Posts: wdross | Ugly Hedgehog

MWojton wrote:

So it just dawned on me today ( the day before the eclipse) that I should try and get some shots of it. I am north of Philly in the 91% totality zone. I know you need filters for your cameras and phones ( which I don’t have). But I do have glasses. Is holding my glasses over the lens safe?
Also, an article I read said that for a few minutes during totality, it is safe to remove the filters. I wonder if that will be safe in my area (at 91%)?

The next USA total eclipse is in 2045. But there will be other eclipses before that in other areas of the world. Enjoy this one with just your solar glasses and prep for the 2045 one or go to another one elsewhere in the world. They are always worth it if you can make it to one. Otherwise, you will have to make the trip to Ohio, the very corner of Pennsylvania, Canada, Vermont, or Maine. At least, these areas have the best chances of viewing with the least chances of clouds.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Eclipse questions

MWojton wrote:

So it just dawned on me today ( the day before the eclipse) that I should try and get some shots of it. I am north of Philly in the 91% totality zone. I know you need filters for your cameras and phones ( which I don’t have). But I do have glasses. Is holding my glasses over the lens safe?
Also, an article I read said that for a few minutes during totality, it is safe to remove the filters. I wonder if that will be safe in my area (at 91%)?

If you are at 91% "totality", you are not in totality at all. You are in a partial total eclipse only - no totality at all. You need to go to where you are in total shadow (100%), not partial shadow (91%). If you are in the area of total shadow, during totality you will need no filters for your camera, phone, or eyes. Otherwise, you will need your solar glasses for your eyes before and after true totality. And unless the glasses are big enough to cover the full front of the camera lens or all of the lenses on your phone, your glasses should not be used for them. There is a chance that the light going around the glasses will cause damage. It is not worth the risk.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Solar eclipse

Tomfl101 wrote:

In 2017 I used an 8 stop ND on a 400mm lens with a 2x converter and a Canon 5D3. I used live view. See my avatar for the results. Do some tests before the event with your 10x.

If he "experiments" with his 3 stop ND filter and his 1.5 stop polarizer, his shutter and/or sensor will be damaged. If you are using only an 8 stop filter for your camera, you are at risk (Are you really sure that your filter is only 8 stops?). Check B&H Photo, Adorama, Thousand Oaks Optical, and the NASA website and see the minimum is 16.5 stops (in photographic ND terms, 100,000X). If you are using a DSLR, your eyes are at risk. With a mirrorless, at least only your camera will be at risk. When I was choosing what level light reduction using welders glass, I tried ND 16, ND 17, ND 18, and ND 19 darknesses (16 to 19 stops). Although 16 and 17 were too bright for my viewing taste, they were more than acceptable for a camera. The 19 was too dark for my taste. Based off my own experience, if you are only using an 8 stop filter, you are only taking an unnecessary risk of camera damage and/or permanent eye damage. And for the OP, at only 4.5 stops, it would be a very ignorant decision.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Solar eclipse

Bridges wrote:

How dark a filter is required? I have a 10x variable neutral density and could add a polarizing filter.

You will need a filter of 16.5 stops or more to prevent camera damage or destruction. You will need a filter of 16.5 stops or more (I recommend 18 stops for long viewing times) to stop light and UV rays for using your eyes for viewing. Your filter of maximum 3 stops and polarizer of 1.5 stops will wipeout your camera easily; you are more than 10 stops short of major camera and eye damage. And I seriously doubt that your filters will stop UV rays. Your best bet, this late in the game, is to get welders glass of ND 16 to ND 19 (again, I recommend ND 18). It cuts out the high intensity light and UV rays of welding as well as the light and UV rays of the sun. If you are on the path of totality, during the actual totality no filter will be required. But both before and after totality, damage and/or blindness will occur to camera and/or eyes without a proper filter. There will be some ignorant people blinded this eclipse by not viewing the eclipse properly. It has happened every eclipse so far.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Eclipse Watch Live, April 8, 2024, 10:00am PDT

CliffMcKenzie wrote:

Here in Texas, we have spent months in preparation for "The Great Texas Eclipse"...even the governor is on board and will allow the Eclipse to enter the US from Mexico. In light of our weather forecast, we are considering showing reruns of Matlock.

