This Burning Out Of Sensors Through Pointing A Camera At The Sun

delb0y

delb0y

Messages
494
Name
Derek
Edit My Images
Yes
On one of the eclipse threads it was mentioned that you shouldn't point your camera at the sun without the necessary filters in place any more than you should look at the sun without eye protection. It was mentioned that in live-view, where a DSLR mirror is raised, this is likely to damage the sensor. But how does this work on a mirrorless camera? I used my G3 with an ND8 filter for the eclipse and simply looked at the screen (figuring this was no different to looking at the sun on the TV), clicking the shutter button every few minutes and adjusting SS and focus and positioning as required. There doesn't appear to be any damage done to the sensor, but are we saying that (a) I was lucky and that (b) without the ND8 I'd have probably melted my sensor?

I don't want to set the G3 up on a tripod somewhere and point it at the setting sun, watching and waiting for the perfect light, only to find that I've burned out the innards just as that perfect moment arises!

Cheers
Derek
 
It wasn't uncommon to burn a hole in the shutter curtain of certain rangefinder cameras back in the film era (think Leica's and the similarly designed Feds/Zorki's)... Rangefinders didn't have a mirror between the lens and the shutter-curtain, and often had cloth shutters - so it was pretty much essential on sunny days to either replace the lens-cap after every shot, or use a ever-ready case, or stop down to f22 and try and keep your hand over the front of the lens where possible...

Not much help on your digital camera I'm afraid - I'll defer to others on that score, but when you've burned a couple of holes in the shutter curtain and paid the silly money for a repair, you kind of err on the side of safety...

http://www.raylarose.com/2014/10/shutter-curtain-hole-repair-avoidance/

http://www.camerasandfilm.com/archives/218
 
Last edited:
Without the filter and with unobstructed sunlight you'd have risked damaging the sensor, yes. The lens focuses light onto the the sensor. Have you ever used a magnifying glass or convex lens to focus the sun onto something?
 
Without the filter you would certainly run the risk of damaging your sensor. You used an ND8, but it is generally recommended that you use something stronger, i.e. solar filter, welding glass 14, etc. If there is cloud cover, this can help diffuse the light, so you may "get away" with a less strength filter, but be aware, that you're taking a risk and it will be an expensive one if things go wrong.
 
ghoti said:
Without the filter and with unobstructed sunlight you'd have risked damaging the sensor, yes. The lens focuses light onto the the sensor. Have you ever used a magnifying glass or convex lens to focus the sun onto something?
Click to expand...

It would have to be a very wide angle lens to concentrate the sun into a small enough dot to do damage... just as a magnifying glass does. With the longer lenses typically used to get the sun nearly full frame, the intensity is spread over a larger area and has less potential for damage.

People take photographs with the sun in the frame all the time. A partially obscured sun will be less of a problem than the full sun.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
People take photographs with the sun in the frame all the time. A partially obscured sun will be less of a problem than the full sun.
Click to expand...

Hugh difference between the sun being in the frame, possibly making up a small area of the overall frame and actually trying to fill the frame with the sun! Ultimately, if you want to photography the sun in isolation and not part of a landscape shot, etc., then you are taking a very serious risk not using the correct strength of filter. Clouds will act as a diffuser, which will have a signifcant influence, but we are talking about attempting to photography the sun in a unobstructed, fill the frame fashion.
 
Yes. And filling the frame is much less energy per square millimetre or pixel or whatever than if the sun was a tiny dot.

Every time you double the diameter of the sun, you divide the energy at any spot on the sensor by four. Inverse square law.

Making the sun bigger in the frame decreases the energy per unit of area, not increases it.


Steve.
 
Tell you what Steve, why don't you wait for a bright clear day, then go out and take some photos of the sun with an under strength filter. Come back and tell us, what camera you're playing to buy, once you're damaged the sensor in your current camera :D
 
Steve Smith said:
Yes. And filling the frame is much less energy per square millimetre or pixel or whatever than if the sun was a tiny dot.

Every time you double the diameter of the sun, you divide the energy at any spot on the sensor by four. Inverse square law.

Making the sun bigger in the frame decreases the energy per unit of area, not increases it.


Steve.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your posts, but isn't a long lens potentially more damaging to the sensor?
 
Rapscallion said:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your posts, but isn't a long lens potentially more damaging to the sensor?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. A wide angle lens concentrates the sun's light into a small area. A long lens spreads it over a larger area.

Think about using a magnifying glass to light a fire. It focuses the sun into a tiny, intense dot. If it focused the sun as a 1" diameter circle, it wouldn't heat up enough to start a fire.


Steve.
 
johnnypanic said:
Tell you what Steve, why don't you wait for a bright clear day, then go out and take some photos of the sun with an under strength filter. Come back and tell us, what camera you're playing to buy, once you're damaged the sensor in your current camera :D
Click to expand...

