*


----------



## LDS (Mar 20, 2015)

anthonyd said:


> There is a lot of truth in the statements that are against you shooting the eclipse, but some level of exaggeration too.



Damage is never "instantaneous" and "total". Just you put you and your equipment at risk. Damages can arise later too.



anthonyd said:


> I've never shot an eclipse, but I shot the Venus transit in June 2012, at around 6:30pm.



At 6:30 the sun was already low in the sky - I shot the same in the very early morning, with the sun just above the horizon - but with an AstroSolar filter, which I used also in 2005 when the Sun was high in the sky.
I already shot several eclipses (and the two Venus transits) - a proper filter safely mounted on the camera let you shoot without risks.



anthonyd said:


> I was using a 70-200 at 200 and I didn't have an astronomy filter, I only had a polarizer and an ND4 which I stacked and then used f/32 and 1/8000sec.



Unlike photographic filters, solar filters are designed to block *all* dangerous frequencies - UV and IR, letting pass only a fraction of the visible light. If you look at them, some are also reflective, because a "dark" filter heats up.



anthonyd said:


> Then I've taken the second picture, much closer to sunset, also at 200mm with no filters whatsoever, at f/4.0 and 1/4000sec. This one was followed by another bunch of pretty much the same shot, trying to get the seagulls at a nice angle wrt the sun. Nothing burned up this time either.



Dawn/sunset shoots are rarely dangerous, the Sun light is already "filtered" by atmosphere and dust, and you don't point straight a tele at the Sun. Nobody ever said "don't look at sunsets, they're dangerous!"



anthonyd said:


> The flaw in the analogy with the magnifying lens is the size of the dot. If you get the "dot" to be 35mm, it won't be all that hot.



Just, you're probably using a much larger lens collecting more light and focusing it far better - in a sealed environment which doesn't cool very well. And unless you use some long tele, your "dot" won't be 35mm in diameter at all. You need at least an 800mm to fill the frame.



anthonyd said:


> Use common sense.



Exactly. Get a proper filter - you get better images and you're safe. They are not expensive, and let you enjoy the experience without issues.



anthonyd said:


> in which case I'd put a welding glass in front of it!



Some welding filters (the darkest one, and with UV protection) are safe only if not used with lenses or binoculars.


----------



## wyldeguy (Mar 20, 2015)

sunnyVan said:


> I'm trying to understand what I'm missing here. Eclipse, from what I understand, means you don't see the full sun. You see a shadow created by the moon. The sun is as intense as it always is, not more or less during eclipse.
> 
> The eclipse shots in my mind are usually a bright circle that got bitten out. Do you need a long exposure for that? If you're trying to photograph the sun's surface for the Sun spots, that's a different story.
> 
> Please correct me if I am wrong as I always want to learn. But show me the logics.



Basically what happens is the that the moon in itself acts like a lens, even though it's a solid opaque object. The light from the sun may only form a ring around the moon but that light is almost all of the light the sun is putting out in our direction. I can't remember all of the details but hopefully you get the idea. I bet if you can find a video of an eclipse happening you could probably notice the intensity of light increasing slightly around the edge as the moon comes into position. Unless the film maker was adjusting settings as it happened. I heard that settings are changing all the time when it comes to eclipse photo/video taking. Something like 8 stops between start and totality.


----------



## MJ (Mar 20, 2015)

Hello everyone, I was just wondering if anyone ended up shooting photos of the eclipse today. If yes let's see them! 

Greetings from Vienna, AT!


----------



## Pancho (Mar 20, 2015)

Just took some photos of the eclipse. Canon 7DII + 70-200F4 + BW ND1000, ISO 100, F8, 1/100 for the first one, F14, 1/1000 for the second and F14, 1/2500 for the last one. The wether was cloudy... Images have been cropped.


----------



## Aichbus (Mar 20, 2015)

5DII + EF 400 5.6 L + Canon 2xIII + Kenko 1.4x @ f/32. 1/8000 s ISO 50

I held the button that actually closes the aperture (don't know hot it's called in english) pressed, so that the light that passed through the lens was quite dimmed and moreover I deliberately did that handheld. Since the lens has no image stabilisation, the sun hit the same spot on the sensor for only fragments of a second. It was difficult enough to "find" it.

No damage occurred.


