Sony 400mm GM lens gets destroyed during a baseball game!

[Brownie]

LOOK at the lens. LOOK at the unused hood. The hood would've prevented this, a filter would not have prevented it.


https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-400mm-gm-lens-gets-destroyed-during-a-baseball-game/

 

[iamdlewis]

LOOK at the lens. LOOK at the unused hood. The hood would've prevented this, a filter would not have prevented it.

Can't tell from the video how direct it was but I wonder if it would have entered the hood if it was on (a baseball will easily fit). Agreed that the hood use would have made it much less likely to have happened.

Find it unlikely that he was using a filter but he could have been since they are drop-in for the 400mm.

 

[Matthias]

Ahhh, you can see the pain in his eyes in that picture. Maybe they should introduce those sliding windows they have at hockey games!

On a personal note, I always have the hood on and use a filter on the lenses... So far I did not encounter any high velocity baseballs but you never know

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

ouch! no hood or filter would have stopped that ball.
Pity he wasn't recording video, imagine the shot as the baseball rapidly fills your screen until CRASH!!!

 

[Brownie]

Can't tell from the video how direct it was but I wonder if it would have entered the hood if it was on (a baseball will easily fit). Agreed that the hood use would have made it much less likely to have happened.

Find it unlikely that he was using a filter but he could have been since they are drop-in for the 400mm.

Looking at the glass in the photo, it hit on the upper right. More than likely would've deflected off the hood. Probably would've destroyed the hood in the process.

 

[Brownie]

ouch! no hood or filter would have stopped that ball.
Pity he wasn't recording video, imagine the shot as the baseball rapidly fills your screen until CRASH!!!

See above.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Well, doesn't that question the point of insurance!

 

[iamdlewis]

Well, doesn't that question the point of insurance!

If his insurance doesn't cover this I would be pretty shocked. My insurance covered the repair of my 100-400GM, which yes would be far less, and only required a detailed repair summary (getting that was a pain). He may have to find a different insurance company to cover his gear in the future.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

If his insurance doesn't cover this I would be pretty shocked. My insurance covered the repair of my 100-400GM, which yes would be far less, and only required a detailed repair summary (getting that was a pain). He may have to find a different insurance company to cover his gear in the future.

The article says it didn't, but that's daft given his profession!

 

[Brownie]

Exactly. I can't image anyone doing that for a living and not having their gear covered by insurance. That's insane.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

He needs to get rid of that lens hood altogether. The reversed piece of garbage sitting there has blocked his peripheral vision, he would have dodged that otherwise...

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

He needs to get rid of that lens hood altogether. The reversed piece of garbage sitting there has blocked his peripheral vision, he would have dodged that otherwise...

The Deleted Member 5045 continues his crusade against hoods

 

[Brownie]

He needs to get rid of that lens hood altogether. The reversed piece of garbage sitting there has blocked his peripheral vision, he would have dodged that otherwise...

Denial is not a river in Egypt!

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

The Deleted Member 5045 continues his crusade against hoods

Three reasons why people use lens hoods.

1. Attention seeking, thinking they look like a pro.
2. Incapable of doing some primary school level research and learning how advanced lens coatings are these days.
3. Clumsy and hits their equipment against things all the time.

Number three I can accept. The other two deserve a slap on the head, although I believe that number one covers about 99% of cases...

 

[Gaz]

LOOK at the lens. LOOK at the unused hood. The hood would've prevented this, a filter would not have prevented it.


https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-400mm-gm-lens-gets-destroyed-during-a-baseball-game/

I bet the photo was a keeper!

 

[Gaz]

The hood is obviously there for protection. This is precisely what I told my wife.

 

[AlphaWorld]

Three reasons why people use lens hoods.

1. Attention seeking, thinking they look like a pro.
2. Incapable of doing some primary school level research and learning how advanced lens coatings are these days.
3. Clumsy and hits their equipment against things all the time.

Number three I can accept. The other two deserve a slap on the head, although I believe that number one covers about 99% of cases...

You have a low opinion of your fellow photographers. I won’t claim it is necessarily wrong…

Flare from sunlight slightly out of frame can still be an issue - I do some of my photography not long after sun up (perhaps you are still in bed?).

But the main reason I use the hood is as protection - not just from my own clumsiness, but also from others - I’d rather others bump into the lens hood than the lens. I have two scratches in the lens hood of my 200-600 from other people - one was wearing a belt with pointed metal rivets in it, the other a large “diving” watch. I don’t know that they would have scratched my front element, but I’m happier that they scratched the hood.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

And there I was thinking Deleted Member 5045 had something to do with circumcision...

