Canon 1D Mark IV unmodified for UV

[Damon]

Canon 1D Mark IV with 100mm Macro & Baader U

 

So I thought I would have some fun and tried using an unmodified Canon camera and regular unmodified Canon 100mm macro lens to shoot UV. Been tried, yeah I know but I had to see it for myself. The 100mm macro has serious UV blocking capabilities I have already found out. The 1D mark IV I am guessing also does since it was canon's flagship camera back in 2010.

I had 5 Blak-Rays trained on the flower as well as firing off my 3 modified Vivitars 285 HV's once. This was in my shed with no sunshine UV.

 

So I used copious amounts of electrical tape and mounted my Baader U directly on the front of the macro. When mounting it, the Baader U sat against the glass of the macro so was inset into the front of the lens--no visible or IR getting through. Unless vis & IR can go through 5 layers of black electrical tape. The results were surprising, at least to me. I converted it to Black & White. I don't know if Tulips have a UV signature. It doesn't appear to have a classic one although the center sure does light up. I need to find something that is known to have a distinct signature and that also is available around here so I can be sure about what I am seeing.

 

Check it out:

 

UV: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, Canon EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM unmodified, 5 Blak-Rays B-100AP & 3 Modified Vivitar 285 HV's, 30 s @ f/4 ISO 4000, Baader U filter, WB color temp 2500K

 

 

-D

[Andrea B.]

Cool experiment, Damon. Thanks !

 

That looks pretty much like what Tulipa should look like in UV.

I'll try to dig one out and post a sample here for you to see.

 

But 30 seconds at ISO4000 under 5 Blak-rays and 3 Flashes tells you why we search so fervently for UV-capable lenses on Ebay and go to the trouble of having our cameras modified !!!!!!!! My goodness sakes !!!!!!!!!

[Andrea B.]

Tulips are This tulip is mostly UV dark with some areas in the base of the cup. The "shiny" surface of the petals can give some UV-reflection due to conical cells (I assume. Haven't looked in detail yet.). The stamens/anthers are UV dark.

 

Please don't read too much into the false colour because I have not really applied any colour profiling to this example. Just looking for the lights/darks here.

 

An old, not so great D200 UV photo.

f/8 for 1" @ ISO-400 in Sunlight.

 

This tulip is a wild variety with a different UV signature - the base of the petals is UV-dark.

D200 again.

f/11 for 1/1.3" @ ISO-400 in Sunlight.

 

That flower in Visible light.

So it's looking like for Tulips the UV signature follows the Visible appearance.

Well no !! See next example.

 

This tulip has no match between Visible and UV.

 

Well, Damon, I kind of onslaughted you with tulips. But it's obvious that we can't make any generalizations about their UV signatures. Interesting fact to discover.

BTW, tulips are very pretty in IR using a filter which passes a tiny bit of Visible light such as the B+W 092 or similar. The stamens take on a false colour in some of my IR shots.

[Damon]

Thanks so much for all the examples Andrea. Beautiful pics the last two. I kinda see a match between the last two shots.

 

Yeah those settings are extreme! I did get one off @5s but the iso was @6000. I am convinced I can get somewhere with this...Ha!

 

Regarding a modern DSLR and a regular modern lens:

-If you were to guess (or maybe you know), which blocks more UV, the sensor or the lens?

 

Also, do you have an absolute No.1 camera conversion company that you trust and does good proper work?

 

-D

[DaveO]

Hi Damon,

 

A word of warning before you even think of spending money to convert a Canon camera to broadband. Many people state that Canon cameras cannot be broadband converted for UV. You may read that here: http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com.au/search?q=canon+camera

Perhaps the internal UV/IR cut filter is difficult to remove. Canon cameras can be converted very successfully for IR so there's something strange there.

Dave

[Damon]

Interesting Dave. Thanks.

 

I do see that it looks like Klaus used an unconverted 20D, which I have. He also used a known UV performing lens--I did not.

My Canon 1D Mark IV can shoot at least iso 6400 with acceptable results.

 

I was wondering about the lens vs. sensor question because if I can chuck an old canon lens on there with UV capabilities, then maybe I can actually use the thing. I am using a seriously UV blocking macro lens at the moment.

I will try and bastard mount my EL-Nikkor 80 on the 1D mark IV and see if it works any better. :)

 

It's all about experimentation right? Most likely this is a dead end--but not yet!