----------



## JoeKerslake (Mar 20, 2015)

Stacked a Big Stopper and 2 stop ND grad. 

200mmx1.6 ISO 100, 1/2s @f/22


----------



## NorbR (Mar 20, 2015)

13 stops of ND filter in front of my 70-200, 1/640 @f11 and everything was peachy (I was still covering the lens between exposures, though, just to be safe). 

There's even a visible sun spot.


----------



## JoeKerslake (Mar 20, 2015)

NorbR said:


> 13 stops of ND filter in front of my 70-200, 1/640 @f11 and everything was peachy (I was still covering the lens between exposures, though, just to be safe).
> 
> There's even a visible sun spot.



Or sensor spot!


----------



## NorbR (Mar 20, 2015)

JoeKerslake said:


> Or sensor spot!



Nope ^^
Well there may be a few of those as well ... but at least one was moving with the sun


----------



## JoeKerslake (Mar 20, 2015)

I was kidding 

I had a shot with some nice detail in the sun, but I just haven't had time to mask it yet.


----------



## NorbR (Mar 20, 2015)

And here is the mandatory composite. 

Perfect viewing conditions here in Switzerland, quite lucky really. This was a fun experiment, I don't get to shoot everyday at f11, 1/640, ISO 100 and 13 stops ND (EV ... 29?! Am I counting that right?)


----------



## zim (Mar 20, 2015)

No damage to phone, cloud helped!


----------



## GammyKnee (Mar 20, 2015)

Very cloudy here in Ayrshire, Scotland, but got a couple of brief glimpses of it:




Eclipse 2015 [IMG_1400] by GammyKnee, on Flickr

1/640 sec, f8, ISO 400 with a meagre 3-stop screw-in ND (yep, it was that cloudy).
[The vignetting is just PP]


----------



## sunnyVan (Mar 20, 2015)

First and foremost, protect your eyesight. Never stare at midday Sun directly. Never use a binocular or a telephoto lens through the optical viewfinder to look at the Sun. 

Regarding the comments about magnifying glass, I get your point. But also keep in mind that it takes at least minutes to burn a piece of paper or a poor ant. It's a flawed idea to think that the magnifying glass could all of a sudden turn the sunlight into laser beam. Exposure time of the Sun is nowhere near that long. In fact I was looking at some pictures posted on Flickr. This particular picture shows only the sun's rim. Its exposure value is iso 100, f5.6, 1/4. Are you saying exposure value like this could fry the sensor? 

Here is another thing I don't understand. Not saying that the comment is right or wrong. If you point a wide angle lens at the Sun, it takes up very small part of the frame; with a tele, you fill up the frame. Both pictures are as focused on the sensor as the other. The brightness values are different because of different compositions. The tele shot may strain the eye a bit on the LCD because it looks so bright. (Don't look at the Sun with a Tele through the optical viewfinder!!) Are you guys saying that the "brighter" shot somehow produce more heat on the sensor than the less bright shot? Are you saying that when brightness exceeds certain value the sensor will be damaged?

My point is that nothing is going to happen to the sensor Unless you point the camera at the Sun for an extended period of time for a long exposure. In this instance long exposure time is not necessary and therefore nothing will happen. 

An ND filter is needed only if you stop down and use very high shutter speed and the subject is still too bright. All you get is an overexposed shot and that's all. It gives you a bad picture but not a bad sensor. You need protection for the eyes far more than the camera. Intense light even at short period of time can blind the eyes. And I really think that some are confusing these concepts. 

Eclipse is not necessarily a once in a lifetime event but I don't think you could see it very often in the place you live. To miss an opportunity for a potentially great shot is sad. Yes, it's been done before and there's plenty of pictures like that but honestly how many of us have seen it in person? The only time I'd be hesitant to pull out the camera is when I'm in a bad neighborhood.


----------



## anthonyd (Mar 20, 2015)

Scutchamer said:


> The reason sunrises/sunsets don't burn your camera is the same reason it is colder in winter* - and it has nothing to do with distance from the sun/amount of atmosphere between you and it**.



It has everything to do with the atmosphere.



Scutchamer said:


> It's because you are at an angle to the sun.



