Rental Camera Gear Destroyed by the Solar Eclipse of 2017

[NancyP]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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