Do You White Out for Nature Photography?

[Manfred M]

If my two are an indication, newer ones are whiter than they were in the past. However, that could be just aging of the coating.

That is not at all surprising. The coatings used on lenses is likely to be polymer based and all polymers will tend to yellow over time when subjected to UV (and other airborne contaminants). Canon may have changed their paint specs over time, as coatings technology evolves over time, they may be using a completely different material with different properties on newer models. This could be what you are seeing too.

[rpcrowe]

Manfred...

I remember when "black cameras" and "black lenses" came into fancy. During the Vietnam conflict, many photojournalists carried two to four cameras on straps hanging all over their body. In the early days of that war, the cameras were generally of a silver or aluminum color and many of the photojournalists would cover their cameras with dark tape (olive drab military ordnance tape was frequently used as well as black gaffer's tape when available) and some photojournalists even painted their cameras black or olive drab so that the flash of sunlight off the aluminum body would not attract snipers. At least that was the general consensus.

The camera companies began to produce black cameras and black lenses for the photojournalists and then it became a fad, If you had a "black camera" you were obviously a professional

I also believe that the Canon White came into popularity when shooting engineering documentation of weapons and aircraft. Most of that documentation was done in desert areas with long focal length lenses and the cameras/lenses were often set up in the hot sun for hours. The white color of the lens did provide some protection against the heat.

However, for uses such as sports, the white lenses were an advertising feature. When you saw an enormous number of photographers with most of them using big white lenses, it was free advertising for Canon...

However, we are now seeing a mixture of white and black lenses at sports events...

[Manfred M]

Manfred...

I remember when "black cameras" and "black lenses" came into fancy. During the Vietnam conflict, many photojournalists carried two to four cameras on straps hanging all over their body. In the early days of that war, the cameras were generally of a silver or aluminum color and many of the photojournalists would cover their cameras with dark tape (olive drab military ordnance tape was frequently used as well as black gaffer's tape when available) and some photojournalists even painted their cameras black or olive drab so that the flash of sunlight off the aluminum body would not attract snipers. At least that was the general consensus.

The camera companies began to produce black cameras and black lenses for the photojournalists and then it became a fad, If you had a "black camera" you were obviously a professional

I also believe that the Canon White came into popularity when shooting engineering documentation of weapons and aircraft. Most of that documentation was done in desert areas with long focal length lenses and the cameras/lenses were often set up in the hot sun for hours. The white color of the lens did provide some protection against the heat.

However, for uses such as sports, the white lenses were an advertising feature. When you saw an enormous number of photographers with most of them using big white lenses, it was free advertising for Canon...

However, we are now seeing a mixture of white and black lenses at sports events...

I believe Henri Cartier-Bresson discovered black tape and used it to hide his small Leica in the 1930s, so that concept has been around for a long time. My first SLR camera that I bought in the early 1970s was a black and silver Praktica LLC. I upgraded to an all black Leica R3 about 10 years later (the Leica did not use black paint; both the black and silver bodies were chrome plated because it was far more durable than paint). I seem to remember a limited edition "Safari" version that was green.



As for the work in the desert, I'm really surprised that the cameras were out in the open for hours. A simple shade would have been better for both the equipment and the photographers...

[DanK]

The camera companies began to produce black cameras and black lenses for the photojournalists and then it became a fad, If you had a "black camera" you were obviously a professional

Indeed. My first SLR was a Mamiya/Sekor in the usual configuration: a brushed aluminum on the top, the bottom, and over the prism, with the rest covered with black rubber or plastic. My second was a Canon FTb that was black all over, and I do recall thinking, as an impressionable 20-year-old, that it looked more "professional." Mine had black tape anyway. I bought a gray-market camera--in those days, they were a LOT cheaper--and they came with the C and final N drilled off, leaving two conical holes in the brass underneath. I covered the holes and ANO it with electrical tape.

[Tronhard]

If my two are an indication, newer ones are whiter than they were in the past. However, that could be just aging of the coating.

If you are talking Canon, the 100-400L zoom MkII verion is a whiter shade than the creamy MkI version. I saw the issue in reviews and for the brief time when I had both lenses the colour difference was clear. I might add that I bought a 70-200f4 MkII version, which does not come with a tripod mount. It too was the new whiter colour and if I had forked out for the official tripod MkII mount I would have paid hundreds of dollars, instead I got a compatible MkI unit (old colour) for about $15 and am prepared to live with the colour difference.

[Bobobird]

One should not forget that Nikon did have big whites at some point.

