Behind the scenes at Canon’s CPS facility at the Tokyo Olympics

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
CR Pro
Nov 7, 2013
3,578
2,611
Germany
Pitty :cry:
Would be really interesting how that happened.
looks like a "clean cut off" of mount and electronic section of the BW.
I wonder if that could be "easily" repaired by replacing the lower barrel - depending on the hit the optics got :unsure:
Edit:
Looking at the damage of the lens hood there also was some impact on the front element.
So the optics also got a heavy hit.
 
Last edited:

Navism

I'm New Here
May 30, 2017
9
2
Any story behind those pics? Curious what happened to cause that. Looks like the photographer was fine anyway.

you can read this from there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dirtyvu

Navism

I'm New Here
May 30, 2017
9
2
Pitty :cry:
Would be really interesting how that happened.
looks like a "clean cut off" of mount and electronic section of the BW.
I wonder if that could be "easily" repaired by replacing the lower barrel - depending on the hit the optics got :unsure:
Edit:
Looking at the damage of the lens hood there also was some impact on the front element.
So the optics also got a heavy hit.
I think drop in filter place should be the weakest part for the lens.
really clean cut off!!
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,431
5,654
Seen it a 100 times over the years. The lens can get stressed at points and adding length adds stress. It's just basic science and common sense.
But what does hanging a smaller body off that lens make? If anything it would reduce the stress, nobody has the ability to hold a lens like that by the body alone so the lens is being subjected to less stress.

Face it, he dropped it, or it got kicked/stepped on, having either or both an adapter and smaller body make practically no difference when you drop them, though again any forces involved are reduced due to less mass. The ‘additional leverage‘ suggestion is spurious as the sensor plane is in the same place.
 

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
417
353
But what does hanging a smaller body off that lens make? If anything it would reduce the stress, nobody has the ability to hold a lens like that by the body alone so the lens is being subjected to less stress.

I've frequently seen big whites being lifted into use by the body before the lens is supported. Or sometimes slung from the shoulder using the body strap.
 

RunAndGun

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 16, 2011
457
143
As I thought, a player collision. Incorrect title on the article, though. The camera didn’t explode. But if it was just intended for a general audience, it’s definitely a more attention grabbing(clickbait) headline.
 

GoldWing

Canon EOS 1DXMKII
Oct 19, 2013
309
228
Los Angeles, CA
en.wikipedia.org
But what does hanging a smaller body off that lens make? If anything it would reduce the stress, nobody has the ability to hold a lens like that by the body alone so the lens is being subjected to less stress.

Face it, he dropped it, or it got kicked/stepped on, having either or both an adapter and smaller body make practically no difference when you drop them, though again any forces involved are reduced due to less mass. The ‘additional leverage‘ suggestion is spurious as the sensor plane is in the same place.
What we all are looking at is a break at the filter slot. In order for the 52mm filter to slide in.... approximately 40% of the top of the thinnest piece of the tube is cut out.

Try and follow... if you extend the short side of the length of the tube you create fulcrum at the weakest points.

Drop it or step on it hard enough or 350lb linebacker on it.... it's going to break. By extending the tube you make it worse. The smaller camera also will not allow for the camera and lens to share the hit. The grip(s) on the 1DXMKIII 11 AND 1 "might have absorbed more than the R5.

I see he's using a monopod when it broke... There should have been a leash attached, I did not see one

Extending leverage on the weakest part of the lens has consequences
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,431
5,654
I've frequently seen big whites being lifted into use by the body before the lens is supported. Or sometimes slung from the shoulder using the body strap.
I happily hold my 300 f2.8 by my 1DX II, but I carry it with the lens strap, and I’ve never seen anybody carry the serious big whites on a body strap. That is a 400 f2.8, people are not physically strong enough to bring them to the eye holding the body alone.

I’d guess he had it leant against him or the ‘chair’ while it was on the monopod and he was using his other camera. It slide away and hit the floor body first so the weight of the lens snapped the breakaway collar inside thereby doing what it is supposed to do. Occam‘s razor.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,431
5,654
What we all are looking at is a break at the filter slot. In order for the 52mm filter to slide in.... approximately 40% of the top of the thinnest piece of the tube is cut out.

Try and follow... if you extend the short side of the length of the tube you create fulcrum at the weakest points.

Drop it or step on it hard enough or 350lb linebacker on it.... it's going to break. By extending the tube you make it worse. The smaller camera also will not allow for the camera and lens to share the hit. The grip(s) on the 1DXMKIII 11 AND 1 "might have absorbed more than the R5.

I see he's using a monopod when it broke... There should have been a leash attached, I did not see one

Extending leverage on the weakest part of the lens has consequences
What utter nonsense, there is no ‘extended leverage’ as the sensors are in the same place and the mass of the R5 is less than the 1 series. Less weight same distance equals less leverage.
 

GoldWing

Canon EOS 1DXMKII
Oct 19, 2013
309
228
Los Angeles, CA
en.wikipedia.org
I've frequently seen big whites being lifted into use by the body before the lens is supported. Or sometimes slung from the shoulder using the body strap.
And you're not supposed to hold the camera with anything larger than a f2.8 200mm. If you hand hold with a 2.8 3OO you're holding lens and camera.

My heart goes out to the guy. He's obviously frustrated with the resolution of the 1DXMKIII and tried to up his game with the R5.

Let us hope that the R1 will make this moot in the future. The R3 at 24mp does not fill the gap
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,238
1,303
The only question that really matters is: when are all the big-whites-watchmen having lunch and leave these unsold and unwanted lenses alone?
 

UpstateNYPhotog

EOS M50
Jun 3, 2021
41
33
And that, my friends, is why there is a tripod socket on the lens.

I wonder if that's covered by the warranty?

Or if that lens will show up on the Canon website as a refurb?
There is a monopod on the lens, but maybe he grabbed it by the camera. I'm careful, but I've done that, but my original generation 300 2.8 is built like a tank.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,406
2,270
As I thought, a player collision. Incorrect title on the article, though. The camera didn’t explode. But if it was just intended for a general audience, it’s definitely a more attention grabbing(clickbait) headline.
Well I got into a brief exchange with our host who used the word "explode" for a similar situation. I thought that word overwrought but he used it because (in that case, not this one) the adapter had broken into several pieces. I'd still have gone with "shattered" over "exploded" (which has a specific meaning to me), but I didn't push any further.
 

RunAndGun

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 16, 2011
457
143
Well I got into a brief exchange with our host who used the word "explode" for a similar situation. I thought that word overwrought but he used it because (in that case, not this one) the adapter had broken into several pieces. I'd still have gone with "shattered" over "exploded" (which has a specific meaning to me), but I didn't push any further.
It could have been a translation thing, also…. But where I was really going with it, was the camera didn’t appear to have any(or very minimal) damage, and it was the lens that “exploded”. And yes, shattered would seem to be the more correct word, at least the way that most of us think about a true explosion.