Professional Kenyan rugby star Collins Injera scored his 200th try in the World Seven Series this week and celebrated in what seems to be one of the most bizarre ways possible: by signing a camera lens. Having obviously prepared to score, he had placed a black pen in his sock during the entire game to be ready for such celebration. Here is the hilarious result that ended in ruining a $94,000 camera lens.
A practice seen in both tennis and the NFL, signing the lens of a camera is not that uncommon, though it was the signing of the actual glass of the lens instead of the either the filter or top rim of the lens that made it a pricey mistake. Check out the impressive run by Injera and then the shocking reveal of a hidden marker in his sock cleverly planned for this exact act in mind.
Have you ever had someone sign your lens? Or have you been in a situation that while on the job a client or bystander destroys or damages your equipment beyond repair? Sound off in the comments below and let us know!
[via ESPN]
Expo marker would fix that right up.
Finally a good reason to start putting a UV filter on. . . .
Doesn't seem like much of lens i it can't recover or be repaired after a marker touches it. Yeah, it might cost some money to have it cleaned/repaired, but I'm not sure I would call it ruined, perhaps damaged, but not ruined.
lol
I'm sure a rich fan will pay at least 2x the value of the lens. Same as when they sign a ball, they can be sold many times the actual value of the item they're signing.
Another thing is who knows who was the camera operator, could be just a hired employee where its not his/her responsibility to tell him to stop or push him away from the camera but if I was my camera and saw him coming towards my camera I'd back up slowly and hopefully he would get the hint I'm not interested unless he's buying it and then reselling it on ebay to a rich fan for me... well now that I thought about it who knows if he planned this all along and decided to sign something very expensive and had a buyer already willing to spend $200k easily.
He's not so famous that someone would pay $200k for a lens with his signature on it, maybe if he was LeBron or someone of that level though.
"ruin" is a bit exaggerated, not? things that could remove it:
- file
- dremel
- laser
- white out
Hahaha.
You're my favorite.
Click bait slightly, you're all welcome.
You guys are hilarious! It's not a photographer's still camera all. It's a broadcast camera You can see it on the far right at the 0:21 mark: https://youtu.be/VaXwWgbCW_E?t=21s
It's probably a Canon DigiSuper: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/887586-REG/Canon_xj60x9b_ie_d_lo_X...
Or a Fujinnon DigiPower: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?sts=ma&Ns=p_PRICE_2%7c1&setNs=p_PRI...
As a rugby player, I support this.
Haha, I bet you're a wing or flyhalf.
Tight Head Prop....quite the opposite. Can I technically do this if I score 10 trys?
Tight Heads can do what ever they want, I don't think any camera man will stop them! The funniest thing about this is that the USA won the Twickenham 7's after beating the Blitzbokke and England and the biggest story of the weekend is about a guy with a sharpie. Carlin Isles must be going wtf..?
Andrew, why not proof this before posting? So much wrong here.
As a former rugby player I call myself "smashed vertebrae...the end of a career!!". And that's something ruined, not a lens hahaha
It is false. To see what is seen in the photo must sign on a FILTER. Apart from this isn't a photo camera but a TV broadcast camera.
Shame on you.
Yeah, i'm 99% sure that there was a filter on that camera, and one that was decently far away from the front element. If he signed DIRECTLY on the front element, no possible way you'd be able to see the signature in that kind of detail.
Sister Hazel signed my camera back when I was an art student photographing a concert. Not the lens though, and I still have the camera.
I'm pretty sure one can remove Sharpie from glass.
PEC 12 anyone? There's plenty of solvents that should be able to take that off.
I think you can hear the cameraman yelling "No! No! F*ck."
What an asshole. These broadcast cameras do not typically run a filter of any type. Also due to their sensor size, length of the lens, and other depth of field variables, this could absolutely be directly on the front element. But what everyone seems to be forgetting is the incredibly expensive coatings that go onto a modern lens element. Yes, it is HIGHLY damaged. A sharpie and whatever it takes to remove it, like an Dry Erase, are not gentle chemicals.
A lot of people are saying you can remove the permanent marker from the glass ... wouldn't that potentially ruin the coating on the class?
It will cost a few $$$ but they will replace the front element. That's it.
Hi I actually work from the company that owns the lens, it is fine the camera op used his Lens cloth and a bit of water to remove the marker pen. Yep it was a canon 95:1 which is about £60000 to buy but there is a protective filter on the front which is about £500 quid to replace.
I'm 99% sure that he did not sign the lens itself because the signature is readable, and is clearly on something beyond the end of the lens...