 

Thanks for that link.

 

-D

[JCDowdy]

Damon,

I am curious about the question of Canon full spectrum convertibility since they seem to be the darlings of the astrophotographers.

Here is a link to a service that is an affiliate of Astrodon Astronomy that has a lot of info on which models are convertible.

Perhaps they can advise as to why some are and others are not.

 

Also: LifePixel does list a 1Dmk4 full spectrum conversion among other Canon models

[Damon]

Thanks John. That is interesting indeed. Zero mention of anything but Canon. To learn more I will email him.

 

To anyone who is reading this:

Have you used LifePixel and what is your honest take?

 

-D

[enricosavazzi]

To anyone who is reading this:

Have you used LifePixel and what is your honest take?

 

-D

LifePixel has been around a long time and user opinions seem to be good. My only direct experience is buying a full-spectrum window for a DIY conversion of a Nikon D70s, which went well. It seems they are far more interested in performing the conversion themselves than just selling windows, though. They do not provide windows for Micro 4/3 cameras, for instance, although they do the conversions. They started publishing DIY tutorials on their web site, but have stopped publishing new ones since quite a few years.

 

Both their replacement windows and their conversions are more expensive than average. On the plus side they seem to be thorough and reliable, and not to make the improvised conversions that we are seeing more and more often from new eBay startups. On the minus side they do not sell pre-converted cameras (as far as I remember), and instead you have to buy a camera yourself and then ship it to them. This makes conversions especially time-consuming and expensive for non-US customers.

[Andrea B.]

I have used LifePixel, MaxMax and Kolari for conversions - all successfully with no problems.

 

Now be aware that there can be the occasional glitch. I was with Bjørn in Oslo when the Nikon technician extracted a loose screw rattling around inside his D5200 IR-conversion from LifePixel. That was pretty weird. There's really no way to know how it happened or why it was not detected. However, should something be wrong with the conversion, I have no doubt that LifePixel would work to make it good. They have been in business quite awhile.

 

You can call LifePixel to get additional info and their opinion about converting a Canon. I think it is "Daniel" who always returns calls if you leave a message. Nice fellow.

 

BUT ---- Damon, I think that you should not convert your "good" camera - that 1D Mark IV cost a hefty chunk o change I would think? What would you then use in its place? I think that if you really want one full-spectrum camera to use for UV/Vis/IR/Fluor without spending an arm and a leg, you should consider a Sony Nex/Alpha or a Panasonic Lumix. They can be had for cheaps and perform well. IIRC, Alex H. has converted some of his Sonys himself. (Search the threads or send him a PM.) I would probably go woth a Sony as they have the better sensors (better high ISO and dynamic range). Good value used models can be had from KEH.com. Remember that with any conversion you will need lens adapters too.

 

Added: I own and use a converted Pentax K5. Forgot to mention that one. Inexpensive but you prolly shouldn't convert it yourself.

[JCDowdy]

Damon,

 

My Lumix G3 is a LifePixel conversion and I have no problems with it.

 

I can confirm Andrea's experience with their friendly customer service.

[JCDowdy]

Damon,

 

Question: What camera are you considering for modification?

 

I know you have a sweet looking D70 setup. The D70 is one of the cameras rated as "Good unmodified" along with the D70S & D40 in Andrea's UV Sticky #1 but that aparently does not preclude it from being modified. LifePixel will modify a D70 but it will cost several times what the camera is worth. However LifePixel has posted a DIY for the D70 stating their reason for posting the tutorial is that, "The D70 is one of the simplest digital cameras to convert..."

 

Perhaps one of our UVP mentors can advise on the advantage, if any, of converting a D70, D70S or D40. In particular, is "Good unmodified" even better modified and if so how much?

[Andrea B.]

The earlier Nikons have no Live View, limited dynamic range and are very noisy at high ISOs. You can get a good used Sony (or other) for very little and not have to deal with all that. These days I wouldn't bother with those old Nikons cameras at all if you have more than just a passing curiosity for shooting broadband.

 

ANY camera works better as a broadband if the internal filters are removed - even for these earlier Nikon models which had much weaker internal filters.

 

Of the mentioned models, the D40 is probably the best choice. But relative to newer inexpensive mirrorless cams, it is so-so in my opinion.

