How to prepare my camera for a solar eclipse

  • Thread starter Wrichik Basu
  • Start date
  • Featured
  • #1
1,926
1,838
There will be a solar eclipse on 26th December that can be viewed from my city. In addition to buying safety glasses, I also want to prepare my camera, if possible.

The camera is a Panasonic FZ-70. I have a UV protector and four ND filters - 2, 4, 8, 16. I am also buying a circular polarizer. With all these accessories stacked together, and high shutter speed (1/2000 s), low ISO (100) - will it be safe for taking pictures during the eclipse?

There are some solar filters available on Amazon, but their price forbids me from buying them.

Any additional advice?
 
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt

Answers and Replies

  • #3
sysprog
2,613
1,782
Some tips from Nikon -- https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-a...niques/how-to-photograph-a-solar-eclipse.html

People who just want to view the event can make a pinhole device. It's easy to do, and there are many documents and how-to videos on the net about it -- here's a sample: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/observe/Safely-Observing-the-Sun-for-Yourself.pdf

I would recommend, for safety reasons, that anyone contemplating viewing or photographing the sun in any way, eclipsed or not, should confirm the safety of the method with relevant information from a .gov or .edu site, e.g. https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/safety2.html
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre and Greg Bernhardt
  • #4
russ_watters
Mentor
21,866
8,842
There are some solar filters available on Amazon, but their price forbids me from buying them.
Amazon: Thousand Oaks Optical Solar Filter Sheet. Cheap, and installed with scissors and tape. Make sure it is flat and practice the camera settings ahead of time. Should be easy and you should get great pics with that camera.

Caveat; not a total eclipse, right? In which case the filter would be removed for totality.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur, BillTre, sysprog and 1 other person
  • #5
13,933
7,882
As others have said there are many how to guides on line so in addition to what we say here you might find other ideas.

https://www.howtogeek.com/321132/how-to-take-photos-of-a-solar-eclipse-safely/

You should have multiple cameras too for different kinds of photos. As an example, sun light filtering through leaves during the eclipse will show a scalloping effect on stuff on the ground which is in fact the leaves acting as a pinhole camera.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-z_V3pWaD...ves+during+solar+eclipse+2017+WA_IMG_0804.jpg
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, BillTre, sysprog and 1 other person
  • #6
anorlunda
Staff Emeritus
Insights Author
10,873
8,182
Don't forget that pictures of the crescent shaped shadows, such as caused by "pinhole" gaps between leaves on a tree are also fun. Some of the cameras should point away from the sun to see those fun images also.

A few years ago, I posted some pictures here of those crescent shadows on the body of our beloved late @jim hardy.
 
  • Like
Likes jedishrfu and sysprog
  • #7
1,926
1,838
Don't forget that pictures of the crescent shaped shadows, such as caused by "pinhole" gaps between leaves on a tree are also fun. Some of the cameras should point away from the sun to see those fun images also.
Unfortunately it's all buildings around me. There are trees, but not ones that I can go near (the trees are in other people's property; you will not want to mess with those people). We do have a small roof garden, but the plants have lost most of their foliage in the wake of winter. Photos like what @jedishrfu posted is impossible for me to capture.
 
  • #8
13,933
7,882
Here's another take on total eclipses by Destin Sandlin of SmarterEveryday youtube channel:

 
  • #9
1,926
1,838
This afternoon I took a risk and shot a photo of the sun. It was around 2pm local time; the Sun was losing its mirth. The settings were as mentioned in the OP. The UV filter was nearest to the lens, and the ND filters were stacked randomly. The circular polarizer was not used.

P1120741.JPG


Before clicking the above photo, I took one snap of the surroundings with the same settings. It was pitch black.