 

[Hank]

2. Incapable of doing some primary school level research and learning how advanced lens coatings are these days.

Yeah, that's bollocks. If the lens manufacturers could save cents per item by not including a lens hood with a lens, "because coatings" they would, and they would be yelling it from the Kando's.

Unless you only shoot indoors in your own artificial or managed light source, lens hoods make a big difference, especially outdoors on large lenses.
Making a statement in a list doesn't make it a fact.

"Annnywaaays" (in Bill Burr voice) .... I hope that guy has Sony Pro Support, maybe he can send it in for a "clean". Most of that will polish right out.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Yeah, that's bollocks. If the lens manufacturers could save cents per item by not including a lens hood with a lens, "because coatings" they would, and they would be yelling it from the Kando's.

Unless you only shoot indoors in your own artificial or managed light source, lens hoods make a big difference, especially outdoors on large lenses.
Making a statement in a list doesn't make it a fact.

"Annnywaaays" (in Bill Burr voice) .... I hope that guy has Sony Pro Support, maybe he can send it in for a "clean". Most of that will polish right out.

OK.

1. Please don't assume that just because I put a number beside each opinion point that I make instantly makes it a fact, it still is my opinion or personal observation. I guess this 'trick' is used by mainstream media and government for that very reason, because it makes the viewer believe that it holds more credibility.

2. I've been taking photos for under two years to this point so I can't speak for those who have vastly more experience than I do, but I think my images show that I pretty much shoot most genres so my opportunity for issues from the sun shouldn't be lacking. From my experience with quite current lenses, on the very odd occasion where I'm shooting with the sun just out of frame or straight into it and it affects the image, I simply hold my hand up to block the glare or I get my missus to stand there in the way. For the one in a month time that this happens I really don't think it justifies me getting around with a gumby lens hood on the camera which only makes the form factor bigger.

3. My ideas aren't the say all end all. For example, I clean my lenses every time I use them. I clean my camera's sensor probably on average every three weeks. I believe that using the right cleaning equipment and solutions that this will not cause any damage even if I had the same camera and lenses for a lifetime, and I haven't had an issue yet. My job has involved years of vast research into protective coatings so my opinions aren't just of some guy laying in the gutter. But with saying this I've heard very experienced guys have the exact opposite ideology of mine and tell me that I'm going to cause damage, I'm not saying they're wrong, maybe I'll learn over time who knows, but the beauty of having a discussion is that we can share our educated opinions, that's what I thought we are here for. So in my opinion, if the coatings they claim are on these lens elements and sensors are actually on these lens elements and sensors, it means that unless we are cleaning with high strength acid then we should never ever wear the surface away at all. Much the same as we should rarely have the need for a lens hood as my experience has proven. Everyone else's experiences have the same validity as well...

4. Who is Bill Burr..?

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

And there I was thinking Deleted Member 5045 had something to do with circumcision...

This is why you're a legend Kev...

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Flare from sunlight slightly out of frame can still be an issue - I do some of my photography not long after sun up (perhaps you are still in bed?).

But the main reason I use the hood is as protection - not just from my own clumsiness, but also from others - I’d rather others bump into the lens hood than the lens. I have two scratches in the lens hood of my 200-600 from other people - one was wearing a belt with pointed metal rivets in it, the other a large “diving” watch. I don’t know that they would have scratched my front element, but I’m happier that they scratched the hood.

I'm more of a sunset man with photography. I like training and running early morning.

Where abouts are you using that 200-600mm for those instances to occur? I just use mine in the bush mate...

 

[AlphaWorld]

OK.

1. Please don't assume that just because I put a number beside each opinion point that I make instantly makes it a fact, it still is my opinion or personal observation. I guess this 'trick' is used by mainstream media and government for that very reason, because it makes the viewer believe that it holds more credibility.

2. I've been taking photos for under two years to this point so I can't speak for those who have vastly more experience than I do, but I think my images show that I pretty much shoot most genres so my opportunity for issues from the sun shouldn't be lacking. From my experience with quite current lenses, on the very odd occasion where I'm shooting with the sun just out of frame or straight into it and it affects the image, I simply hold my hand up to block the glare or I get my missus to stand there in the way. For the one in a month time that this happens I really don't think it justifies me getting around with a gumby lens hood on the camera which only makes the form factor bigger.