 

I've converted D200(2), D300, D700, D7000 a Pentax-something and two Panasonic Lumix G-somethings. Had the D200 and D300 open multiple times with no probs. But I fried two D7000s and never could figure out why. IMHO, the Panasonics are not robustly put together, so if you have no experience with these things, you might not want to DIY with Lumix bodies. I simply won't convert cams any more. It is too easy to get stuff misaligned, and It is way too easy to get dust everywhere no matter how carefully you work. YMMV.

 

In terms of image quality, UV is no different than visible. If you want professional UV image quality you have a D610/810 and a Coastal or UV-Nikkor. From there you need to figure out your own balance of image quality versus cost. No one can do that for you. But the inexpensive mirrorless cameras we now have on the market can produce excellent images under good illumination, so no one ever needs to feel that they are missing too much if they don't go for the pro equipment. You need only to look at the beautiful work posted here on UVP to see the truth of that. "-)

[Damon]

That's great information from you guys (& gal). Thank you so much!

So if I go with a conversion I can have good odds from an established company--I needed to know that.

 

What am I thinking of converting?

I have the following Canon cameras:

G2, G3, 20D, 30D, 5D (first one), 1D mark IV & a handful of decent to top notch lenses & a kings ransom of widgety junk. But NO CANON UV LENS

I have the following Nikon cameras

D70 & an El-Nikkor lens

 

The Mark IV has live view

 

It just bugs the heck out of me that with all that Canon stuff/boxes full of crap I can't shoot UV, and that there is virtually no good information on old canon lenses to use for UV.

I would love to use a pro nikon body and nikkor UV lens but that would likely set me back $5-8,000.

I have been tinkering with things all my life and I guess I am annoyed at myself for not being able to figure out how to use the equipment I have to do this. Which is why I am experimenting.

What I want is a lens that will work with a canon camera that doesn't need 10 step up/down rings, helicoids, super glue, duct tape and a blessing from Buddha to work every day.

I could easily convert any of the aforementioned cameras then have no lens. (yes I could adapt the El-nikkor...)

Why didn't Canon make a stinkin' UV lens anyway?

 

If I take my time, I can take pretty darn good UV pics with the D70. That setup has proven itself, with care, to be able to get images at least as good as most I have seen. It's certainly not pro level though. Although I am not a pro. :) And it has all the limitations that Andrea explained before. But again--it works beautifully if care and time is taken.

 

When I was a kid, I had a heavy metal Huffy BMX bike, whereas my neighbor had a really light chrome moly one of a different brand. And I could do most of the tricks he could but his movements were much smoother, easier, and efficient.

So I guess my childhood ruined me because I am already growing tired of my D70 huffy.(however, if today's reality follows my Huffy reality--I will be using my D70 for a good long time) :)

 

Sorry about the rant.

 

-D

[Alex H]

Why can not you use any of the many great UV-capable manual focus lenses on your EOS? M42, Exakta and even Nikon mounts are easity adaptable with simple adapter ring.

[Andrea B.]

Indeed it is not unheard of for a Canon pro to own a couple of the better Nikon lenses.

Canon's flange focal distance is shorter than Nikon's so Nikon infinity focus is not lost when used on a Canon with a good mount adapter.

 

But Damon what is it you are looking for? Are you not happy with something about your current UV gear? Do you want better image quality or Live View or what?? Are you planning to print any of your UV work?

If UV is a hobby, then do you really want to convert your good Mark IV? It would cost $300-$400 and if you didn't like how it worked as a broadband, it might cost as much to reconvert it !!

 

I wish we had more info for you about using Canons for UV. We do have a couple of members using converted Canons but not the big gun bodies like that Mark IV.

[colinbm]

Damon

Your 20D & 30D are listed at Astronomik as being suitable for the clip-in filters....

http://www.astronomik.com/en/photographic-filters/owb-ccd-filter.html

This clip-in filter is for full spectrum converted Canon cameras like your 20D & 30D, to allow them to take visible light images again, when you want to.

Perhaps you could add a down-sized Baader U2 to an empty clip-in filter for UV photography.

This way you can use many lenses without the need to worry about filter ring sizes......