P1120744.JPG
 
  • #10
anorlunda
Staff Emeritus
Insights Author
10,873
8,182
Unfortunately it's all buildings around me. There are trees, but not ones that I can go near (the trees are in other people's property; you will not want to mess with those people). We do have a small roof garden, but the plants have lost most of their foliage in the wake of winter.
Even window shades or venetian blinds can do the same thing. Prepare for being surprised by having cameras that can look all around you.
 
  • Like
Likes Wrichik Basu
  • #11
DaveC426913
Gold Member
21,067
4,440
I got a 5x8 sheet of welder's glass from my local Princess Auto for about 16 bucks.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #12
1,926
1,838
I got a 5x8 sheet of welder's glass from my local Princess Auto for about 16 bucks.
Good idea. That should provide good protection from the UV radiation.
 
  • #13
Andy Resnick
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
7,705
2,582
This afternoon I took a risk and shot a photo of the sun. It was around 2pm local time; the Sun was losing its mirth. The settings were as mentioned in the OP. The UV filter was nearest to the lens, and the ND filters were stacked randomly. The circular polarizer was not used.

View attachment 253983

Did you use all 4 of the ND filters for this?

When I photograph the sun, I use an OD 4 reflective filter (partially silvered glass). This is important! If your filters are absorptive, you are going to burn them. Similarly, do not use the circular polarizer- you will torch it. And you probably don't need the UV filter since you have the ND filters. For me, using the OD4 filter lets me expose at (IIRC) f/4 and 1/2000s when the sun is high in the sky. Fast shutter speeds are required to freeze atmospheric distortions.

It's also worth mentioning that an OD 4 filter transmits 10^-4 of the incident light, while (for example) an ND 16 filter transmits 1/16 of the light. Use of all 4 ND filters results in a net transmission of 10^-3, so I'm not surprised that your image is overexposed. If you haven't, stop the lens down more.

As a rule of thumb, just briefly look (bare-eyed) through your stacked ND filters at the sun, that should give you an idea about how much light is incident on the sensor.

One advantage you have with stacked filters is that you can remove filters as the sun is occulted to more-or-less maintain the same exposure settings. Regarding the order of the filters, it's hard to say what is 'best practice'. Again, if they are absorptive filters you need to really limit the time you are actively observing the sun.
 
  • Informative
Likes Wrichik Basu
  • #14
1,926
1,838
Did you use all 4 of the ND filters for this?
Yes, all four.
If your filters are absorptive, you are going to burn them. Similarly, do not use the circular polarizer- you will torch it.
I will not point the lens towards the sun for anything more than the minimum time required to take a photo - zoom, focus, click. I generally use MF rather than AF, especially for shots like these. Depending on the image quality, I will change the exposure values (without pointing at the sun), and then take another photo. Maybe 5s per click. Will this damage the filters?
I'm not surprised that your image is overexposed.
I reduced the ISO and increased the shutter speed, but did not play with the aperture. Maybe a lower aperture value would have resulted in a slightly better shot.
 
  • #15
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
27,599
6,225
If your filters are absorptive, you are going to burn them.
I think this is unnecessarily pessimistic. ND filters left out in the Sun will not frazzle - neither will most other materials - if exposed for only a few minutes. Not many things will do more than get hot to the touch after prolonged exposure.
Filter damage arises when you place filters in the path of light that's been concentrated by a light gathering lens or mirror. (Near the eyepiece of a telescope for instance)
Of course, at the focal point of a camera lens, the attenuation by front end filters needs to be great enough to protect the sensor (or even the focal plane shutter)
The shiny Mylar Solar filter material that's for sale on Amazon and other Astro suppliers will safely reduce the light levels so that you can look directly or point the camera at the Sun. The film is not high quality but it will give pretty acceptable images through a 'long' camera lens. But even a 500mm lens won't fill the image sensor and you need to crop the pictures.

I generally use MF rather than AF, especially for shots like these.
+1 Essential. Your camera will be fighting against your requirements to get a suitably underexposed shot. Bracketting exposures can be an advantage if you want to get the best images of the corona in a total eclipse - or even sunspots.
 
