
Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse - blueintegral
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/09/rental-camera-gear-destroyed-by-the-solar-eclipse-of-2017/
======
dingaling
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.

~~~
csomar
> 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?

~~~
tedunangst
They still probably lose out on some revenue until a replacement is in stock.
Having a working lens is always better for business than getting reimbursed to
buy a replacement lens. (That's the nature of the business, though.)

~~~
hug
LensRentals do all possible repairs internally, so I suspect that the downtime
on an expensive lens like that is minimal if possible. Roger mentioned on the
photography subreddit that the aperture replacement was a $200 part and 3 to 4
hours -- it only took so long because it was that tech's first time replacing
that part.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/6xg8a7/lens_re...](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/6xg8a7/lens_rentals_shows_some_of_their_rental_camera/dmga5m0/?context=3)

------
lisper
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.

~~~
klipt
Should have covered the _intake_ side.

~~~
lisper
_Now_ you tell me! ;-)

~~~
linker3000
Well, you're good for the next one.

~~~
chii
only if you live to 300!

~~~
macintux
? There's another total eclipse coming through North America in 2024. Passes
right over my city, hurrah.

~~~
notJim
What state is hurrah in?

------
nxc18
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 would have been handing out protective lenses before
the eclipse so that customers would have really had to try to mess it up.

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

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

~~~
jessaustin
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.

------
jmiserez
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.

~~~
penagwin
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 of the
extra (and typically higher magnification lens). I don't mean that a burnt
camera is worse then a burnt eye - I'd rather anybody loose tons of $$$ for a
camera then have eye damage.

~~~
penagwin
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 the difference is that
camera's typically have higher magnification lens then our eyes.

~~~
corndoge
probably because you suggested damage to a camera is worse than damage to a
human eye in the first sentence and hn is full of reactionary children

------
jonknee
Those were some expensive mistakes. Some of the gear mentioned: Canon C300
Mark II ($9,999) and Canon 600mm f/4L IS II USM ($11,499).

~~~
sapienthomo
Nobody is going to throw that gear away. They'll replace the diaphragms but
the glass and body should be fine.

~~~
jonknee
No, but expensive things have expensive parts/repairs. Just pointing out for
those not in the field that this was pro level gear.

------
grepthisab
Interesting! My assumption is that this could not happen with a phone camera
though, correct? Because then one would think just leaving one's phone face
down on the table in sunlight would ruin it.

~~~
penagwin
The sun would have to be dead center middle so it's probably unlikely. The
lenses on the fancy cameras definitely make it a far worse problem for them vs
our phone cameras though.

An iphone 6 camera only costs 5$ and is easy to replace(with a screw driver
and spudger (maybe an igizmo) most hacker news people likely wouldn't have
issues.), so it's not the end of the world (source:I repair phones)

~~~
patcheudor
Most people don't mount their cell phones to tripods or celestial tracking
mounts so there's enough movement it would never be an issue. It would be
interesting to mount one to a celestial tracking mount and see what happens.
Honestly, I've got some old cell phones laying around here and might just give
that a try.

~~~
penagwin
That would be really cool to see! /u/tzs posted some links, so it looks like
people a somewhat unsure. I'm guessing that if the sun is well tracked in the
center for long enough that it would damage the lens. I guess we don't have a
ton of hard data for it.

~~~
owenversteeg
So I've photographed lasers a bunch and burned a few sensors, I guess I should
toss in my experience. As far as I can tell, it really depends on the specific
phone that you're using, and also the damage is usually fairly minimal. I've
damaged fancy sensors with lasers and they almost always have major problems
afterwards, but for years I used a phone with a very severe amount of laser
damage to the sensor and the photos were quite good and the damage was barely
noticeable (as a series of black lines on the image.) There was no damage to
the lens.

I also doubt it would be the lens damaged in the case of a smartphone. The
lenses are built to take a tremendous amount of abuse and almost certainly
would be fine. The sensors are by far the more fragile component.

------
exodust
Anyone who _doesn 't_ take their glasses off and look at the total eclipse for
a moment when the sun is completely covered, is missing out. It's a beautiful
sight.

Caution is needed of course. Get ready to put those glasses back on any moment
now!

Incredible hues and glow and the surrounding twilight. Can't see any of that
with glasses on. At totality, sneak a peek with your naked eyes, it's fine.

Same for camera equipment, it's the setting up and pointing the camera at sun
before the eclipse that does the damage. Keep lens cap on until last moment,
then take off, and nothing will happen to camera. I've done it at two eclipse
festivals, no clouds, didn't even use ND filter! Cameras and eyes fine.

------
dboreham
Since others are posting their images figured I'd pitch in: [https://g2.img-
dpreview.com/8D7D9675C7AE4E6EAEF707CB4AEABB2F...](https://g2.img-
dpreview.com/8D7D9675C7AE4E6EAEF707CB4AEABB2F.jpg) Canon 100-400 @400mm +1.4x
tc, solar filter removed.

------
dekhn
I got lucky while testing my camera, which is mounted at prime focus in a
refractor scope. I had it in Live View which meant the mirror was up, and I
removed the solar filter for just a second.

The camera said "error", turned off, I replaced the solar filter, and it was
fine. Much longer, and I'd have had a burn. The telescope really collects and
concentrates a ton of light.