Col

[JCDowdy]

Damon,

 

Like I said earlier, I am intrigued by the Canons seeming to be so highly favored for astrophotography. This might be due in part to the fact that Canon made a 20Da astrophotography model which had an IR pass filter and live view. There a number of really cool astrophotography accessories for Canons which could be used for terrestrial UV/NIR with the right lenses and filters.

 

If I may offer a humble opinion, I consider Live View to be a critical feature facilitating non-visible photography. The 20D and 30D do not have live view if I am reading online info correctly. The 40D 50D & 60D however do have live view and according to the webpage I linked earlier are compatible with full spectrum conversion. If I had to switch over to Canon today I would probably start with a 60D because it also has an articulating screen which I really like on my Panasonic G3 & G5.

[DaveO]

Damon,

While you are trawling for second-hand macro gear keep an eye out for Novoflex bellows https://www.novoflex.com/en/products/macro-accessories/bellows-systems/

The general idea is that adapters are available to fit ANY camera to one end and ANY lens to the other (and that includes enlarger lenses)

Dave

[Damon]

OK so I was a little melodramatic there. It happens to the best of us. (except Col, he is like the rock of Gibraltar from what I have been told--I'm not buying it though)

 

Alex--Re:Why can not you use any of the many great UV-capable manual focus lenses...

I can and may go that direction, but it sure would be nice to grab my camera, go outside, check out the live view and take some pics, and have some exif data as well. But your absolutely right--there are other brands that can be retrofitted.

 

Andrea--I would cherish live view of course, and for my camera and lens to talk. I have not printed anything in UV yet. But I think that would be a very interesting gallery to hang on a wall. I like that idea. Some of my D70 pics are razor sharp but I don't really know how big or good they would look printed out to 11X14 or so. Does UV print like visible? Or does something weird happen and the quality isn't there? I doubt I will convert the Mark IV as it is just too amazing as is. But I would like to try it someday.

 

Col--that is a cool concept. Do you mean a Baader u inside the mount? Won't the mirror hit it?

 

John, I am also a real big fan of Live-View. Having never had it all those years in a DSLR (except the G2 & SX50 I still have) it is pretty cool and I think would be a serious time saver with UV. Wow they do have some awesome accessories that could be useful. I have an SX50 I forgot to mention in my list and that articulating screen is invaluable

 

Dave--that bellows look incredible. I wonder how an enlarger would work stretched all the way out of a set of bellows like that? If you could deal with the loss of light, you might be able to see conical cells close up.

 

Cameras just keep getting better with high iso and noise.

I guess what I want to find out for now is that if I use an acceptable but high enough iso, can I take UV with my current camera the mark IV and a UV-capable manual lens ending up with a good image.

 

Or better yet, the same conditions except that I use all my regular lenses and have my camera broadbanded--a 6D maybe, which has acceptable iso at 25,600 when used right. Perhaps with a good enough sensor--only one part of the equation needs to be met. I am going to experiment with the first method this weekend

 

All probably a pipe dream that I can lay to rest to my own satisfaction. Then I can get the trusty D70 out

Off topic but I have wondered since UV is so detrimental to so many things that are exposed to it, why the broadband/UV converted camera's sensors don't become degraded

 

-D

[colinbm]

Hi Damon

First choice, would be a mirror-less camera, because you can place many different lenses on these, via adaptor, particularly older manual lenses, that are useful for UV.

The mirror-less are mostly state-of-the-art cameras these days, with all bells & whistles. Get it converted to full spectrum.

You have the ability to get the best out of the best equipment, & the best UV lens. Panasonic's Lumix G1, G2, G3,GF1, GH1, GH2, GH3, G5 with the UV 105 Nikor clone :)

Many here are using them & I have got to get one too.

 

Your Canons you listed are a poor second choice for UV, even when converted. Sell your surplus stock, if you need, & move on.

 

You will degrade from the UV rays, before the camera !

 

Col

[Alex H]

Alex--Re:Why can not you use any of the many great UV-capable manual focus lenses...

I can and may go that direction, but it sure would be nice to grab my camera, go outside, check out the live view and take some pics, and have some exif data as well. But your absolutely right--there are other brands that can be retrofitted.

 

Sure you can use an adapter with preprogrammed AF-confirm chip, similarly to how Bjørn chipped all of his non-Nikkor lenses.

[Andrea B.]