  • Like
Likes Wrichik Basu and russ_watters
  • #16
Andy Resnick
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
7,705
2,582
Filter damage arises when you place filters in the path of light that's been concentrated by a light gathering lens or mirror.

That's the case for my lens that I use- the filter holder is located near the aperture stop, not the entrance pupil, giving a "concentration factor" of about 8.
 
  • #17
Andy Resnick
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
7,705
2,582
I will change the exposure values (without pointing at the sun), and then take another photo. Maybe 5s per click. Will this damage the filters?

Probably not, but be aware.
 
  • Like
Likes Wrichik Basu
  • #18
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
27,599
6,225
That's the case for my lens that I use- the filter holder is located near the aperture stop, not the entrance pupil, giving a "concentration factor" of about 8.
My Pentax doesn't handle clip-in filters. I need one diameter of filter for each lens (on the front) and, of course, as my lenses get bigger, adaptors won't do - I think that applies to most people and the OP talks in terms of stacking filters so I doubt he has clip ins.

You are lucky - probably a Canon?
 
  • #19
Andy Resnick
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
7,705
2,582
My Pentax doesn't handle clip-in filters. I need one diameter of filter for each lens (on the front) and, of course, as my lenses get bigger, adaptors won't do - I think that applies to most people and the OP talks in terms of stacking filters so I doubt he has clip ins.

You are lucky - probably a Canon?

The 400/2.8 lens has a slot for a 'drop-in' filter- the advantage is that the filters need only be 52mm diameter instead of 150mm, but the disadvantage is that the filter has to be thinner than usual- when I needed to replace my polarizer (ahem...) I had to grind down the replacement until it was thin enough.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
  • #20
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
27,599
6,225
The 400/2.8 lens
It's a 'camera' lens, rather than a 'telescope' then? Telescope OTAs are a bit more modular. It's swings and roundabouts between the two approaches but your drop in filter system is sort of half way between. What make is it?
 
  • #21
Andy Resnick
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
7,705
2,582
It's a 'camera' lens, rather than a 'telescope' then? Telescope OTAs are a bit more modular. It's swings and roundabouts between the two approaches but your drop in filter system is sort of half way between. What make is it?

It's a "Ai-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8 ED-IF" to which I can attach a 2X teleconverter TC-301.

More info here:
https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/telephotos/400mm.htm
https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/teleconverter/index6.htm#TC-301
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
  • #22
DaveC426913
Gold Member
21,067
4,440
I generally use MF rather than AF, especially for shots like these.
+1 Essential. Your camera will be fighting against your requirements to get a suitably underexposed shot. Bracketting exposures can be an advantage if you want to get the best images of the corona in a total eclipse - or even sunspots.
Not to nitpick, but WB was talking about focus, not exposure.
 
  • #23
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
27,599
6,225
Not to nitpick, but WB was talking about focus, not exposure.
Hah! A valid nit. Manual Focus is vital for all but the smartest of cameras. MF and MX both important for good Astro images.
 
  • #24
1,926
1,838
Took another snap today. Settings: Shutter speed 1/2000 s, Aperture f/5.9, ISO 100. Four ND filters stacked together, with a UV filter. Local time: 3-12pm.

P1120852.JPG


One silly mistake that I have made is that, I have not used a timer. The photo seems to be out-of-focus.

The time of the (partial) eclipse is 8:27am to 11:32am IST.
 
