What’s your point? And I don’t think the adapter broke it looks to me like the lens broke at the designed breakaway point.So is that an adapeter? And a smaller body?.... "Little boys should not play with BIG WHITES:
Upvote
0
What’s your point? And I don’t think the adapter broke it looks to me like the lens broke at the designed breakaway point.So is that an adapeter? And a smaller body?.... "Little boys should not play with BIG WHITES:
Pitty
Any story behind those pics? Curious what happened to cause that. Looks like the photographer was fine anyway.
I think drop in filter place should be the weakest part for the lens.Pitty
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
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.
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.What’s your point? And I don’t think the adapter broke it looks to me like the lens broke at the designed breakaway point.
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.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.
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.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.
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'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.
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.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
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.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.
Because we all know that the only non-rubbish camera brand is named soni. Every other brand is rubbish. Period !But why have they labeled the sensor cleaning machine "rubbish"?
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.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?
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.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.
Really ?? I presume you’re making that statement in jest !He's obviously frustrated with the resolution of the 1DXMKIII and tried to up his game with the R5.
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.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.