Vis/UV/IR El-Nikkor 105mm (plastic version) on Canon 1DM4

[Damon]

Canon 1DM4 unmodified & El-Nikkor 105mm f/5.6N (plastic version)

 

I thought I would try this out. The lens sticky has a ? for this lens so maybe this will fill a hole.Weird one to attach to the camera. A mountain of widgety junk worked it out.

Took the pics and then read that the aperture window must be closed--D'oh! Didn't seem to matter. Still worked just about as good as the trusty El-Nik 80. The IR fell off a bit but the iso was also lower here-less light.

The EL 80 pics can be found here-- http://www.ultraviol...uv/page__st__60

 

 

Visible: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, EL-Nikkor 105mm f5.6N, Incandescent light Unfiltered, 2 s @ f/16 ISO 200, Adjusted WB for Incan light

 

I can see the striped pattern a bit better in this shot compared to the El Nik 80.

UV: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, EL-Nikkor 105mm f5.6N, 3 Modified Vivitar 285 HV's Unfiltered, Incandescent light Unfiltered, 1/100 s @ f/8 ISO 1250, Baader U filter, WB color temp 2500K, 1 Click Photo Ninja

 

 

IR: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, EL-Nikkor 105mm f5.6N, 3 Modified Vivitar 285 HV's Unfiltered, Incandescent light Unfiltered, 1/100 s @ f/8 ISO 800, Hoya RM72 Filter , Daylight/Sunny WB, 1 Click Photo Ninja

 

 

Triptych

 

Overall I am pretty happy with this little lens. Feels toyish compared to the old heavy metal 80mm but a nice lens FWIW.

 

-D

[DaveO]

I don't know how your Vivitars have been "modified" presumably by removing the UV absorber, but the Guide Number of the unmodified flash appears (according to my searching) to be 36 for ISO 100 in metres, as against the Nikon SB-14 which has an unmodified Guide number of 32 (ISO 100 in metres) so the two should be comparable in output. That will give those of us with modified SB-14 an idea of how much light you are using with 3 Vivitars (about a stop and a half more as a rough guess since two flashes should give twice the output of a single flash which is one stop increase).

Dave the Nerd

[nfoto]

Damon: Is there any reason why you don't convert one of your Canons? Running high ISO all the time takes all the leeway away and opens the door for noise introduction.

 

Whether this top model in the range is the best candidate for conversion I'm not the one to tell.

[Damon]

Interesting Dave. I have desired to know that so thank you. Yes, I just used a razor knife heated up and walked it right around the plastic covering and viola! Modification time ~ 5 minutes. :D You tube videos were so involved taking them apart etc. This was done very easy and quickly.

Do you happen to know how those numbers compare to a bright sunny day?

 

Bjørn, fair question & I hear you regarding the high iso.

I have really become spoiled by the live view and zooming to correct fine focus. The 1DM4 is the only one I own that has live view. It is a simply amazing visible light camera and I would love to just convert it. But then when I use it for visible with a lens with a 77mm objective, I would need to put a 77mm UV/IR block filter on the end right? And then do the same for all my other lenses. So I guess, yes it could be done. I suppose what is holding me back most is that how do I know that the camera will shoot visible pictures with the same original quality it has now?

 

You know what though--I think very, very little UV/IR gets through my newer visible lenses, except at 30s, iso 1600 kind of settings

 

I do have a suspicion this camera would perform admirably broadbanded. My latest idea was to get one with high shutter count off ebay for a cheap price and convert that one.

 

Do you shoot visible everyday pics with any of your converted cameras (with filters of course)? And if so, do you think the quality of the images are the same as original?

 

-D

[nfoto]

To answer your last question: Conditionally 'yes', but only if you make a session profile using a Color Passport or similar. Plus you need to use an efficient UV/IR blocking filter. Removing the internal filter pack really destroys the colour balance of the camera and simple click-white is not sufficient to restore normal colour rendition.

 

I have a couple of broad-band cameras, but usually shoot with lenses that allow 52 mm filters. It is sometimes, e.g. on travels, very convenient to use the same camera for UV, IR, or visible photography of the same subject. However, you pay for this versatility by restrictions as to what kind of lenses or filter to use. Thus, in the grander scheme of things, having dedicated cameras is more optimal. If at all possible, using a camera with built-in filter in conjunction with live view is to be preferred.

[DaveO]

Here's what Guide Numbers are all about http://en.wikipedia....ki/Guide_number

 

 

The Unknown Unknown is how much UV (probably not much) is actually in the flash output, or for that matter, how much is in sunlight at a particular time of day or month (with the complications of the Ozone hole).

 

Dave

[Damon]

Bjørn, I thought the color balance would be goofed up by removing all that stuff--thanks for that info.

​I have been continuing with my unmodded camera just to see how far I can get with it before I relent and get one broad-banded. But it's easy to envision the benefit of a regular camera that can shoot in UV/IR one minute and then throw my 70-200 f/2.8 and start shooting portraits, dragonflies etc. the next. Like I said in one of my other post--it is most likely a pipe dream but I have yet to actually shoot in full sunlight. Got 4 more inches of snow today. The Jersey Devil has been cold.

 

Below is a pic I took the only morning I had a chance that had stinking sun the past 2-3 weeks. It was morning sun and No Flashes were used. It was so cold, I just set up the tripod and took the picture--no good focus or anything. It is a tad tantalizing. Will it be a revolution in UV--no. But if in full sun (not to mention, I do still have the use of the flashes) it is good enough to withstand general rigor of a community like this one, my rig just got a whole lot easier. And I may have found an interesting hybrid. Sort of like a D70 with great iso capabilties and live view and 1080p video. :D

 

If can keep the iso below 500, I will be totally good because it is almost indistinguishable from iso 100 in UV. UV for some reason automatically challenges even the best iso's. I can go iso 6400 with no probs in good daylight--but start doing UV and all the sudden I am down to 500-800 being close to the threshold of "no real noise to worry about". What exactly is happening there? I am hoping that an abundance of sunlight will be reducing this "automatic noise".

 

I could get a cheaper Canon with live view but then I don't even have a clue if it is worth it's salt in UV. In reality though, I could just contact life pixel and find out.

At least with the 1DM4, I know it does UV already. If I was to use the broad-band for vis--I would need a 154mm UV/IR filter to cover my old FD800mm. :D

 

Anyway, I find all this pretty cool to think about.

 

Dave, thanks for that link. I never knew what those meant.

 

Somewhere in all this, during a math puzzle with Andrea, she figured out the numbers on the power of sunlight hitting the earth. I am going to flash my UV meter I have and see how far it moves. That may give me an indication of the UV strength of these suckers. I am secretly hoping they are not more powerful than the sun. :)

 

 

Morning light test shot--first dang sun I have seen in a while!

UV: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, EL-Nikkor 80mm f5.6, Morning Sunlight, 4 s @ f/5.6 ISO 800, Baader U filter, WB color temp 2500K

[rfcurry]

Damon,

 

Are you a member of the DSLRmodifications@yahoo.com group at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DSLRmodifications/info ? The group has 1834 members. I have been lurking since 2010. The owner of http://dslrmodifications.com/ runs it and does plenty of Canon conversions himself.

[Damon]

Never heard of them Reed. I will look into it. Thanks!

 

-D

[Damon]

Seems to be an IR heavy site