Are you going to see the eclipse in August?

[Leigh B]

A 5x ND filter is nowhere near dense enough.

You risk damaging your equipment and yourself.

- Leigh

 

[Michael Firstlight]

A 5x ND filter is nowhere near dense enough.

You risk damaging your equipment and yourself.

- Leigh

That's my understanding too - ND isn't enough to save a sensor or eyes.

 

[Paul Howell]

I am shooting film, not a sensor, in another post someone posted a copy of a Kodak data sheet for shooting a ellipse, ASA 100 film 5X ND filter, 1000 at around F11, the Minolta 9 has a top shutter speed of 1/12000 of a second. I will be wearing solar glasses. I plan on taking a digital body as well, old Sigma SD9, will have the 5X ND and a polarizer. If I lose the sensor, well so be it.

 

[dmr]

So I can borrow a Sigma 150-500mm 5.6 lens for the eclipse on a D800. I am wondering if 500mm is enough or should I use my 2x converter with it for longer reach?

They say (the ubiquitous "they") that the sweet spot for focal lengths for doing a solar eclipse is 800-1000.

The camera I am gonna use for the solar shots (Fuji HS30 {d-word}) zooms out to 720, which is within the ballpark AFAIAC.

 

[Leigh B]

...in another post someone posted a copy of a Kodak data sheet for shooting a ellipse, ASA 100 film 5X ND filter

You seriously mis-understand the ND filter specs.

What they recommend is a 5.0 ND filter, which is 64X.

- Leigh

 

[Paul Howell]

Your right, seem I don't understand, no real experience with ND filters, how does 5.0 become 65X?

 

[MattKing]

5X is different from 5 stops (which would be 32X, not 64X).

 

[Prof_Pixel]

See what the 2017 eclipse will look like from your location: https://eclipsemega.movie/simulator

 

[Paul Howell]

5X is different from 5 stops (which would be 32X, not 64X).

I thought 5X was 5 stops, what does 5X mean? But ordered a Solar filter for a telescope for the 400 5.6.

 

[MattKing]

I thought 5X was 5 stops, what does 5X mean? But ordered a Solar filter for a telescope for the 400 5.6.

5X is a traditional, linear filter factor, which you use to modify shutter speed in a linear fashion - 1/1000 is replaced with 1/200.
That "*X" type of shorthand for a linear filter factor isn't particularly common, but I have certainly seen it.
For some reason, most neutral density filters seem to have filter factors that are expressed in stops while most filters that are not neutral density filters have filter factors that are expressed in linear terms.
In some cases, the filter factors are expressed both ways.

 

[LAG]

You seriously mis-understand the ND filter specs.

What they recommend is a 5.0 ND filter, which is 64X.

- Leigh

No

Your right, seem I don't understand, no real experience with ND filters, how does 5.0 become 65X?

ND 1.5 is ND32 is 32, which is 5 stops
ND 1.8 is ND64 is 64, which is 6 stops

So ND 5.0 is not 64X not even 32X.
ND 5.0 is ND100000 is 100.000 which is the minimum "optical density"* to see the Sun directly (which is more than 16 stops)
* ND 5.0 is the notation (one of them) for the optical density (n.n) in this case 5.0

I thought 5X was 5 stops, what does 5X mean?

5X could be 5 stops if only that 5 is the eXponential for 25 and only used to calculate the filter factor - and knowing beforehand what kind of filter you're referring to, because that notation (5X) - without any other information - could evoke quite different things, due to the fact that different manufactures use different notations (even with upper and lower case characters) ...

Best!

 

[etn]

I am thinking of going to see it. Not photograph, but to see it. I am thinking about the difference between photographing a wedding versus attending a wedding.

Your thoughts?

I will travel to the States to watch it. My opinion is that focusing on picture taking might distract from the experience, therefore it will not be my #1 priority (nor do I have sufficient equipment to make "professional level" pictures of it.) I will try to get some snapshots, though (perhaps even with a d*g*t*l camera only). As a matter of fact I am debating acquiring a 500mm reflex Nikkor for the event - they are cheap those days and the disadvantages of reflex lenses have no influence for this kind of application.

I will also try to capture "shadow snakes" - see
For this a large white cardboard and my cell phone on a tripod will do the trick I guess. Will start it before the event and forget about it.

In any case, do NOT watch the sun without appropriate protection equipment - search "solar filter", many stores sell them in various forms, from eclipse goggles to 10x15" foils to circular filters in the size of your lens or telescope. An ND filter does NOT offer sufficient protection! Also, filters should be placed on the front of your lens/telescope: at any other point, the filter might heat up and break. If that occurs while you are observing, it might permanently damage your eyes.

I think that a H-alpha filter might be a cool thing too.

Hope this helps, have fun watching the eclipe

 

[etn]

With my luck will overcast and raining.

It was overcast on the location where I watched the 1999 eclipse in Europe. Seeing the shadow zooming over the clouds towards me was in fact a hell of a show! (kinda spooky indeed!)

 

[etn]

So I can borrow a Sigma 150-500mm 5.6 lens for the eclipse on a D800. I am wondering if 500mm is enough or should I use my 2x converter with it for longer reach?

