Watch a Golfer Destroy an $80K Camera

This is highly unusual, and super unlucky for both the golfer and the camera guy. Today in the first round of the British Open, Pro Thomas Bjorn chipped a ball out of the "rough" on the first hole and struck a very expensive camera. An estimated $80,000 camera to be exact. There isn't much else to say other than watch this, then check out how crazy the damage looks. Yikes.


golfer destrys 80000 camera PGA british open

 
Reminds some of when Bobby Jones did it years ago... but he took a few more swings before his incident (thanks for pointing this out to us Lonnie!).
 

 
[Via Solstice Visuals]
Posted In: 
Log in or register to post comments

20 Comments

Lee Christiansen's picture

Reality is that it looks a bit like a Canon 22x HD lens - so probably only £15000 if it was written off, (unlikely...)

So not such an expensive day out... ha... (This was one of the reasons I stopped doing broadcast TV for football coverage after a cameraman was seriously hurt by a ball just missing the goal and taking him and his entire camera / lens / viewfinder).

Actually, it's a Fujinon HA42x13.5BERD-U48 HD telephoto broadcast lens. Retail price on B&H: $71,328.95

13.5mm-570mm (f/2.8 13.5mm-305mm & f/5.2 at 570mm)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/718175-REG/Fujinon_HA42X13_5BERD_U...

Or it can be the HJ40x14 instead of the Fujinon. This Canon lens would be an $82k lens on B&H

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/860492-REG/Canon_hj40x14b_iasd_v_f...

Jaron Schneider's picture

Not sure why you're getting downvotes... I thought those were rather helpful links...

The link is right in the article above, it links to the Canon. I'm sure it was Insured.

David Apeji's picture

It's the Canon one. The lens hood shape identifies it.

That front element looks like the one that Canon used to put on their telephotos, just an optical glass protective plate. Easy to have replaced. Canon started using that slippery fluoro coated front element and supposedly doesn't have that feature on their newer version II lenses.

BK

David Apeji's picture

I am inclined to agree with you. The focus did not change after impact. If it was the front element that went, one would expect the image to be totally out of focus not just look as if it was peering through a broken window. In any case I would imagine that is reparable damage and nowhere near as high a cost.

Spy Black's picture

Should have used a skylight filter...

Spy Black's picture

I'll have to assume that there wasn't a cameraman operating the Bobby Jones footage camera, either that or he was a war correspondent...

Ariel Martini's picture

yeah, it was 80k damage, mr insurance man.

This also shows the people who are worried about a tiny scratch on their lens affecting image quality. The glass is shattered, and it's still usable.

idk about you but i want perfection when shooting not "useable"..

Dude, this lens is completely shattered - and you get a usable image out of it. A f***ing scratch on your little lens won't do sh-t.

Once upon a time we had an institution called "Insurance Company" which would cover such losses. Therefore it's slightly incomprehensible to me why someone would call that incident "unfortunate" or "unlucky".

that's only the filter sandwiched between the lens and the hood

Uh, headline writers? Camera =/ lens

Tony Guillaro's picture

Video wont work sadly

And "theopen" has banned the video from YouTube based on copyright grounds ...