Yeah, you would think indeed that the broadband sensor could become degraded by UV. I kept upgrading so never used a camera long enough to see anything bad happen, so I just don't know the answer there. We need to ask Bjorn and Enrico and other long term users whether they have ever noticed anything. (Apologies I cannot make Norwegian letters on this laptop I'm borrowing.)

 

The chief technical problems in recorded UV shots are noise and dynamic range - too much and too little, respectively.

 

Noise - because exposures are long and sufficient UV illumination is hard to come by. Also there can be a lot of colour noise too. It is useful with any camera to make an ISO series and try to find your minimum acceptable ISO setting. Some UV work is very detailed and using noise reduction softens detail. Don't like that meself.

 

 

The dynamic range thing might be a personal pet peeve of mine. . But blown highlights (not blown channels) seem worse when trying to shoot UV with any cam. I can say that I see a big difference between the highlights in the Nikon D600 and the Panasonic GH. Not as big a diff between the 600 and the Pentax K5. When faced with choosing an exposure that shows some detail in UV shadows (or absorbing areas) while keeping a UV sky from recording as pure glaring white, you soon learn to appreciate having the widest possible dynamic range in a camera. All cameras still have a ways to go on that - in any wavelength.

 

Therefore, ta-dah, when you print UV fotos, it is noise and highlights you will have to control for a good print. Remember however that even inkjet printing 'spreads' a bit, so some noise does 'print out'. I've been pleased with some small prints I made.

 

*****

 

Damon, go to one of the sensor ranking sites and find the best sensor you can afford when buying the camera used from someplace like KEH.com. Take carefully into account the flange focal distance of the lenses you will be shooting with because if you want to shoot "at infinity", then you will need to have a camera/lens combo which supports that.

 

Also understand the tradeoffs - if camera is not so good at higher ISOs, then you need more light. You are the one person who might actually have enough with all those Blak-Rays !!!!! But toting light around for field shooting is not fun.

If a camera has not so great dynamic range, then you need more work in conversion/editing - sometimes having to combine two exposures.

 

Finally, if I did not write this, then I should have. If I already wrote it, it bears repeating. -->>>>>> You can shoot professionally without using professional equipment. Better equipment simply makes things easier.

 

We do eventually outgrow our beginner's gear. But it is important to understand why you feel you have outgrown it and not just blindly upgrade for the sake of upgradation. "-)

[Shane]

I have wondered since UV is so detrimental to so many things that are exposed to it, why the broadband/UV converted camera's sensors don't become degraded

 

Depends on wavelength, flux density and duration.

[Damon]

Col, what Nikkor Clone? You mean the one that cost of thousands of bucks? Order one for me too when you get around to it. I'll pay you back, I swear.

I don't think I would convert any of those cams I mentioned. Except for the Mark IV--there is no live view and noisy sensors when cranked up. (Just like my D70 incidentally.)

 

Alex, thanks for that info/idea--I had forgotten that it could be done. I have an old Canon FD 800mm that Ed Mika chipped an adapter for and it confirms focus and such (an example--I don't plan on using that lens for UV). You are full of good information.

 

I want to try my Rudbekia UV photo tomorrow 4X6 and see what it looks like, Andrea. I had a feeling UV prints were going to be a little different. If my current idea does not pan out, which is likely--I will probably stay with the D70 for another season as I am happy with the pics just desiring to move into something less cumbersome in due time. But this is all just an experiment right now. You are correct of course with the professional comment. One of my best mushroom pictures of all time was taken with my 4MP Canon G2 some 12 or so odd years ago. Crikey where has the time gone.

 

No way am I toting all my Blak-Rays around. First, my only neighbor already wonders what the bleep I am doing all holed up in my little shack late hours into the night with weird lights coming out when I open the door, and always with giant goggles and other strangeness hanging off me...

I try to imagine his dinner conversations "yeah I saw him again, but this time he walked out still attached to something and was flailing all over until what looked like a camera fell on him".

2nd--too impractical. But inside the shack all bets are off with the Blak-Rays.

No worries about upgradation--Not my way. I try to stay with what I have until I can't do what I want to do. Then I start looking around. Which is probably what most do.

 

Shane--

How about 365nm for 15 seconds 250 times. I don't know about the flux capacitor part though.

 

Thanks everyone for being patient with me and my ignorance and stubbornness.

 

-D