If f4 fast enough for shooting the eclipse?

[Camrarat]

Including totality? Without a tripod?/handheld?

At landscape focal lengths? And telephoto closeup of the sun?

 

[Bassam Guy]

Including totality? Without a tripod?/handheld?

At landscape focal lengths? And telephoto closeup of the sun?

Yes, except maybe totality. I'll be around 90% so I didn't read much about totality. Here are some notes I took and the source:

~1/500s ~f4-8 ISO 100-400
Totality ~1/2s
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4704120

Lots of YT videos and web articles on this.

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

Including totality? Without a tripod?/handheld?

At landscape focal lengths? And telephoto closeup of the sun?

Yes, except maybe totality. I'll be around 90% so I didn't read much about totality. Here are some notes I took and the source:

~1/500s ~f4-8 ISO 100-400
Totality ~1/2s
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4704120

Lots of YT videos and web articles on this.

f/5.6-f/8 is actually best for solar eclipses

you only need a really fast lens for a lunar eclipse, those are MUCH harder to photograph

 

[NowHearThis]

You can shoot at F4, it seems many lenses might be better at F5.6. That’s what I used last time (2017).

Including totality?

Yep

Without a tripod?/handheld?

Yes, but I wouldn’t. You’ll be better off with a tripod. And I’ll argue this point indefinitely if need be.

At landscape focal lengths?

I’d use something longer than 100mm, I think mine were taken at 145mm, and if I had longer I would have used it.

And telephoto closeup of the sun?

Again, The longer the better and hurry up and buy your solar film quickly before they run out.

Now the next set of photos are… odd to say the least, but they let me capture a Solar Eclipse in 2017 and a Lunar Eclipse last year.


Olympus Pen-F + Olympus 40-150R (kit lens). Aperture fixed at F5.6, ISO set to 320 (raised it to speed up the shutter speed), Shutter speed varried from 1/80sec to 1/30sec. Totality was at 1/160sec. Focal length was 145mm. And yes, I cut the top and bottom off a can of corn and just taped solar film to the one end. No need for expensive filters, this also let me remove the jury-rigged setup quickly to be able to immediately start capturing totality.


Here’s the end result with a kit lens. Better lenses will turn out better results.


When the Lunar eclipse happened last year I decided not to change what worked last time. Olympus EM1.3 + Panasonic 45-150 + can of corn and solar film… Not a fan of this lens, but it was the longest I had, still worked out alright. F8, ISO200, 1/160 to 1/320.


End Result (albeit, this is just a very quick and dirty stack job, I haven't taken any time to blend the darker background, so consider this a rough draft)

F4 shouldn’t be a problem, but F5.6 or F8 might also work - they did for me. Use Manual Mode, Use a tripod, use the best lens you can. These should be the worst case results you should get. And again, buy that solar film now!

Please share your shots, I unfortunately can’t go this time.

--
NHT

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

You can shoot at F4, it seems many lenses might be better at F5.6. That’s what I used last time (2017).

Including totality?

Yep

Without a tripod?/handheld?

Yes, but I wouldn’t. You’ll be better off with a tripod. And I’ll argue this point indefinitely if need be.

At landscape focal lengths?

I’d use something longer than 100mm, I think mine were taken at 145mm, and if I had longer I would have used it.

And telephoto closeup of the sun?

Again, The longer the better and hurry up and buy your solar film quickly before they run out.

Now the next set of photos are… odd to say the least, but they let me capture a Solar Eclipse in 2017 and a Lunar Eclipse last year.


Olympus Pen-F + Olympus 40-150R (kit lens). Aperture fixed at F5.6, ISO set to 320 (raised it to speed up the shutter speed), Shutter speed varried from 1/80sec to 1/30sec. Totality was at 1/160sec. Focal length was 145mm. And yes, I cut the top and bottom off a can of corn and just taped solar film to the one end. No need for expensive filters, this also let me remove the jury-rigged setup quickly to be able to immediately start capturing totality.


Here’s the end result with a kit lens. Better lenses will turn out better results.


When the Lunar eclipse happened last year I decided not to change what worked last time. Olympus EM1.3 + Panasonic 45-150 + can of corn and solar film… Not a fan of this lens, but it was the longest I had, still worked out alright. F8, ISO200, 1/160 to 1/320.