My cameras take film!


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
It would have to be a very wide angle lens to concentrate the sun into a small enough dot to do damage... just as a magnifying glass does. With the longer lenses typically used to get the sun nearly full frame, the intensity is spread over a larger area and has less potential for damage.

People take photographs with the sun in the frame all the time. A partially obscured sun will be less of a problem than the full sun.


Steve.
Click to expand...
The way I read it the camera was focused on the sun for a length of time. Not just a single shot with the sun in the frame. Accept that energy is distributed over a wider area but it's still concentrating the sunlight into a relatively small space.
 
Steve Smith said:
I don't think so. A wide angle lens concentrates the sun's light into a small area. A long lens spreads it over a larger area.

Think about using a magnifying glass to light a fire. It focuses the sun into a tiny, intense dot. If it focused the sun as a 1" diameter circle, it wouldn't heat up enough to start a fire.


Steve.
Click to expand...
Exactly. As any schoolboy knows who's carried out fire starting experiments with lenses, long focal lengths are useless. You want the shortest focal lengths which focus the light ( and heat) into the tiniest spot. On the other hand if you want to project a big enough image of the sun to be able to see sunspots then it is long focal lengths that you want.
 
You only had to feel how much the temperature dropped during the eclipse to realise quite how much radiated energy is at work. Focusing even a small part of it onto a sensor for a prolonged period is going to end in tears.
 
You'd need a hell of a lot of exposure to the sun to do damage, Personally I'd have said the more immediate 'danger' would be excess noise from mildly elevated sensor temp.

I've just googled by the way and cannot find a single authoritative source on the matter other than a Sony recommendation that prolonged exposure will cause acceleration of the degradation of the bayer array. An exact time was not specified.
 
MMmm Feel an experiment coming on - Focus sunlight through a lens only onto a suitable substrate.
All I need now is sun and a lens with a tripod collar plus stop watch
 
Back in Ye Olden Dayes when Leica made cameras with cloth shutter curtains, they used to warn against carrying it in bright sun without a lens cap as there were cases of pinholes being burned into the shutter. Note - pinholes, not huge, film format size holes. Leicas generally use lenses of short focal length as rangefinder cameras work better with them.


Steve.
 
It's probably a different type of sensor but I have a webcam pointing south and through the winter the sun glares across it every day (if not cloudy!) with no damage after two years.
I struggle to see a problem with the sensor exposed for fractions of second, as that could easily be done in 'normal' photos and the manuals don't make any big mention of avoiding it?
- but if you have it on a tripod setting up a shot or waiting for several minutes it might damage something else inside.
 
Steve Smith said:
Back in Ye Olden Dayes when Leica made cameras with cloth shutter curtains, they used to warn against carrying it in bright sun without a lens cap as there were cases of pinholes being burned into the shutter. Note - pinholes, not huge, film format size holes. Leicas generally use lenses of short focal length as rangefinder cameras work better with them.


Steve.
Click to expand...

as per my message ^^^ way, way up there (first reply to the OP)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
Well my DSLR was pointing at the Sun for the whole hour with a 300mm f4 lens, taking random shots throughout the eclipse, and the camera is still performing as normal.
 
It would be easy to test with a film SLR. Just tape some tissue paper in place of the film and focus on the sun using a 28mm and a 300mm lens and see which one burns the paper. Most magnifying glasses produce a burning spot between about 30mm and 50mm (from memory) So a 28mm lens should be about right.

Nikon Fan said:
Well my DSLR was pointing at the Sun for the whole hour with a 300mm f4 lens, taking random shots throughout the eclipse, and the camera is still performing as normal.
Click to expand...

With the mirror up and shutter open? (in live view).


Steve.
 
Last edited:
That's why I was asking about mirrorless - no mirror to raise, so the sensor is permanently exposed to the sun unless there's a lens cap on. Presumably even if the camera goes into sleep mode the lens is still directing the suns rays onto the sensor and thus with a mirrorless camera one shouldn't set the camera up on a tripod awaiting for whatever (a sunset, a bride, a Severn Bore, a fly-past, etc etc) on a sunny day without putting the lens cap on.
 
delb0y said:
That's why I was asking about mirrorless - no mirror to raise, so the sensor is permanently exposed to the sun unless there's a lens cap on. Presumably even if the camera goes into sleep mode the lens is still directing the suns rays onto the sensor and thus with a mirrorless camera one shouldn't set the camera up on a tripod awaiting for whatever (a sunset, a bride, a Severn Bore, a fly-past, etc etc) on a sunny day without putting the lens cap on.
Click to expand...

Unless your camera doesn't have a shutter, the sensor will be protected from the sun.
 
Rapscallion said:
Unless your camera doesn't have a shutter, the sensor will be protected from the sun.
Click to expand...
But that's the whole point. If you can see the image on the back of the camera (or in the electronic viewfinder) then the light is falling on the sensor. For DSLRs, unless you are using live view then the sensor is covered. For most mirrorless, you are in constant live view while the camera is on.
 