Off topic but some raised the colour of clothing. Orange outer clothing serves ONE purpose - to warn. Both animals and man. Small birds do not appear to mind so much unless you get close but larger ones will stay away. In the places I shoot anyone who turns up in orange gets a very cold reception. Rather that create a fuss most will just leave and/or come back later. The guy probably thinks he was so lucky but 99% of the time the place is empty. If we see the guy some other time, he is not in orange.

[Shadowman]

This article states that besides using white for heat reduction, the white lenses became a marketing feature so that the brand could be easily recognized, also mentions that some Canon's black lenses have heat reduction feature.

https://petapixel.com/2016/02/19/can...instead-black/

[Manfred M]

Time for a small history lesson on lens design with a touch of engineering, metallurgy and environmental science.

A long time ago (up into the 1960s or so) the main structural and mechanical elements use in lenses was brass. At that time it was pretty common to put a strong, hard chrome plating on the lenses and they had a nice, bright silver appearance. Brass has another advantage over other metals, it is "self lubricating, so lenses made from that metal need no additional lubricants in the focusing helix.



This image shows a 1950s era Zeiss Biotar lens in its silver livery.

The problem with brass was that it is quite heavy and when compared to other metals, fairly expensive. It was quite easy to chrome plate though so a lot of the older lenses did have this silver colour. This, of course, is even better than white for reflecting sunlight and keeping the optical system cool.

The downside of chrome plating is that chrome is a heavy metal and the plating process is very nasty from an environmental standpoint, so another reason for lens manufacturers to replace it.

More modern lenses will have the main structural components made from aluminum. It's relatively light and inexpensive but has a bit of baggage as well. Aluminum is a very reactive metal and oxidizes very quickly when exposed to air and develops a whitish / silver surface. The aluminum oxide is a very hard material and is used to make sandpaper and commercial grinding wheels. Aluminum is also a fairly soft metal, so it is easy to damage when it gets dropped or banged around.

The aluminum oxide can be built up through a process called anodization. This is achieved by dipping the aluminum part into a special bath and applying an electric current to encourage the growth of a thicker protective layer. The problem with this aluminum oxide layer is that it chrome plating does not work particularly well, so the camera manufacturers had a choice; anodization or some other surface coating. Anodization is much more expensive than painting, which is why camera and lens manufacturers often went the paint route, even though it does not wear as well and needs a very specific preparation process to ensure . At one time Leica did use anodization on its products as it produces a much more durable surface finish than paint. I don't know what is being done on the more modern cameras and lenses.

Just as an aside; mirrors, DVDs and other optical media have a metallic silver coating that is applied in a non-oxidizing environment, so unoxidized aluminum looks a lot like chrome plating or untarnished silver.
This is of course where fashion came in. Silver coloured lenses on silver / leatherette camera bodies worked well, but "pros" where shooting black camera bodies and black lenses.

Canon is quite right, white is better than black when if comes to a camera lens absorbing heat in direct sunlight, but silver is even better and a route that they did not follow (as at the time, this would have looked "old fashioned". The other lens makers generally found ways around the issue of black coloured lenses, so in reality what started as a technical solution quickly became a marketing solution...

[rpcrowe]

I don't know why I did not think of this earlier... One great way to make yourself inconspicuous to birds and other animals is to carry your own "hide". Use a folding chair with a canopy like this one...



Clip green shade netting all around the canopy, leaving an opening through which you can stick your lens.

You can use this rig when hand-holding the camera (sitting is a more stable position than standing) or you can also use a monopod. Given that you have enough netting, you could even use a tripod.

Animals and birds will soon get used to that funny looking green lump off in the distance and not be bothered by it. It will also provide shade from the sun for the photographer and mask any movement like the photographer drinking water or changing lenses. A downside is that you need to be sufficiently aware of the habits of the birds/animals you are seeking to place the "hide: in a good location. It is not a walk around rig Another upside is that you don't have to worry about the color of your lens or even of your clothing

I purchased my chair on amazon.com and use it when I am shooting polo matches (without the shade screening of course). There are no spectator seats in the area I like to shoot from and the sun can often be brutal during the day. That is when the shade canopy really helps. Although I always use a high shutter speed when shooting polo, I can hand hold the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS ii lens very steady while sitting and resting my elbows on my knees at relatively slow shutter speeds if I so wanted...

On really hot days, you can leave the portion of the chair that faces away from your quarry open to keep yourself a bit cooler...

[Ken MT]

...and you can have a cool drink in the right hand cup holder!

[rpcrowe]

Or a coffee in a Canon lens cup