3. My ideas aren't the say all end all. For example, I clean my lenses every time I use them. I clean my camera's sensor probably on average every three weeks. I believe that using the right cleaning equipment and solutions that this will not cause any damage even if I had the same camera and lenses for a lifetime, and I haven't had an issue yet. My job has involved years of vast research into protective coatings so my opinions aren't just of some guy laying in the gutter. But with saying this I've heard very experienced guys have the exact opposite ideology of mine and tell me that I'm going to cause damage, I'm not saying they're wrong, maybe I'll learn over time who knows, but the beauty of having a discussion is that we can share our educated opinions, that's what I thought we are here for. So in my opinion, if the coatings they claim are on these lens elements and sensors are actually on these lens elements and sensors, it means that unless we are cleaning with high strength acid then we should never ever wear the surface away at all. Much the same as we should rarely have the need for a lens hood as my experience has proven. Everyone else's experiences have the same validity as well...

4. Who is Bill Burr..?

I genuinely didn't know you were a newby. I started taking photographs in the days of film, but I honestly didn't learn a whole lot due to the big lag between taking the shot and seeing the results (and because film cameras lack EXIF). I really started learning with my first DSLR, partly because I could take a heap of shots, varying my settings little by little, and because I could look at a bad shot and see what my settings were. I'm a bit jealous that you are starting now - digital is so much better for learning how to take good photographs.

One thing I can say from a lot of experience: there are a lot of people taking better photographs than me! Some because they have better equipment (yeah, an excuse for GAS!), but more because they have more experience and put a lot more effort into taking their photographs. Those are the ones that inspire me to learn more.

 

[Gaz]

I genuinely didn't know you were a newby. I started taking photographs in the days of film, but I honestly didn't learn a whole lot due to the big lag between taking the shot and seeing the results (and because film cameras lack EXIF). I really started learning with my first DSLR, partly because I could take a heap of shots, varying my settings little by little, and because I could look at a bad shot and see what my settings were. I'm a bit jealous that you are starting now - digital is so much better for learning how to take good photographs.

One thing I can say from a lot of experience: there are a lot of people taking better photographs than me! Some because they have better equipment (yeah, an excuse for GAS!), but more because they have more experience and put a lot more effort into taking their photographs. Those are the ones that inspire me to learn more.

Digital is way better for learning. Travel to some exotic place, take 12 rolls of 36 image film, sell your car to develop and print them when you get home… only to realize most of them are underexposed, over-exposed, too grainy, or out of focus….. etc. you learn a lot facing those challenges… but nothing beats instantaneous review so you can adjust something and give it another shot. I’m enjoying my assignments.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I genuinely didn't know you were a newby. I started taking photographs in the days of film, but I honestly didn't learn a whole lot due to the big lag between taking the shot and seeing the results (and because film cameras lack EXIF). I really started learning with my first DSLR, partly because I could take a heap of shots, varying my settings little by little, and because I could look at a bad shot and see what my settings were. I'm a bit jealous that you are starting now - digital is so much better for learning how to take good photographs.

One thing I can say from a lot of experience: there are a lot of people taking better photographs than me! Some because they have better equipment (yeah, an excuse for GAS!), but more because they have more experience and put a lot more effort into taking their photographs. Those are the ones that inspire me to learn more.

I began being serious about photography in October 2021. I am very grateful to come in at the time I did, you know I don't even know what it's like to have a less than great focusing camera. From what I gather, basically the last few years has brought photography to a point where it is basically idiot proof. In that time, seeming that I don't have kids and I have a really lovely partner who completely supports and wilfully participates in any active interest that I have, I think I've fitted a decade worth of photography into this short period!

Geezus mate, film must have been a real bloody mission!

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

sell your car

Or a bottle of exclusif whisky...

 

[Gaz]

Even with film a camera had an “auto” setting, at least for the last fifty years or so, Taking a photo has been idiot proof for a very long time, as the numerous family albums with the tallest person’s head cut off can attest.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Three reasons why people use lens hoods.

3. Clumsy and hits their equipment against things all the time.

Number three I can accept. The other two deserve a slap on the head, although I believe that number one covers about 99% of cases...

Hi my name is Chris and I identify with #3

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Hi my name is Chris and I identify with #3

I see what you've done there. I'm not taking this bait..!

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I see what you've done there. I'm not taking this bait..!

You forgot your pro nouns. 'It' and 'that'...