End Result (albeit, this is just a very quick and dirty stack job, I haven't taken any time to blend the darker background, so consider this a rough draft)

F4 shouldn’t be a problem, but F5.6 or F8 might also work - they did for me. Use Manual Mode, Use a tripod, use the best lens you can. These should be the worst case results you should get. And again, buy that solar film now!

Please share your shots, I unfortunately can’t go this time.

why solar film? I love glass filters and I'm fine with my ND filter with 16.6 stops. I can reuse it for solar spots and for transits by planets for years to come.... I just don't like flimsy films with cardboard containers.



--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

 

[Photongraphy]

Totality doesn't last long - perfect alignment only a few seconds. With solar film you can prefocus and remove the film in an instant. Hard to get things right, on time, if you have to unscrew filters and focus first. I guess it's doable, but the chance to miss the moment is significantly bigger.

 

[Bassam Guy]

Totality doesn't last long - perfect alignment only a few seconds. With solar film you can prefocus and remove the film in an instant. Hard to get things right, on time, if you have to unscrew filters and focus first. I guess it's doable, but the chance to miss the moment is significantly bigger.

I am a novice but don't you just focus on the sun once, leisurely before anything spectacular happens and then lock the focus? Does the earth to sun distance change enough during the eclipse to warrant refocusing?

 

[Photongraphy]

Correct. But the sun is much too bright, you don't want to burn your sensor and use protection (solar film or nd filters) when focussing in advance - or take pictures before totality. When using filters you have to unscrew them, before totallity, which will throw you out of focus...

So NHT's solution is very clever IMO.

 

[Bassam Guy]

Correct. But the sun is much too bright, you don't want to burn your sensor and use protection (solar film or nd filters) when focussing in advance - or take pictures before totality. When using filters you have to unscrew them, before totallity, which will throw you out of focus...

So NHT's solution is very clever IMO.

Obviously you'd want sufficient ND before focusing but what is "correct" about my two unanswered questions?

 

[Photongraphy]

Sharp

Correct: it's smart to focus in advance, and relax.

And, no - the distance to the sun doesn't change. However... the light does bend around the moon's surface. Theoretically the light does travel a little further... not enough to impact focus though.

 

[NowHearThis]

You can shoot at F4, it seems many lenses might be better at F5.6. That’s what I used last time (2017).

Including totality?

Yep

Without a tripod?/handheld?

Yes, but I wouldn’t. You’ll be better off with a tripod. And I’ll argue this point indefinitely if need be.

At landscape focal lengths?

I’d use something longer than 100mm, I think mine were taken at 145mm, and if I had longer I would have used it.

And telephoto closeup of the sun?

Again, The longer the better and hurry up and buy your solar film quickly before they run out.

Now the next set of photos are… odd to say the least, but they let me capture a Solar Eclipse in 2017 and a Lunar Eclipse last year.


Olympus Pen-F + Olympus 40-150R (kit lens). Aperture fixed at F5.6, ISO set to 320 (raised it to speed up the shutter speed), Shutter speed varried from 1/80sec to 1/30sec. Totality was at 1/160sec. Focal length was 145mm. And yes, I cut the top and bottom off a can of corn and just taped solar film to the one end. No need for expensive filters, this also let me remove the jury-rigged setup quickly to be able to immediately start capturing totality.


Here’s the end result with a kit lens. Better lenses will turn out better results.


When the Lunar eclipse happened last year I decided not to change what worked last time. Olympus EM1.3 + Panasonic 45-150 + can of corn and solar film… Not a fan of this lens, but it was the longest I had, still worked out alright. F8, ISO200, 1/160 to 1/320.


End Result (albeit, this is just a very quick and dirty stack job, I haven't taken any time to blend the darker background, so consider this a rough draft)

F4 shouldn’t be a problem, but F5.6 or F8 might also work - they did for me. Use Manual Mode, Use a tripod, use the best lens you can. These should be the worst case results you should get. And again, buy that solar film now!

Please share your shots, I unfortunately can’t go this time.

why solar film?

Cost $12 the first time (bought last minute so I paid a higher price and all they had was a 12"x12" sheet), Paid $6 the second time (for a smaller 5"x5" sheet). Works nearly as well (as you can see) and it's a fraction of the cost. Honestly the weakest link was the lens, I wish I had something like the PL100-400 for these. I'm not likely to see another eclipse in my lifetime unless I go outside of the US so no need for me to spend a ton for a filter on lenses I...dislike but need occasionally. I spent $18 and got what I wanted for the equipment I had.