  • #25
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
27,599
6,225
One silly mistake that I have made is that, I have not used a timer.
Sorry but I don't understand what a timer would be for if you are using an exposure of 1/2000s.
Manual focus is pretty important as the camera will have little information to go on in that scene if it is trying to autofocus. I have found the same problem with astro pictures. The sharpness of focus is subjectively different in a normal scene in which 'some' parts can be in focus and others not, without the picture looking particularly blurry. Solution is to take a lot of exposures and to make sure the image in the finder is not too bright; the eye is not used to focussing on single bright images on a dark background (just like the camera's brain, I suppose). Live view can help if you have it on your camera. Zoom lens controls can be very 'loose' and the ∞ on the scale means not a lot. A stack of ND filters can cause flare if the source is very bright and the flare in the first filter of a stack won't be undone by subsequent filters - unlike with a purpose built high attenuation filter - which will do a much better job of suppressing multiple internal paths.
A Baader solar filter is not very expensive (certainly not in terms of the possible cost of travelling to a suitable viewing site and you can get the mylar film and make up your own for only a few quid plus some cardboard to stick it on.
 
  • Like
Likes Wrichik Basu
  • #26
davenn
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2021 Award
9,626
8,842
One silly mistake that I have made is that, I have not used a timer.

why is that a mistake ? it isn't needed ( not for the actual photos) an accurate clock is handy
if you want to log 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th contacts.

The photo seems to be out-of-focus.

Ever so slightly, it takes practice and a steady camera. And of course manual focus is essential.
Don't even try with AF. A solid mount for the camera is essential and preferably a cable release
so that you are not physically touching the camera and bumping it. Tho, this last bit, is more
essential for longer astro photos.

Over all it's a great effort :smile:
Just increase you exposure a little, it's a bit on the dark side.
Something between 1000th and 2000th of a sec if the cam will do that
otherwise up the ISO to ~ 200. It will have the same effect

Dave
 
  • Like
Likes Wrichik Basu
  • #27
1,926
1,838
Sorry but I don't understand what a timer would be for if you are using an exposure of 1/2000s.
why is that a mistake ? it isn't needed ( not for the actual photos) an accurate clock is handy
Maybe there is a bit of confusion. By timer, I mean an interval timer. I set the timer to 5s, press the button, and move away from the camera while it takes a picture.

The intention is to simulate the same effect as in the use of a cable release.
 
  • #28
davenn
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2021 Award
9,626
8,842
The photo seems to be out-of-focus.

This is also partly due to the fact that you are shooting through several layers of lower quality glass
.... all those filters. This will significantly reduce the image quality.

Before buying commercial solar filters for my camera and scope, I always relied on 2 or 3 layers of
mylar film. This stuff is easily obtainable from your local camping store, sold as survival blankets.

It gives the sun a bright white to blue image.
Some of my many eclipses I have photo'ed over the years

1991 annular solar eclipse ...

910115 Annular Eclipse frm Blenheim NZ.jpg


1998 partial solar eclipse ....

980822 Partial SE frm Dunedin08.jpg


proper solar filters usually give a yellow - orange colour
this is the partial stage of a total eclipse I travelled to NE Australia for in Nov 2012
You can even see some sunspots

IMGP0743b.jpg



Totality (as some one said earlier) requires NO FILTER.

Another couple from Cairns, NE Australia 2012

Totality .. no filter ... diamond ring effect -- 1/100 sec, ISO100

IMGP0757b.jpg



D
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and Wrichik Basu
  • #29
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
27,599
6,225
preferably a cable release
Oh boy. Those were the days. Since I first bought a Digital Camera, the remote has always been wireless.
My two DSLRs have had a 2s delay facility between lifting the mirror and making the actual exposure. That helps to reduce shake. An exposure time of 1/f, where f is the focal length of the lens, is reckoned to be short enough to avoid hand held shake. A good tripod is important but solar pictures shouldn't involve long enough exposures to be a worry (I have found). But shake and focus problems can be ironed out with a more suitable image than the sun. Look at a star on a clear night and blow up the image. Your Airey disc will likely be only of the order of a very few pixels. If you mark the precise spot on the focus scale where this is achieved (fine scriber) you should avoid the focus (? if it really is that) problems in that picture above. But changing a lens between shots can alter things so don't touch it. Keep everything clean in the bayonet fitting.
Astro enthusiasts go to a lot of trouble to have a steady mount and a decking floor can give serious shake - likewise a washing machine spinning or passing traffic can be detected by 'enthusiasts.
And of course, a 'clear day' may be a lot less clear than you think so the atmosphere can always be to blame and bad results may not be the photographer's fault at all. This can be dealt with by taking a movie and using fancy software to drag the best image out of a few hundred frames.
 