If I hold a disk horizontally at noon and then the same disk vertically at dusk then this disk is perpendicular to the sun at both times. The "angle to the sun" is really the angle at which the sun light hits the atmosphere and thus the length that this light has to travel within the atmosphere. This is also why the sun is red(er) at dusk/dawn, more of the violet/blue part of the spectrum is scattered away because the light has to travel longer inside the atmosphere (which contains molecules that scatter more violet/blue than red).


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 20, 2015)

sunnyVan said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > sunnyVan said:
> ...


I'm sorry I was rude like that. I've been in constant pain for the last 2+ years affecting my sleep and obviously my mood sometimes, so I apologize. 

As others have replied, the lens acts like a magnifying glass and can seriously damage your sensor and even eye if you look at it long enough. Quick shots of the sun when it's low on the horizon are generally safe, but for an eclipse, the sun may be in the middle of the sky and you're likely to shoot several pictures, increasing time on target - and radiation through the lens.


----------



## PhotosbyChuck (Mar 20, 2015)

I understand the worry about the camera sensor, but as long as we're talking photography without LiveView, the shutter is protecting your sensor very well. 

You don't need special H-Alpha filters to protect your gear (although they will give you greater detail in the sun). That's the one thing I wish I had been able to do ... get more detail in the sun than I did.

The shot below was from the 2012 transit of Venus. As you can see, it's the whole sun ... not just some sliver of it. That black disk at the top is Venus. The other black spots are sunspots.

I used an ND-10 filter and 1/1000 shutter @ ISO 100. To compose the shot, I did use LiveView for a few seconds. I did not keep in on. My sensor is just fine nearly 3 years later. 

Do follow all of the advice about your eyes tho. I used brief LiveView with a connected laptop to protect my eyes. 

I can't offer you any advice about video. I'd think you'd need a good filter for shooting a video of the eclipse. I'd be more concerned with heat causing the camera to shut down early. But again, I'm not much of a videographer.


----------



## epsiloneri (Mar 20, 2015)

wyldeguy said:


> Basically what happens is the that the moon in itself acts like a lens, even though it's a solid opaque object.


No, you're thinking of a gravitational lens, the moon is not nearly massive enough to bend the light enough to produce the corona. Instead, it's the solar outer atmosphere that is visible during the totality.

When the solar corona is visible during the totality, it is totally safe to view the sun with the unaided eyes, binoculars, even telescopes without filters... BUT... as soon as even a fraction of the photosphere is visible again, it becomes seriously hazardous for your eyesight to be looking for even a short time into the sun.

The total light from the corona is less than a millionth of the solar output. During a partial eclipse, the Sun is much to bright to directly look at (unless the Sun is very close to the horizon or behind clouds). Solar filters commonly filter out about 10^5 of the light - that is, 16.7 photographic stops. Just for reference.

And about detectors...



sunnyVan said:


> My point is that nothing is going to happen to the sensor Unless you point the camera at the Sun for an extended period of time for a long exposure. In this instance long exposure time is not necessary and therefore nothing will happen.



Yes, you are right in that the exposure is important, and that even wide-angle lenses can be dangerous. The intensity on the sensor depends on the f-ratio and not on the focal length, but for the same f-ratio, if you have a longer focal length then the image of the Sun will cover more pixels and thus heat the pixels more quickly. Unless you have the camera mounted on a tripod, the image of the Sun in a wide angle lens is less likely to stay put on the same pixels for a longer duration. And, remember, that if you use live view, you are effectively exposing the sensor for much longer than by just taking a quick exposure.

Just to re-iterate - it is VERY dangerous for your eyesight to look at the Sun through fast optics (unless _very_ close to the horizon or behind a cloud layer, or properly filtered by *solar filters*). Short exposures will not damage your detector - long exposures, or extended use of 'live view', probably will.



Scutchamer said:


> The reason sunrises/sunsets don't burn your camera is the same reason it is colder in winter* - and it has nothing to do with distance from the sun/amount of atmosphere between you and it**. It's because you are at an angle to the sun. The same quantity of light from the sun is spread out over a wider area so it's intensity is greatly reduced.



Haha, you're trying to troll us or what?


----------



## epsiloneri (Mar 20, 2015)

NorbR said:


> This was a fun experiment, I don't get to shoot everyday at f11, 1/640, ISO 100 and 13 stops ND (EV ... 29?! Am I counting that right?)


Yes, 29.32. Great shots!


----------