I love glass filters and I'm fine with my ND filter with 16.6 stops. I can reuse it for solar spots and for transits by planets for years to come.... I just don't like flimsy films with cardboard containers.

That's fine. Better equipment is always better. And as I said before, using what I used should turn out these results, better equipment should give you better results. I just showed the OP what "could" be done. I'll leave "should" to people who've taken better eclipse photos than me.

One thing with the solar filter (not film) you'll want to still figure out a quick way to remove it because the Bailey's Beads, the diamond, and totality itself doesn't last long. My solution the fastest thing I could come up with. I'm sure others have better or other clever ideas.

--
NHT

 

[NowHearThis]

Totality doesn't last long - perfect alignment only a few seconds. With solar film you can prefocus and remove the film in an instant. Hard to get things right, on time, if you have to unscrew filters and focus first. I guess it's doable, but the chance to miss the moment is significantly bigger.

Yep, and it's dirt cheap if bought ahead of time.

 

[NowHearThis]

Correct. But the sun is much too bright, you don't want to burn your sensor and use protection (solar film or nd filters) when focussing in advance - or take pictures before totality. When using filters you have to unscrew them, before totallity, which will throw you out of focus...

So NHT's solution is very clever IMO.

Thank you,

Two quick notes:

Focus: My Pen-F could not focus through the solar film (It's AF system was meh), I instead focused on some bluffs about 5 miles away then switched to MF in the Quick Menu afterwards. My EM1.3 had 0 issue focusing through the solar filter.

Sensor Protection: Even with the solar film, I still put a ball cap over my contraptions as another measure of precaution. And just removed it to take a quick photo every so often. Not saying anyone has to do this. I'm just overly cautious with my gear sometimes.

 

[Photongraphy]

Correct. But the sun is much too bright, you don't want to burn your sensor and use protection (solar film or nd filters) when focussing in advance - or take pictures before totality. When using filters you have to unscrew them, before totallity, which will throw you out of focus...

So NHT's solution is very clever IMO.

Thank you,

Two quick notes:

Focus: My Pen-F could not focus through the solar film (It's AF system was meh), I instead focused on some bluffs about 5 miles away then switched to MF in the Quick Menu afterwards. My EM1.3 had 0 issue focusing through the solar filter.

Sensor Protection: Even with the solar film, I still put a ball cap over my contraptions as another measure of precaution. And just removed it to take a quick photo every so often. Not saying anyone has to do this. I'm just overly cautious with my gear sometimes.

clever! - I really like the simple and effective solutions you came up with.

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

Sharp

Correct: it's smart to focus in advance, and relax.

And, no - the distance to the sun doesn't change. However... the light does bend around the moon's surface. Theoretically the light does travel a little further... not enough to impact focus though.

well you'd probably be the person to ask because I'm perplexed about a few things.

why do they make both 16.6 stop and 20 stop ND filters?

is there something the 20 stop filter would be better at? It sounds like it would be too dim, especially since the official recommendations are to use 16.6 stop filters for solar photography.

I read somewhere that 20 stop filters are for places where the sun is stronger-- like Florida. Is this true?

What about ND filters that don't block IR and UV? Are these okay since all our cameras have built in IR and UV blockers (10 stops of blocking I think?)

As an aside, can I use these 16.6 stop filters for IR and UV photography? What's the difference between these filters and for example Hoya R72 and B+W 403 filters?

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

You can shoot at F4, it seems many lenses might be better at F5.6. That’s what I used last time (2017).

Including totality?

Yep

Without a tripod?/handheld?

Yes, but I wouldn’t. You’ll be better off with a tripod. And I’ll argue this point indefinitely if need be.

At landscape focal lengths?

I’d use something longer than 100mm, I think mine were taken at 145mm, and if I had longer I would have used it.

And telephoto closeup of the sun?

Again, The longer the better and hurry up and buy your solar film quickly before they run out.

Now the next set of photos are… odd to say the least, but they let me capture a Solar Eclipse in 2017 and a Lunar Eclipse last year.


