[frank]

Sometimes I have a strong desire to include the Sun into the composition of a picture. But I am often nervous to do so since I have heard that a bright sun can burn the image sensor, the shutter, and even the eye if you look though the VF. It is usually said that if the Sun is safe to your naked eye, then it is safe to the camera. Any more opinions than that? If the sun is brighter than the level that is safe to a naked eye, is it still possible to include it in the captutured picture?

 

Best regards,

Frank

 

PS: Looking though the internet I find the following interesting article which talks about the exposure but not the safty problem when shooting into the Sun: http://www.sekonic.com/whatisyourspecial...e-sun.aspx

[popo]

I think a large part of the problem is not just the visible wavelengths from the sun, but also the IR, and to a lesser extent the UV. UV is less of a problem since most glass absorbs a fair amount of it anyway. IR contains a lot of the energy, and you need to ideally remove it before it gets into the lens. There are two basic choices: overall attenuation or selective attenuation.

 

For overall attenuation, you could try (G)ND filters although it is a bit of an unknown to me how they behave in the IR region, so may not offer much reduction at all. Safer is the use of a dedicated solar filter, BUT these are designed for looking AT the sun and have massive attenuation. For example, the Baader astrosolar film ND 5.0 claims to reduce light transmission by 99.9999%, which is somewhere over 16 stops! They have a slightly weaker ND 3.8 version but it seems hard to find on sale by itself.

 

For selective reduction of the IR band, the options are even more limited and a lot more expensive. In the astrophotography world, there are UV/IR blocking filters which will only pass visible wavelengths (also called L or luminance filters). To get one big enough to fit in front of a camera lens will be incredibly expensive. To save cost it is normal to get smaller ones to put at the back end. But in a camera, if it were to reflect that unwanted energy it still has to go somewhere and may collect inside the lens still.

[Brightcolours]

I see no problem in putting the sun somewhere in your images. Just don't stare at the sun with a tele lens. Or composition a shot slowly with live view.

[frank]

I see no problem in putting the sun somewhere in your images. Just don't stare at the sun with a tele lens. Or composition a shot slowly with live view.

 

 

I see. I would understand that it should not be a big issue shooting into the Sun if (1) shooting in dawn or sun set time instead of noon; (2) using a non-tele lens and not putting the Sun at or near the center of the frame; and (3) avoiding long exposure.

 

I am a little bit confused about point (2). I think the main purpose of it is to avoid the sunlight straightly hitting the sensor. But even with a FX 24mm wide angle lens, the sunlight would hit the sensor at an angle of 42 degree if the Sun is put at a corner of the frame and cos (42 deg) = 0.74 which only reduces the energy density only by a not large factor (but I understand a not so large factor may be critical in some cases)..

 

I am also confused about the point (3). If metered correctly long exposure impliese the apaerture is small (the F-number is large) but the overall energy absorbed by the snesor should not change.

 

Clarifications are welcome.

[thxbb12]

I see no problem in putting the sun somewhere in your images. Just don't stare at the sun with a tele lens. Or composition a shot slowly with live view.

 

I really like your shot #2 BC, well done.

[Brightcolours]

I see. I would understand that it should not be a big issue shooting into the Sun if (1) shooting in dawn or sun set time instead of noon; (2) using a non-tele lens and not putting the Sun at or near the center of the frame; and (3) avoiding long exposure.

 

I am a little bit confused about point (2). I think the main purpose of it is to avoid the sunlight straightly hitting the sensor. But even with a FX 24mm wide angle lens, the sunlight would hit the sensor at an angle of 42 degree if the Sun is put at a corner of the frame and cos (42 deg) = 0.74 which only reduces the energy density only by a not large factor (but I understand a not so large factor may be critical in some cases)..

 

I am also confused about the point (3). If metered correctly long exposure impliese the apaerture is small (the F-number is large) but the overall energy absorbed by the snesor should not change.

 

Clarifications are welcome.

I did not make point 1. Shooting at noon with the sun in the image is no problem.

I did not make point 2, I said don't stare at the sun with a tele lens. Why a tele lens? The angle of view will be narrow but the aperture will be big, allowing a lot of light to reach your eye.

I did not make point 3, I said slow composition with live view, which will expose your sensor for a long time with the direct sun light. Just to protect the sensor.

 

2 of the above images were taken with bright noon-ish sunlight in spring, no eye/camera were damaged in the making of them...  B)

I really like your shot #2 BC, well done.

Thanks thxbb12, it was taken with my 350D.

[frank]

I did not make point 1. Shooting at noon with the sun in the image is no problem.

I did not make point 2, I said don't stare at the sun with a tele lens. Why a tele lens? The angle of view will be narrow but the aperture will be big, allowing a lot of light to reach your eye.

I did not make point 3, I said slow composition with live view, which will expose your sensor for a long time with the direct sun light. Just to protect the sensor.

 

2 of the above images were taken with bright noon-ish sunlight in spring, no eye/camera were damaged in the making of them...  B)


Thanks thxbb12, it was taken with my 350D.

 

I got those three points from the internet.

[BasilG]

I think a large part of the problem is not just the visible wavelengths from the sun, but also the IR, and to a lesser extent the UV. UV is less of a problem since most glass absorbs a fair amount of it anyway. IR contains a lot of the energy, and you need to ideally remove it before it gets into the lens. 

 

 


IR photons contain less energy than those in the visible spectrum (E = hf = hc/λ where E is energy, h is Planck's constant, f is the frequency, c is speed of light, λ is wavelength). So I'd be surprised if that were of any worry, but am open to explanations as to why I am mistaken.

[BasilG]

I see. I would understand that it should not be a big issue shooting into the Sun if (1) shooting in dawn or sun set time instead of noon; (2) using a non-tele lens and not putting the Sun at or near the center of the frame; and (3) avoiding long exposure.

 

I am a little bit confused about point (2). I think the main purpose of it is to avoid the sunlight straightly hitting the sensor.

 

I don't think so. The main purpose is to limit the amount of direct sunlight entering through the lens. A telephoto lens has a bigger physical aperture size than a wide-angle lens. So at the same F-stop, you'll let more light enter the system with the telephoto lens - which is the main worry here.

 

That said, I shoot into the sun a lot, and I've never had any issue whatsoever (except for blown highlights and lens flare ). I think common sense is a good guide here (I don't think anybody will take his 400 mm telephoto and shoot directly into the sun in the middle of the day, it just doesn't make any sense).

[popo]

 

<div>IR photons contain less energy than those in the visible spectrum (E = hf = hc/λ where E is energy, h is Planck's constant, f is the frequency, c is speed of light, λ is wavelength). So I'd be surprised if that were of any worry, but am open to explanations as to why I am mistaken.
 

</div>

They might individually have less energy, but there are an awful lot of them. Total energy received is still significant.