Remember, Totality will cross the US in under one hour, so stations to the NE will pick it up.

Yes, most people are unaware that the shadow travels at about 2000 mph. Even jets chasing the shadow cannot lengthen the view by more that a few minutes at the most. All the various broadcasting stations will have several cameras along the path. There should be a few that will get a view of totality.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Eclipse Watch Live, April 8, 2024, 10:00am PDT

BBurns wrote:

Total Solar Eclipse, Live, sponsored by the Griffith Observatory in Pasadena, CA, but will be broadcast from Texas.

Total Solar Eclipse, April 8, 2024

Only if the total eclipse isn't clouded out in Texas. Unfortunately, a lot of the path of the total eclipse will be potentially cloudy. The best areas so far are Indiana/Ohio and Vermont/Maine. Out of three eclipses I have been to, one was clouded out. This is always a possibility with total eclipses. Is it worth the attempt? Oh, yes, absolutely yes!!! Because of my granddaughter's wedding, I will forego this particular eclipse. But there are some coming up in other countries that I will seek out for viewing. Good luck for everyone that will be trying for Monday's eclipse. May the sky clear for you at the time of totality.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Safe Solar Eclipse Photography

jimpitt wrote:

Strongly suggest you protect yourself (and your camera) from damage. Most especially your eyes.
If you need to trash the useless Panasonic, so what.
Maybe do a quick upgrade to Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Leica, or Olympus. Your overall quality of photography will be improved in the future.

If you want protection at this time, try welders glass of ND 16 to ND 19. If you can see the sun through the glass, then it is safe for both your eyes and camera. I have used a ND 18 welders glass for all day viewing and all day camera protection for two total eclipses. Unless you use a camera filter of ND 16.5 stops or more (not the NDs of 1 to 3 stops used for making silky waterfalls), your camera will very quickly become "toast" and useless. Once you burn the camera's sensor, the back screen of a mirrorless is useless for viewing. Thousand Oaks sells filters for cameras and eyes. And that is the one other safety point. Only some filters shut out both the light and the UV rays. If you fail to cut out the UV rays, your permanent eye damage will occur within 24 hours. There are always some ignorant people that have eye damage with every total eclipse after not following proper eye safety. At this late a time, welders glass may be your best bet. It will stop the high light intensity and UV rays of welding as well as the light and UV rays of the sun.

And one more bit of information: Once the moon covers the sun disc totally (totality), no eye protection will be needed for one's eyes or camera. Your will have only 3 or 4 minutes of totality so use them wisely.

(Main Photography Discussion)

New camera and lens under $2000

Eunuch39 wrote:

I was considering the Panasonic Lumix S5, so I kinda looking at the Om line

User ID is correct. The Panasonic lumix S5 is a full frame series camera. The Panasonic 4/3rds series has very good cameras like the G9 mkII, GH6, and soon to be GH7. And these cameras usually surpass full frame cameras in their video abilities (Panasonic is still ahead of OM in video abilities). These Panasonic and OMs 4/3rds cameras and lenses have interchangeability with their bodies and lenses for all basic functions.

The new OM-5 with the 12-45 f4 Pro lens is on sale until March 31st for $1400 (normally $1600). It weights in at 14.6 oz for body/battery and 8.96 oz for the lens. One of the suggestions for you were the Canon EOS RP (17.1 oz) plus the RF 24-105 f/4L IS (24.6 oz). That is 23.56 oz (OM) versus 41.7 oz (Canon). And as noted, the main difference is in the lenses, not the bodies.

Again, I know you are after a full frame system but you just might want to at least look at 4/3rds.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Equivalent focal length - a more correct way to compare

a6k wrote:

I used two cameras+lenses: br br Sony 𝜶6500 with... (show quote)

I find the easiest way for me to talk "equivalent" is to reference the angle of view. The angle of view (4.1°) for my 300mm 4/3rds lens is the same angle of view (4.1°) as the Sony, Canon, Nikon, and any other full frame lens of 600mm. And f4 is f4 for any lens of any format. But depth of field for the f4 will change between formats if keeping the angle of view and aperture the same. For me shooting wildlife, more depth of field is desirable, especially if shooting moving wildlife. Plus I can handhold the 300, 1.4X or 2X teleconverter, and body with no need of a tripod. This is where I feel my 4/3rds provides me an advantage. This is where the word "equivalent" has the most meaning for me.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Four new Four Thirds sensor for smartphones...that might be used on MFT cameras too? Micro 4/3 users, which ones would you want?