Olympus Pen-F + Olympus 40-150R (kit lens). Aperture fixed at F5.6, ISO set to 320 (raised it to speed up the shutter speed), Shutter speed varried from 1/80sec to 1/30sec. Totality was at 1/160sec. Focal length was 145mm. And yes, I cut the top and bottom off a can of corn and just taped solar film to the one end. No need for expensive filters, this also let me remove the jury-rigged setup quickly to be able to immediately start capturing totality.


Here’s the end result with a kit lens. Better lenses will turn out better results.


When the Lunar eclipse happened last year I decided not to change what worked last time. Olympus EM1.3 + Panasonic 45-150 + can of corn and solar film… Not a fan of this lens, but it was the longest I had, still worked out alright. F8, ISO200, 1/160 to 1/320.


End Result (albeit, this is just a very quick and dirty stack job, I haven't taken any time to blend the darker background, so consider this a rough draft)

F4 shouldn’t be a problem, but F5.6 or F8 might also work - they did for me. Use Manual Mode, Use a tripod, use the best lens you can. These should be the worst case results you should get. And again, buy that solar film now!

Please share your shots, I unfortunately can’t go this time.

why solar film?

Cost $12 the first time (bought last minute so I paid a higher price and all they had was a 12"x12" sheet), Paid $6 the second time (for a smaller 5"x5" sheet). Works nearly as well (as you can see) and it's a fraction of the cost. Honestly the weakest link was the lens, I wish I had something like the PL100-400 for these. I'm not likely to see another eclipse in my lifetime unless I go outside of the US so no need for me to spend a ton for a filter on lenses I...dislike but need occasionally. I spent $18 and got what I wanted for the equipment I had.

I love glass filters and I'm fine with my ND filter with 16.6 stops. I can reuse it for solar spots and for transits by planets for years to come.... I just don't like flimsy films with cardboard containers.

That's fine. Better equipment is always better. And as I said before, using what I used should turn out these results, better equipment should give you better results. I just showed the OP what "could" be done. I'll leave "should" to people who've taken better eclipse photos than me.

One thing with the solar filter (not film) you'll want to still figure out a quick way to remove it because the Bailey's Beads, the diamond, and totality itself doesn't last long. My solution the fastest thing I could come up with. I'm sure others have better or other clever ideas.

You made some really good points about what solar film can do better in terms of getting it on and off faster. I actually have solar film left over from the 2017 eclipse I might try to use. I bought lots of it and some of it never got used so I'm going to get that out and shoot with two cameras one will get the film the other will get the glass.

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

 

[Photongraphy]

Sharp

Correct: it's smart to focus in advance, and relax.

And, no - the distance to the sun doesn't change. However... the light does bend around the moon's surface. Theoretically the light does travel a little further... not enough to impact focus though.

well you'd probably be the person to ask because I'm perplexed about a few things.

why do they make both 16.6 stop and 20 stop ND filters?

is there something the 20 stop filter would be better at? It sounds like it would be too dim, especially since the official recommendations are to use 16.6 stop filters for solar photography.

I read somewhere that 20 stop filters are for places where the sun is stronger-- like Florida. Is this true?

What about ND filters that don't block IR and UV? Are these okay since all our cameras have built in IR and UV blockers (10 stops of blocking I think?)

As an aside, can I use these 16.6 stop filters for IR and UV photography? What's the difference between these filters and for example Hoya R72 and B+W 403 filters?

Honestly I don't know. I know a little about physics, but have no detailled information about these products.

Difference between 16.6 and 20 stops IMO is to small to matter. Atmospherical circumstances/position of the sun can give a larger variation than this.

Camera sensors are sensitive for a larger spectrum than our eyes, the filtering applied in camera's is to correct this, so pictures look like we see them. I don't know how strong this filtering is, and it differs per camera/sensor. Based on the fact that olympus cameras sometimes show purple flares with Panny lenses, where Panny bodies have no problem, we know that UV filtering in Oly cameras isually is weaker.

I wouldn't take the risk.

Sorry I can't give you no real answers...

 

[Yar1971]

Including totality? Without a tripod?/handheld?

At landscape focal lengths? And telephoto closeup of the sun?