Steve Smith said:
Do mirrorless cameras not have mechanical shutters?
Click to expand...

I must admit I was thinking the same thing. Maybe they have two sensors - one to take the image and one to show the preview, though I think that unlikely.

Edit: Apparently they do have a shutter (and only one sensor). When taking a shot the first thing that happens is that the shutter closes, then opens and shuts to take the image, then opens again to allow the sensor to see and transmit the image - link.
 
Last edited:
Bythesea said:
Edit: Apparently they do have a shutter (and only one sensor). When taking a shot the first thing that happens is that the shutter closes, then opens and shuts to take the image, then opens again to allow the sensor to see and transmit the image - link.
Click to expand...

Yes. Exactly the same way as my film SLRs with in lens leaf shutters work.


Steve.
 
ghoti said:
Without the filter and with unobstructed sunlight you'd have risked damaging the sensor, yes. The lens focuses light onto the the sensor. Have you ever used a magnifying glass or convex lens to focus the sun onto something?
Click to expand...

Do Ants count
 
Bythesea said:
Edit: Apparently they do have a shutter (and only one sensor). When taking a shot the first thing that happens is that the shutter closes, then opens and shuts to take the image, then opens again to allow the sensor to see and transmit the image - link.
Click to expand...
Steve Smith said:
Yes. Exactly the same way as my film SLRs with in lens leaf shutters work.
Click to expand...

Really interesting, I've been wondering about both things!

The manual for my Leitz Minolta CL rangefinder says: "Avoid leaving your LEICA in bright sunlight, especially with the lens facing up, as the lens could then act as a burning glass." I've not seen similar warnings for mirrorless cameras, so perhaps the risk is smaller with the modern sensor and its AA filters etc, compared with a cloth shutter?
 
Steve Smith said:
Yes. Exactly the same way as my film SLRs with in lens leaf shutters work.
Click to expand...
Though in that case the mirror is keeping the light from the film. In the case of the mirrorless cameras the sensor is continually exposed while it is on.
 
Bythesea said:
Though in that case the mirror is keeping the light from the film. In the case of the mirrorless cameras the sensor is continually exposed while it is on.
Click to expand...

Actually not the mirror. There is a separate cover which keep the film area lightproof.


Steve.
 
Rapscallion said:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your posts, but isn't a long lens potentially more damaging to the sensor?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. Anybody suggesting otherwise is talking total balderdash and poppycock. Just like looking through a telescope is going to cause more damage than looking through a cardboard tube.
 
So, how many sunsets before all our cameras are knackered?
 
Just for reference, I practiced for the eclipse on the full sun with a 10 stop filter, live view & 500mm lens on a crop. I was mucking around for ages. No camera damage.
It could be that it was a firecrest who specify a IR block in the specs and I used a UV filter on all my lenses (good protection).
 
hollis_f said:
Yes, it is. Anybody suggesting otherwise is talking total balderdash and poppycock. Just like looking through a telescope is going to cause more damage than looking through a cardboard tube.
Click to expand...

Would you care to explain the mathematics and physics behind your reasoning that focusing the sun onto a large area of the sensor is more damaging than concentrating it into a small dot?

I did an experiment this morning. At work, I have a laser cutter which we use to cut polyester sheets. At the correct cutting distance, the laser light is focused into a dot of about 0.1mm diameter. I adjusted the power downwards until it only just cut the material.

Then I raised the laser height by 5mm. The resulting dot of laser light was then about 0.2mm diameter. It marked the material but didn't cut through.

Raising it again by another 5mm resulted in a larger diameter but I can't tell what it was as it didn't even leave a mark on the material (probably around 0.4mm diameter).

The results of the normal height and 5mm higher cuts are exactly as I expected as if the diameter doubles then the energy is spread over four times the area.

Exactly the same thing is happening in a camera. A wide angle lens concentrates all of the sun's light energy into one small dot whereas a long lens spreads it over a larger area.

A wide angle lens has a higher Dioptre value than a long lens. The longer the lens focal length, the weaker its Dioptre power. As you approach a focal length of infinity, the Dioptre power approaches zero so it might as well be a plain piece of glass - or nothing. If a longer focal length/weaker Dioptre lens causes more damage then we would all be fried by the direct light from the sun.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
With the combination of Facebook groups, forums & Flickr I've not read a single post saying someone has damaged their camera from shooting the eclipse. And I'd imagine quite a few people took photos of it.
 
LeeRatters said:
With the combination of Facebook groups, forums & Flickr I've not read a single post saying someone has damaged their camera from shooting the eclipse. And I'd imagine quite a few people took photos of it.
Click to expand...

Or maybe no one's admitting it :LOL:
Wonder if there's been a rush on folk trading cameras in this week. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top