I took this image in late March up at a ski resort in Colorado. I had just bought a Canon 10-22 a month or so before. When I saw this sundog I grabbed the camera and took number of images. In a lot of the images, the outer rainbow effect showed up, though I don't recall a second rainbow being there. I assumed at the time it was lens flare from the ultrawide, until the other day when I saw something similar on a TV show. Is the outer rainbow just artifact? It seems to pass in front of the trees in the lower right, which is one reason I felt it to be artifact.
I'm no meteorologist but with it evident in front of the trees is seems like it's probably some optical issue. Hopefully some more knowledgeable minds will chime in. Very interesting though.
Thanks for the confirmation. If I hadn't just seen something on TV with a similar appearance, I wouldn't have even questioned my original assumption. I might have had a polarizer on for this shot, can't remember as I was trying images both with and without. The flare is on enough images though that I don't think the polarizer is the culprit, and is simply a feature of the lens.
It looks like there were two flare effects. The first is the outer ring that is likely due to lens design and the aperture used. The other is the diffuse flare that was caused by light bouncing around inside the mirror box.
Personally, I would avoid shooting straight into the sun. There could be some risk to the camera sensor, and an even greater risk to one's eyes. Please be careful.
Well I don't think you can actually hurt the electronic part of the sensor. You can't "overload" the electronics of a camera sensor with light or anything like that. The only time it might be a concern is VERY long exposures where heat could be an issue. But even then, it's not likely to generate much heat. For anything that's only a few seconds, it would be fine.
I have seen the results of many minutes long exposures where some other damage was done to the camera with a telephoto lens.... apparently the lens created a very focused spot inside the camera - like a magnifying glass and an ant. There have been melts and burns noted to various parts of the camera. The sensor (which is pretty much just glass and metal) should be rated for a higher temp than other parts of the body - although the filters and other things on top of the electronic part of the sensor module.... the color filters could fade over time, for instance, but nothing that would happen with normal amounts of normal length exposures.
That makes pefect sense. My thinking was along the lines of the 'ant under a magnifying glass' scenario, but I can see that this would likely not occur with a non-telephoto lens at short exposures.
Thanks for the concern, Preston, and the explanation, David. I had the exposure preset and camera pre-focused before taking the photo, so all I had to do was turn, aim, and shoot, all within a second or 2. Wasn't interested in frying my camera or my eyes :).
Rob, there is an optical phenomenon called the 46 degree halo. It's claimed to be very rare, but it's also stated that because it's so large and dim, we are likely to overlook it. With that extreme wide angle lens, you could very well have captured the phenomenon. It's caused by light refracting through plate type ice crystals. There's a detailed description in a book by Robert Greenler called Rainbows, Halos, and Glories published by Cambridge University Press. (I may have a second book that describes it, but I can't find that one at the moment.) Since your meta data has the focal length, you may be able to calculate to see if the diameter of the outer halo is close to 92 degrees. If it is, I'd say that you have a rare recording of the effect.
There a photo of a partial 46 degree halo in the Peterson Field guide to the Atmosphere (color plate 14).
Discussion
10 repliesPersonally, I would avoid shooting straight into the sun. There could be some risk to the camera sensor, and an even greater risk to one's eyes. Please be careful.
--P
Well I don't think you can actually hurt the electronic part of the sensor. You can't "overload" the electronics of a camera sensor with light or anything like that. The only time it might be a concern is VERY long exposures where heat could be an issue. But even then, it's not likely to generate much heat. For anything that's only a few seconds, it would be fine.
I have seen the results of many minutes long exposures where some other damage was done to the camera with a telephoto lens.... apparently the lens created a very focused spot inside the camera - like a magnifying glass and an ant. There have been melts and burns noted to various parts of the camera. The sensor (which is pretty much just glass and metal) should be rated for a higher temp than other parts of the body - although the filters and other things on top of the electronic part of the sensor module.... the color filters could fade over time, for instance, but nothing that would happen with normal amounts of normal length exposures.
That makes pefect sense. My thinking was along the lines of the 'ant under a magnifying glass' scenario, but I can see that this would likely not occur with a non-telephoto lens at short exposures.
--P
There a photo of a partial 46 degree halo in the Peterson Field guide to the Atmosphere (color plate 14).