You're too imprecise, I'm afraid. What You mean by "landscape focal lengths"? But I'll try:

You can without tripod, but You're limited:

1) WA shots with landscape and eclipsed Sun together - You can go freely with it, especially with IS. But note that this time Sun will be very high above horizon during eclipse... UWA lens or fisheye

2) You can go with medium telephoto. My colegue from 2017 US trip decided not to take tripod and he made successful photos of eclipsed Sun with roughly 105 mm lens on APS-C Nikon DSLR. But, but: there are severe limitations of this approach:

-Small image scale ( You should rather go toward at least 300 mm FL on mft)

-Limited range of exposure, as You can't go towards longer shutter times, so no very outer solar corona probably

-If Your AF would struggle during totality, without tripod You can't go with precise MF for long telephoto lenses

Conclusion:

Use the tripod for all but option 1) . Period.

Regards,

-J.

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

Sharp

Correct: it's smart to focus in advance, and relax.

And, no - the distance to the sun doesn't change. However... the light does bend around the moon's surface. Theoretically the light does travel a little further... not enough to impact focus though.

well you'd probably be the person to ask because I'm perplexed about a few things.

why do they make both 16.6 stop and 20 stop ND filters?

is there something the 20 stop filter would be better at? It sounds like it would be too dim, especially since the official recommendations are to use 16.6 stop filters for solar photography.

I read somewhere that 20 stop filters are for places where the sun is stronger-- like Florida. Is this true?

What about ND filters that don't block IR and UV? Are these okay since all our cameras have built in IR and UV blockers (10 stops of blocking I think?)

As an aside, can I use these 16.6 stop filters for IR and UV photography? What's the difference between these filters and for example Hoya R72 and B+W 403 filters?

Honestly I don't know. I know a little about physics, but have no detailled information about these products.

Difference between 16.6 and 20 stops IMO is to small to matter. Atmospherical circumstances/position of the sun can give a larger variation than this.

Camera sensors are sensitive for a larger spectrum than our eyes, the filtering applied in camera's is to correct this, so pictures look like we see them. I don't know how strong this filtering is, and it differs per camera/sensor. Based on the fact that olympus cameras sometimes show purple flares with Panny lenses, where Panny bodies have no problem, we know that UV filtering in Oly cameras isually is weaker.

I wouldn't take the risk.

Sorry I can't give you no real answers...

Thanks, well I already keep a UV protector on my camera lenses when I use them, so I think that takes care of that (and our lenses aren't sensitive to UV) so I just need to take care of the IR part of the equation. I actually think the 20 stop filter would be more dangerous than the 16.6 stop filter for IR, because assuming they both let in the same amount of IR, the 20 stop filter would require longer exposures thus expose the sensor to IR for longer than the 16.6 stop filter.

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

 

[greenmanphoto]

Sharp

Correct: it's smart to focus in advance, and relax.

And, no - the distance to the sun doesn't change. However... the light does bend around the moon's surface. Theoretically the light does travel a little further... not enough to impact focus though.

well you'd probably be the person to ask because I'm perplexed about a few things.

why do they make both 16.6 stop and 20 stop ND filters?

is there something the 20 stop filter would be better at? It sounds like it would be too dim, especially since the official recommendations are to use 16.6 stop filters for solar photography.

I don't know the answers to these questions, but could probably look it up. Alternatively, you might find answers either at NASA's information on eclipse photography or at www.mreclipse.com, Fred Espenak's site, a well-known expert in eclipse photography.

I read somewhere that 20 stop filters are for places where the sun is stronger-- like Florida. Is this true?

Unknown to me, but somewhere with more intense sunshine might require a stronger ND filter.

What about ND filters that don't block IR and UV? Are these okay since all our cameras have built in IR and UV blockers (10 stops of blocking I think?)

No. Do NOT use a filter that doesn't block IR and UV light, as well. These forms of light radiation are what cause damage to sensors and our eyes. With a mirrorless body like the Olympus cameras, it's not QUITE as critical since there's no direct optical path from the viewfinder to the lens. However, for a DSLR, you'd risk damaging your eyesight, possibly without evening knowing it until much later. This sort of damage to the eyes is irreparable at this time, causing permanent issues.

As an aside, can I use these 16.6 stop filters for IR and UV photography? What's the difference between these filters and for example Hoya R72 and B+W 403 filters?

These sorts of filters block FAR too much of the visible light to be useful for anything other than shooting at the Sun, AFAIK. I can't think of much of anything else, except perhaps for something like shooting a welder or something else with an EXTREMELY intense and bright light source.

Hope this helps, and sorry I couldn't answer more. I'm NOT an expert, but I'm fairly certain these answers are correct.

Sam