Mike, this page http://www.mreclipse.com/SEphoto/SEphoto.html
shows the size of the sun for different focal lengths on 24x36 film (or full frame digital). The D800 having a high resolution, I personally would hesitate using a 2x converter if it (ever so slighlty) degrades the performance of your lens. Why not testing both combinations and selecting what you like best?

Side note, to photograph the last Mercury transit I tried my Hasselblad 180mm, (a great lens!), plus a Hassy 2x converter, adapted to a Nikon DSLR. This combo is the longest possible with the equipment I own. I was not pleased with the results.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Are you going to see the eclipse in August?

Dead Link Removed

I am thinking of going to see it. Not photograph, but to see it. I am thinking about the difference between photographing a wedding versus attending a wedding.

Your thoughts?

good point! Go and see it; photographs fs\ade; memories do not.

 

[LAG]

... (nor do I have sufficient equipment to make "professional level" pictures of it.)

Unless you you can imagine another different point of view of looking at the eclipse, the professional level is not only based on the equipment, in my humble opinion.

An ND filter does NOT offer sufficient protection!

I thought that a place like this (Photographic) would be one of the best places to understand the meaning of that amount of light and the real meaning of 16 stops as "a starting safety point", however after seeing the above post about filters, it seems that your words in black are of great importance...

photographs fs\ade; memories do not.

It's other way around Ralph.

On the other hand I agree that "seeing" the moment makes you to enjoy the event in a different way and that moment makes our memories stronger, but it's possible to do both.

All the best!

 

[dmr]

See what the 2017 eclipse will look like from your location: https://eclipsemega.movie/simulator

Cute! Thanks.

 

[Bud Hamblen]

So I can borrow a Sigma 150-500mm 5.6 lens for the eclipse on a D800. I am wondering if 500mm is enough or should I use my 2x converter with it for longer reach? The solar filter I may use is a 86mm Helios Solar filter. What is the ideal magnification length to use? I read that "in order to photograph the Sun's corona during totality, the focal length should be no longer than about 1500mm (1000mm on digital); however, a focal length of 1000mm (700mm digital) requires less critical framing and can capture some of the longer coronal streamers". Often, optics best perform at less than their full extension - so maybe the Sigma optics might be best around, say 350-400mm with the 2X, giving me 800mm? Or, would it be better to forego the 2x converter and just push the sigma out to near 500mm?

Regards,
Mike

You could test your lens for sharpness by taking a picture of the Moon without any filters. Focusing is the hard part.

Bud

 

[dmr]

Focusing is the hard part.

I would think focus would almost be a no-brainer. I plan on using manual focus and just crank it to infinity. (LOL, 93 megamiles is about as close to infinity as we're gonna see.) I doubt if we're gonna see much focus difference between the edge of the moon and the edge of the sun. I plan on tweaking it, if I can for the sharpest edges, but I assume that taking at f/8 or f/11 will put the whole thing well within the sweet spot of the depth of field.

 

[Leigh B]

I doubt if we're gonna see much focus difference between the edge of the moon and the edge of the sun.

The issue with infinity focus is that many long lenses will focus beyond infinity.
That's because the length of the barrel may change at temperature extremes.

Obviously, careful focusing on moon features is appropriate for solar pix.

-Leigh

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I'll be in the center path of totality. Ever since the Feb. '79 eclipse in Portland (which was cloudy), I've planned for this one.

It's not the sun itself that I'll be looking at or photographing, but an elevated view of the land as the shadow rushes across it and the distant horizon which will show a rim of light.

In my college history class, we were told that Thomas Jefferson could calculate eclipses (beyond the simpler Saros intervals). Since I was already interested in astronomy, I studied orbital mechanics and learned how to calculate eclipses as well (using the library's American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac [RIP] to check my date, time, and path).

 

[dmr]

It's not the sun itself that I'll be looking at or photographing, but an elevated view of the land as the shadow rushes across it and the distant horizon which will show a rim of light.

That's one I thought of, but I can't think of a place around here in the darkest of the dark region that would have a good view of such a scene. I really don't know how fast the shadow would move, in real-world terms.

I want to do some crescent scenes and hopefully catch the "Diamond Ring" and similar phenomena as totality approaches.

One thing I kinda hope to capture, but they tell me (the ubiquitous "they") that it's tricky, are the kind of "interference" bars on the ground due to the diffraction.

Another thing I want to (try to) do during totality is capture some scenes both of stuff lit by, and looking toward the eclipsed sun, kind of a contre-jour variation.

I've looked at the eclipse data that I can find and it appears that we can expect an illuminance at totality of 5-6 lux or so, which comes out to about EV 1. That's DARK, candlelight conditions!

 

[Bud Hamblen]

The shadow of the Moon moves at about 2,500 km/hr during this eclipse. I think you would need to be fairly high up to watch it moving across the landscape.

 

[tedr1]

Here is the Kodak exposure recommendation once more. In the accompanying text it is recommended to bracket plus and minus three stops. Note that a tripod is required.

 

[Paul Howell]

I just got the Solar filters, almost black, blocks 99.999% of the light at mid day in camera meter reads 1/350 at F 8. Need to see which meter mode works best, matrix, spot or average.