~~~
lostlogin
According to the thread above, the telescopic lens is safer to use than a
shorter one. Only here would someone give a mathematical proof!

~~~
stan_rogers
No, a slower lens (higher f-number, or, actually, T-number) is safer than a
faster lens. It's only a practical accident that a long "telephoto" lens is
usually significantly slower than a lens closer to _normal_ for the format
(and that the long end of a consumer zoom is usually slower than the wide
end). A 600mm f/4 lens is an eye-wateringly expensive hulking monster; a 50mm
f/1.8 lens is the proverbial cheap-as-chips (with some exceptions), but will
let about 5-6 times the amount of light through to be imaged on the sensor -
it'll burn a smaller hole, but do it much more quickly. Should you be able too
find a 600mm lens with the same T-number (similar to the f-number, but taking
transmissivity losses into account), it'll do the job just as quickly, but
much more thoroughly.

~~~
dekhn
Actually, this was a self-built telescope. It was a 3.5" apochromatic 900mm
focal length lens adapted to a T-mount.

If you remove the camera, and point the scope at the sun, there's a good
sensor-sized beam of intense sunlight at focus.

------
banned1
I can almost feel the LensRental writer's pain of having to write this article
without calling a bunch of dumbaxxes dumbaxxes because they are their
customers. _sigh_

------
odbol_
Does the eclipse make the sun stronger or something? I've pointed my camera at
the sun for all day long taking timelapses and nothing bad happened to it. I
guess maybe you need a really hardcore zoom lens to get damage like that...

P.S. Here's the video pointing at the sun all day long: [https://youtu.be/HgbG
--t3Bd8](https://youtu.be/HgbG--t3Bd8)

------
yeukhon
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.

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

~~~
Laforet
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...](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1335775-REG/formatt_hitech_fc95eclp5_4_firecrest_95mm_eclipse_5_4.html)

~~~
branchan
Most people don't buy expensive screw-on types like these for a one-time
event. You buy some solar filter film and fabricate yourself a lens cover out
of cardboard for about $10.

------
nazz
I was shooting with a d800 200mm lens, no filter. There is no visible sensor
damage, both when examining images and the sensor itself. I have to check out
the lens. I left it on the sun for a good 20 minutes in live view but there
doesn't seem to be any damage. Thoughts?

~~~
549362-30499
Were you using a motorized tripod set to track the sun? I would guess that was
the cause of the most extreme damage.

------
basicplus2
It is not just at the focal point but

multilayered lenses can be destroyed as the expand and contract and heat is
emminated from the join and also

Any lense with coatings to correct for chromatic abberation, the coatings get
destroyed on the surface of the lenses just by being pointed at the sun.

------
pasbesoin
A lot of phone cameras seem to have come through (apparently) unscathed. Both
pictures and video. Too small a collector/concentrator, or enough shaking
because hand-held to keep the focal point moving?

------
jtl999
I used a Canon 80D with a EF-S 55-250mm lens and a solar filter film over the
lens. My camera was fine.

[https://imgur.com/a/OmPQP](https://imgur.com/a/OmPQP)

Taken in rural Oregon (just two shots I selected at random for this post)

------
justin66
The amusing bit is at the end, where the author tacitly admits that their add-
on camera insurance is somewhat crap. Someone who damaged a rental camera by
pointing it at the eclipse would, ironically, have been better off if they
then proceeded to "accidentally" drop the camera from a height onto concrete:

 _Unfortunately, these types of damage are considered neglect, as warnings
were given out to customers before the solar eclipse. Our LensCap insurance
plan, which can be added to rentals for a small nominal fee, does not protect
from neglect but is an excellent tool for those who are worried about their
rental and want to protect themselves from any accidental damage._

(but perhaps not really - there are enough wiggle words in that policy that I
wonder if they ever pay out on expensive damage at all:
[https://help.lensrentals.com/26475-damage-lenscap-
protection...](https://help.lensrentals.com/26475-damage-lenscap-protection-
plans/203113-what-is-covered-by-the-standard-lenscap-protection-plan) )

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Intentionally using gear inappropriately in ways that are highly likely to
result in damage isn't what insurance is for. Reasonable guidelines around
what insurance will cover keeps it cheaper for everyone.

~~~
mjhoy
Especially with an explicit warning sent out about the eclipse.