SuperflyTNT wrote:

I think any thing higher than that would have some serious compromises in noise and dynamic range.

It could if other tech advances do not progress with the megapixels.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Appreciate informed sources on safety using Kase ND 100000 filter on lens during solar eclipse

bob100 wrote:

BH sites says the filter is safe for the camera/le... (show quote)

Your ND filter is acceptable for full sunlight for your camera but not for your eyes. The filter you have is ND to 16 stops which is different from the 1 to 3 stop ND filters one uses for making silky waterfalls and such. Your filter will not stop UV rays. If you have a DSLR or use the filter for viewing with your eye, you will sunburn your eye (sunburn = blindness or serious eye damage; forget further photography with that eye). If you have a mirrorless camera, no problem; you are viewing a screen and not actual sunlight. But you still cannot use that filter with just your eye (filter is still passing UV rays to your eye and sunburning your eye; damage is felt within a day). Thousand Oaks sells sunshades that will protect your eye while viewing the sun directly. You can watch the sun all day with those sunshades and no danger. The only other way of protecting your eyes from direct sun viewing is welders glass of ND16 to ND19. Welders glass cuts both the light level and the UV rays that are generated by welding.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Is it safe to shoot the upcoming eclipse?

Hydro47 wrote:

April 8th will bring a near total eclipse in my area . Everybody is getting eclipse glasses to view it. What are the safety rules for shooting the eclipse?

If you have a telephoto and a DSLR without a proper filter, and try viewing the sun, your eye will be either severely damaged or blind in that eye. Only during totality, the 3 or 4 minutes the moon covers the sun's disk, will no filter be needed. And unless you get a proper filter that stops both light and UV rays for your DSLR camera, you cannot use the DSLR for viewing the sun before totality. With a mirrorless camera, you will still need a filter to protect the camera. But since you are only viewing a screen with a mirrorless camera, there are no UV rays to damage or blind your eye. If you do not get a proper filter to block the sunlight for your camera and a proper filter to block the sunlight and UV rays for your eyes, damage and/or blindness will occur. Those are the rules.

(Main Photography Discussion)

New camera and lens under $2000

Eunuch39 wrote:

I fell in love with my canon EOSRP I had it for ab... (show quote)

I know you may be dead set on full frame, but look at OM and Panasonic 4/3rds. On the OM side, I would look at OM-5 and the 12-45 f4 Pro lens (24-90 in 35mm terms and very sharp). It should be close to your price range and relatively small and lightweight compared to a full frame (the lens will be where the size and weight savings is).

(Main Photography Discussion)

Four new Four Thirds sensor for smartphones...that might be used on MFT cameras too? Micro 4/3 users, which ones would you want?

camerapapi wrote:

Come to think of it I am happy with my 17 an 20 Mp. sensors in my Olympus cameras.

Now, now; that wasn't the question! You must chose one of the four options!

Just kidding! Of course most of us are happy with our 20mp. But as cameras move forward, so will the megapixels. Most of us amateurs, advanced amateurs, and enthusiasts only care about being able to produce a two page spread image and rarely printing 20X24 to 30X40. 20mp and 25mp will easily cover this situation. But for the professionals that are shooting 4/3rds, this could become interesting. OM Pro lenses can resolve 100mp images. All four of these possibilities would be game changing for the professionals. It will be interesting to see how the future unfolds.

(Main Photography Discussion)

Four new Four Thirds sensor for smartphones...that might be used on MFT cameras too? Micro 4/3 users, which ones would you want?

gwilliams6 wrote:

Four new Four Thirds sensor for smartphones...that might be used on MFT cameras too? Micro 4/3 users, which ones would you possibly want in a micro 4/3 camera ?

1) Samsung 108MP Full-Pixel DPAF;
2) Sony 80MP Full-Pixel 2X2 OCL AF;
3) Omnivision 50MP Full-Pixel 2X2 OCL AF;
4) Sony 44MP Mask-PDAF VDGS.

Cheers

All would work with the OM Pro lenses. For me, not working as a professional, I would like the 44mp. Less storage space required, faster downloads, less time required for PP.