  • #30
1,926
1,838
This is also partly due to the fact that you are shooting through several layers of lower quality glass
.... all those filters. This will significantly reduce the image quality.
We can't even think of photos like those ones you posted. The lenses that we bought was for landscape photography and not meant for astrophotography. Being low on budget, one has to sometimes push things beyond their limits...
 
  • #31
davenn
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2021 Award
9,626
8,842
Finally, during totality, vary the exposure so
1) capture the details around the limb -- fast shutter -- 1/100 sec ISO100

IMGP0761b.jpg



2) slower shutter to capture the corona -- 1/50 sec, ISO3200

IMGP0773sm.jpg



Dave
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, Wrichik Basu and sophiecentaur
  • #32
davenn
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2021 Award
9,626
8,842
We can't even think of photos like those ones you posted. The lenses that we bought was for landscape photography and not meant for astrophotography. Being low on budget, one has to sometimes push things beyond their limits...

you will be surprised what you can achieve, even with a modest camera :smile:

good focussing and just enough exposure will give great results
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, Wrichik Basu and sophiecentaur
  • #33
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
27,599
6,225
The lenses that we bought was for landscape photography and not meant for astrophotography.
Don't be too pessimistic. A good lens is a good lens. You tend to get what you pay for and most commonly used photographic lenses have too short a focal length to produce a big solar image. But that means you are working at the centre of the field which will have the lowest aberrations.
Dave has a fair amount of experience in these matters and I would bet he could produce some pretty fair efforts using your equipment. Just taking the sort of care that you need to produce decent photos of your cat will allow good results - but there is a lot to get right which is nothing to do with the actual camera. Get very used to handling the camera equipment long before you actually need to use it in anger. Keep everything clean and blow dust out of the camera (not with your damp breath!!) when you change lenses. Sensor cleaning is no big deal if you are careful. Dust bunnies can show up on the face of the Sun and they are on your sensor not millions of miles away. High f numbers are worst for showing them up.
There are features of regular camera lenses that can affect overall astro quality. For instance, the multi-leaf iris will produce diffraction artefacts with point sources of light. A telescope has just a round tube. Also, a good telescope will also have an appropriately good mount which will / could track the motion of the heavens and avoid star trails on long exposures and produce fewer streaks around the edges of the field (a flat field will cost you).
 
  • Like
Likes Wrichik Basu and davenn
  • #34
davenn
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2021 Award
9,626
8,842
There will be a solar eclipse on 26th December that can be viewed from my city.

All, I just did a search, I see it will be an annular eclipse like in that first photo in my post in post #28

This is when the sun is not fully covered by the moon. You will need a filter throughout the eclipse.
As the eclipse progresses to full annular ( mid-eclipse) you will have to lower the shutter speed as
the amount of the light from the sun decreases, else you will end up with under exposed images.


Dave
 
  • Like
Likes Wrichik Basu and sophiecentaur
  • #35
davenn
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2021 Award
9,626
8,842
@Wrichik Basu

This is great advice .....

Get very used to handling the camera equipment long before you actually need to use it in anger.

You still have a week and a bit before the eclipse. Practice over and over with producing sharp and well
exposed photos of the sun over this time
 
  • Like
Likes Wrichik Basu and sophiecentaur

Suggested for: How to prepare my camera for a solar eclipse

Replies
4
Views
206
Replies
4
Views
898
Replies
2
Views
958
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
422
Replies
3
Views
355
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
367
Replies
1
Views
334
Replies
4
Views
384
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
676
Top